Relative Size of Tamron vs Canon Lens

Zanotti

I have a:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And I would like to get a:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Canon Zoom wide angle EF24-105mmf4L USM[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Really based upon what I have read here and wanting to upgrade the lens I have.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I have seen both lenses seperately, but never side by side. I am putting them on a Rebel XT. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Does anyone have both lenses and could they take side by side photos so I can see what I would be getting myself into? I cant get a relative size comparison of the two. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are really no local stores, so I buy through B&H Photo and have been happy, but sometimes you actually want to get a feel for the relative size.[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thanks,[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Zanotti[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens[/FONT][/FONT]

Nikolai

Zanotti,
While I don't have either of those lenses, I have PS, which comes with the "measure" tool. After comparing the base diameters (which should be pretty close) and adjusting the larger image to 73.08% of its original size, you get the attached view.

As you can see, the base (unextended) heights of both lenses are very close.

HTH

cmason

OK check out these comparisons on The Digital Picture:

First, you can see the Tamron vs other lenses, including the Canon 28-135
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-28-75mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-Lens-Review.aspx

Then, look at the 28-135 vs the 24-105L in this shot:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

claudermilk

You could also compare the dimensions listed on B&H's site:

Tamron's
Length: 3.6" (92mm)
Maximum Diameter: 2.9" (73mm)
Weight: 1.50 lb (510 g)

Canon's
Length: 4.2" (107mm)
Maximum Diameter: 3.3" (83.5mm)
Weight: 1.5 lb (670 g)


So, Canon is a bit bigger, but not by a lot.

ivar

claudermilk wrote:

You could also compare the dimensions listed on B&H's site:

Tamron's
Length: 3.6" (92mm)
Maximum Diameter: 2.9" (73mm)
Weight: 1.50 lb (510 g)

Canon's
Length: 4.2" (107mm)
Maximum Diameter: 3.3" (83.5mm)
Weight: 1.5 lb (670 g)


So, Canon is a bit bigger, but not by a lot.

How does this work? 1.5lb is both 510grams and 670grams?

pathfinder

The Tamron may be about as long as the 24-105 when fully extended, but most of the time it is not extended, and seems diminutive, compared to the Canon lens.

The 67mm filter diameter of the Tammy also make it seem quite a bit smaller than the 24-105 L.

Both are great lenses. The Tammy is a lot cheaper, but seems cheaper in build quality and AF speed also.

Zanotti

Pathfinder:

I thought you had both lenses (?)

Looking at picture comparisons and the dimentions on the web sites, they appear to be very similar. I really like the Tamron, but am thinking about the change for the following reasons:

1. Longer reach, slightly wider on the near end
2. Better build, faster focus,
3. L lens quality. I have the 70-200f4L and really like the images from it.
4. IS seems to be good for me, many shots are blurry due to shake.
5. When I upgrade to a 5D or 40D (when it comes out) this lens will still work.
6. Resale excellent on L lenses

Cons:
1. Cost
2. Already own the Tamron (but could sell - who am I kidding, I never sell anything)
3. F2.8 vs F4 max opening - does this matter? I have seen some excellent f4 shots with the Canon. I do some kids sports (basketball) with the Tamron, but find f4- f5.6 with high ISO gets me fast enough shutter speed to stop motion.
4. Size / weight: I cant seem to get a good read on this. Hence the questions. I know it would be best to see one, but there really arent any in Tampa. I went to Ritz/Wolf in the mall today and lookat at what they had - they only push the Quantarnary crap to the unsuspecting.

Any advice? I see another thread here that is very similar. I do not want to go with the 17-50f2.8 because I seem to want more reach more often than wider shots.

Z

Duckys54

What about the 24-70mm f/2.8L ?

cmason

I have the Tamron, but if I could justify the cost, I would jump at the 24-105L without any hesitation whatsoever. More range, L quality, and IS? Those easily make up for the handful of stops in my mind. Plus which, the Tamron, though an amazing lens, does not do its best work at 2.8.

The Canon comes closest to the perfect 'one' lens I think.

LiquidAir

Duckys54 wrote:

What about the 24-70mm f/2.8L ?

The 24-70 is both significantly larger and heavier than the 24-105. I have the 24-105 and I love it on the 5D. Usually when I need a fast lens I switch to a prime, but there are times when an f/2.8 zoom would be nice. For my use the 24-70 is out because of its size but I have thought of picking up the Tamron 28-75 to cover the times when I need a faster zoom. However, I worry about the quality of the Tammy in the corners on a full frame sensor so for the time being I am making do with the primes when I need a lens faster than f/4.

mercphoto

ivar wrote:

How does this work? 1.5lb is both 510grams and 670grams?

Good question!

510 grams is about 1.12 pounds
670 grams is about 1.47 pounds

1 lb = 453.592 gram

cmason

LiquidAir wrote:

The 24-70 is both significantly larger and heavier than the 24-105.

agree with you there LiquidAir. I tried out the 24-70 on my XT, and it was simply too big, and too heavy to use as an everyday lens. Perhaps it was the tiny XT body, but it looked rather silly on it. Maybe a 30D or higher it looks more natural, but I did not care for it at all.

claudermilk

I guess it all depends on perception & personal preference. Yup, the 24-70 is a big heavy monster, but I love it. Mine lives on the 20D 90% of the time right now. Considering the images it produces, I'm willing to put up with the physical dimensions. Those other two lenses a cute little bitty ones by comparison.

Oh, ivar, you'll have to ask B&H how 510g = 670g = 1.5lbs. I copied & pasted right off their site. I did find that translation a bit amusing, I guess they just round up to the next half-pound.

jsedlak

Off-Topic, but how come the 24-70L is backwards...?

See how the Focal Length reads at 24mm in this shot, but the lens is fully extended...

mercphoto

jsedlak wrote:

Off-Topic, but how come the 24-70L is backwards...?

It needs to be backwards because Canon mounts the lens hood to the body, not to the end of the barrel. Because of this, if the barrel came in at wide-angle, like on most lenses, then the lens hood would be too far out and would obscure the image. On the full-zoom end, with the barrel all the way out, the lens hood would not be doing much good. All this changes, however, if full-zoom is in, and full-wide is out. Finally, notice this make a better use of the lens hood than if the hood were attached to the front element.