Canon 24-105/f4L-IS vs Tamron 28-75/f2.8

DJ-S1DJ-S1 Registered Users Posts: 2,303 Major grins
edited June 19, 2006 in Cameras
I'm considering swapping lenses around for my 20D - here's my proposal:

Keep:
Canon 17-55 kitty (just 'cuz)
Canon 70-200mm f/4L

Sell:
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and
Sigma 50-500 (Bigma)

Buy:
Canon 24-105 f/4L IS

Future:
something wide - say 10 or 12mm on the wide end

Any comments/advice? Here's my thoughts...

I love the Tamron but the L is slightly wider and has IS. Is it worth swapping these 2 lenses as my main walkaround glass? Does the IS make up for losing the f2.8 speed?

The Bigma is a very nice lens but doesn't fit into my shooting style.

The kit lens isn't great and it really isn't wide enough either so I would replace that next with a 10-22 or something similar.

Of course I could just sell the Bigma, keep the Tamron and get something wide now...but the 24-105 is tempting me...:rolleyes

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited June 17, 2006
    DJ-S1 wrote:
    I love the Tamron but the L is slightly wider and has IS. Is it worth swapping these 2 lenses as my main walkaround glass? Does the IS make up for losing the f2.8 speed?
    ...
    Hey DJ,

    As you know from another thread, I am also pondering the lens lineup now. FWIW, I have never missed IS on the Tamron, as it is both fast and light weight. I also really like the 2.8 for night and indoors shots or when it's time for some really narrow DOF. I also like the short minimum focal distance. The extra 4 mm on the wide end wouldn't do much for me, but an extra 30 on the long end sounds really convenient. Maybe the IS would be more important on the long end. I guess the answer to your question is the same as to mine: "Well, it all depends..." rolleyes1.gif

    Regards,
    My Pics
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited June 17, 2006
    DJ-S1 wrote:

    Sell:
    Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and
    Sigma 50-500 (Bigma)

    Buy:
    Canon 24-105 f/4L IS

    I love the Tamron but the L is slightly wider and has IS. Is it worth swapping these 2 lenses as my main walkaround glass? Does the IS make up for losing the f2.8 speed?
    That Bigma could start getting a complex if it gets passed around too much more.

    For those that may be interested, that particular copy is very sweet.

    In response to your question about IS make up for loosing f/2.8 - remember, IS doesn't stop action. So, if you are shooting in a low-light situation, all the IS in the world will not eliminate blur caused by subject motion.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
  • DJ-S1DJ-S1 Registered Users Posts: 2,303 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2006
    Good thoughts guys, thanks. These choices are never easy - unless the budget is unlimited!
  • Artur C.Artur C. Registered Users Posts: 38 Big grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    The 24-105
    DJ,

    I had purchased the 24-105L prior to going to Kuwait. This lens is fantastic, very versatile and covers the range for 90% of my shooting situations, built like a tank and image quality is superb. Yes it has a stop less then the 24-70 f2.8L, but unless you need the shallower DOF or shooting a lot of indoor shots, the second generation IS is SUPERB, the lens is smaller then the 24-70 and has a bit more reach.

    For the dislikes.... it vingettes just a bit and has noticeable distortion at 24mm. Small gripes, but very acceptable for it's inherent range, although image quality is excellent wide open.

    My 2 cents worth.

    -Art
    http://www.north-scapes.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Artur C. wrote:
    but unless you need the shallower DOF or shooting a lot of indoor shots

    -L.jpg

    http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613

    and

    http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613

    http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

    Andy, in that gallery you describe that picture as being a sample of the bokeh the 24-105 can produce....that's not bokeh, that's something else (DoF effect or something I guess). Bokeh would have to have out of focus light sources in the background like this http://Davidson.smugmug.com/photos/74312530-L.jpg (all those little circles are the bokeh).

    Yes, I'm nitpicking.
    Ok, but to further the point you were making, I think people forget that 105mm f/4 has less depth of field than 75mm f/2.8.
    http://davidson.smugmug.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    marlinspike wrote:
    ....that's not bokeh...

    Yes, I'm nitpicking.

    :nono

    Bokeh, is the quality of the out of focus areas, Richard. Sure, it can be how the specular highlights are,

    47755530-L-1.jpg

    but it can also be this:

    47755058-L-1.jpg
    12289109-L-1.jpg
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • marlinspikemarlinspike Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited June 19, 2006
    Andy wrote:
    :nono
    Bokeh, is the quality of the out of focus areas, Richard. Sure, it can be how the specular highlights are,

    Andy, I was kidding...see...get it? headscratch.gif :uhoh 11doh.gif
    I think I should delete my post and then you should delete this one that I am replying to so that there will be no record of my stupidity.
    http://davidson.smugmug.com
Sign In or Register to comment.