Canon FF Lens Help

swintonphoto

I am planning on moving from Olympus to Canon shortly and will be buying a 5DmkII. I don't have a big budget out of the gates for lenses. I plan on adding more as I save more, but for now I want to get 2 lenses - a great standard zoom and a great telephoto zoom. I have been use to using f2.8 lenses with my Olympus gear, but realize getting that for this price point may be a pipe dream. My budget is in the $900-$1200 range. I know that many may feel it is worth the money for the 2.8 IS versions of all the lenses - but the fact is that I only have $900-$1200 to spend right now. So, any input within that price range is what I am looking for. Here are some potential options I am considering (I realize I will likely need to get the lenses used to fit in this price range):

A.
28-75mm f2.8 Tamron
70-200mm f4 Canon (non IS)

B.
28-75mm f2.8 Tamron
70-200mm f2.8 Sigma

C.
24-105mm f4 IS Canon
A budget Canon telephoto zoom

Other thoughts or suggestions? These are the 3 options I am considering the most, but I am willing to look at some others with input from others.
Thanks!

ziggy53

I use an older Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM for weddings (etc.) and it works surprisingly well as a standard zoom lens. Contrast at the long end is high and that aids in AF. Add the EF 70-200mm, f4L USM and you can have a pretty good 2 lens FF kit within your budget.

The only problem with the 28-80L is that Canon will no longer repair the lens. For repairs you would have to go third-party repair. Like I say, I still use mine for weddings and events.

The Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD works nicely on the crop cameras but on FF bodies it gets pretty soft on the edges and especially in the corners. That limits the use to individuals and couples, but it's not a good choice for FF and groups (or landscapes, for that matter).

Be sure to budget for a flash (or 2 flashes) with AF assist. The Sigma EF 530 DG Super in Canon E-TTL works pretty well.

swintonphoto

Thanks for the thoughts Ziggy. I have already got the flash situation worked out, but if I need an additional option the Sigma sounds good.
Regarding the Tamron, I am not sure what to believe about it. I have been reading a ton of reviews and about 2/3 suggest it is actually sharper to the edges than the Canon 24-70 2.8 (such as this review: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/49/cat/23), while the other 1/3 I have read suggest it may not be a good FF match (such as this one: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx). Are there any other lenses that are $600 or less that will be reasonably sharp and have a decent max aperture for FF that you are aware of?

From what I am reading - it appears that the Tamron may be fabulous if you get a good copy, but that there are some quality control issues that result in some bad copies...

ziggy53

Unfortunately, things like edge and corner sharpness are more formula dependent and the actual tests done by "SLRGear" are consistant with the other professional review sites. Trust me, the Tamron cannot come close to the Canon in edge and corner sharpness, at any aperture or focal length. This appears to be a field curvature issue and that is a lens formula problem. For those users with a crop camera the problem is very much diminished, so that might explain part of the discrepancy in user reviews of the Tamron.

Again, this would mostly affect those shooting circumstances of group portraits and landscapes. The Tamron needs around f11 to gain control of the edge and corner sharpness.

The Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8 EX DG has better field flatness in FF, but cannot match the Canon resolution at f2.8 at any focal length. The Sigma also may have more QC issues than either the Tamron or the Canon. (Anecdotal)

The Canon 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L that I use really is very nice and you can find them used at about 40-50% of the price of a used Canon 24-70mm, f2.8L.

My backup standard zoom is the Canon EF 24-85mm, f3.5-4.5 USM. It is not the equal of the other lenses in discussion but it's not horrible either. I also use the longer end of the 17-40mm, f4L, 50mm, f1.4 prime and the shorter end of the 70-200mm, f2.8L as needed, if I should need the better resolution they can provide.