recommend a standard zoom for Canon EOS

ath · Oct 21, 2007

Hi,

I had the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI zoom for my Canons and was very satisfied with the results. Unfortunately is was stolen.
Now I'm in the market for a new standard zoom for traveling.

My requirements are:
- small
- lightweight
- good optical quality, should give sharp slides at least down to f/4
- not too expensive (below 400€)

f/2.8 is not a requirement, but i found it to be quite convenient in case one needs it.
When I bought the last one 3 years ago I had a look in the Sigma 28-70 as well, but found it to be horribly noisy.
Zoom range: lower end 28mm is sufficient, upper range: well, as big as possible.

The lens is intended as a complement to a Canon 70-200/4L.

Any recommendations, except the obvious, buy a new Tamron?

walter23 · Oct 21, 2007

Before I opened this I was going to suggest the tamron. Why are you against buying it again? Just looking for an opportunity to "upgrade?"

Your other option is probably the 24-70 f/2.8L which as you know isn't cheap. Or the 24-105 f/4L IS which again, isn't cheap. The 28-105 USM II is a great lens but of course it's variable aperture f/3.5-4.5 which might be mildy annoying under a few circumstances. I like mine though - sharp, small, fast AF, decent construction. Otherwise I don't know what your options are beyond those horrid 28-300 megazoom lenses.

ath · Oct 21, 2007

Thanks for the response, Walter.
I have nothing against the Tamron, I liked it. Just want to check, if there is another option I have overlooked that might suit my purposes better.

Tim Gray · Oct 21, 2007

My ex took many wonderful pictures with the... 28-135 IS? About $300-400 if I remember correctly.

Though since you already have a 70-200, I'd be tempted by the 24-105. Actually, I wouldn't be tempted since I shoot with just a 28 and a 50

edebill · Oct 21, 2007

I've got a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. Light, reasonably compact, cheap, pretty sharp. It's not an L lens, but it's also not as heavy as an L lens. I've not tried the 28-135, but I've gotten the impression that it's not quite as sharp. The 28-105 IS fairly sharp (it doesn't blow me away in comparison to my 50/1.8 and 70-200 f4, but I don't cringe when I use it, either).

celluloidpropaganda · Oct 27, 2007

Sigma just came out with a 24-70/2.8 in the same price range as the Tamron, I think.

GeoffHill · Oct 29, 2007

I've found that recently, the 17-40 f4 Cannon has become my standard lens.

There cant be that many subjects that you can't either get a little closer to and use the 40, or move a little further away from and use the 70

Ian Grant · Oct 29, 2007

When my Canon lens ceased functioning a week outside warranty I bought the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI zoom it really is a superb lens. That extra stop compared to an f4 lens makes a huge difference. If I was in your shoes I'd buy another.

Ian

kevin_c · Oct 29, 2007

Another vote for the Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II - As stated, not 'L' build quality, but a cracking lens none the less.
I 'upgraded' from this to the 24-105L and in all honesty didn't detect much of a difference, with the 'L' only just excelling in contrast and sharpness, but not by much.

Can't comment on the Tamron 28-75, but if you were happy with it before you might want to stick with it - It's about a stop faster, constant aperture and get pretty good reviews, although I've heard it can be a bit soft wide open.

Lee Shively · Oct 31, 2007

"Another vote for the Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II."

And yet another.

Annika1980 · Nov 8, 2007

The Canon 28-135 IS is the lens you want.
Trust me.

ath · Nov 8, 2007

Annika1980 said:
Trust me.

Hello Annika, I never trust people claiming things like this.

I have not bought it yet, but I'm quite sure, I'll get another Tamron. I came to the conclusion, that a (rather) wide aperture at 75mm is more important for me than an extra few mm. And yes, I know that there is IS.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

walter23 · Nov 8, 2007

edebill said:
I've got a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. Light, reasonably compact, cheap, pretty sharp. It's not an L lens

I've had trouble telling sometimes which shots were from my 70-200 and which were from the longer end of my 28-105 USM II. It's a very good lens.

film_guy · Nov 8, 2007

Why not get another Tamron 28-75 2.8? It's light, sharp and cheap compared to the other choices. I've had one for years, and it has served me well. I'm only moved to the 24-70L (big and heavy brother of the Tamron) because I needed the weather-sealing for my work.

Annika1980 · Nov 9, 2007

ath said:
Hello Annika, I never trust people claiming things like this.

I have not bought it yet, but I'm quite sure, I'll get another Tamron.

Crippling a Canon with a Tamron ... that's just so WRONG!
That's like putting re-treads on a Ferrari.

Lee Shively · Nov 9, 2007

Oh, I dunno about that, Annika. I bought a Tokina zoom in preference to the equivalent Canon lens for my (rarely used) 30D. The Tokina lens is sharp and much better made than the Canon. It also fits my film EOS bodies where the Canon equivalent is an EF-S model which is said to be incompatible with those cameras. I've been known to use Voigtlander and super-cheap Russian/Ukranian lenses on my Leicas.

film_guy · Nov 10, 2007

Go check out the reviews of the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens before you say anything bad about it. It does what the Canon 24-70L does at 1/3 of the price.

Annika1980 said:
Crippling a Canon with a Tamron ... that's just so WRONG!
That's like putting re-treads on a Ferrari.

patrickjames · Nov 10, 2007

I can say that the L Canon glass is superb (24-70 2.8). I haven't used the 24-105 (f/4 is just too slow for me) but if you don't want to pony up for the Canons I have seen some pretty surprising results from the Tamron. At one point I thought about buying it for a beater lens. Skip the 28-whatevers from Canon.

Patrick

celluloidpropaganda · Nov 11, 2007

I recently asked this question on a Flickr group (for my 5D) - and got the same kind of reply - 'how can you even think of using anything but the 24-70? Why don't you sell your camera and buy something cheaper so you can afford the 24-70????'

Some people...

ath · Nov 12, 2007

FYI, the Tamron is ordered.

Snapper · Nov 16, 2007

I recently bought a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L to replace my 28-135 IS, but to be honest, it doesn't seem to be any sharper. What have I spent 3 times the money on to get that 'L' and red ring? The main advantage is that it's faster and a bit wider, but I expected a bit more from it for the money. Unless I've got a duff lens?

dolande · Nov 21, 2007

ath said:
FYI, the Tamron is ordered.

Good choice. I had the canon 28-105 II for years and "upgrade" to the Tamron 3 years ago. I also own the tamron 17-35, great combination.
Rafael

mawz · Nov 21, 2007

The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is a wee jem. I shot extensively with it when I was shooting EOS.

The Tamron is also a gem. Shot extensively with it during my first foray into K mount, and will be buying either a Minolta or Sony branded version for my Maxxum system. The only problem with it on Canon is the lack of FTM focusing (Not an issue with my Maxxum 7 as I have it configure to disengage the AF system automatically upon focus lock via the DMF feature that's almost unique to the Maxxum 7).

recommend a standard zoom for Canon EOS

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency