Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD over this lens for $800 less?
1526808
Have not tried the tamron the cannon 24-70 2.8L II . Is a a purchase I'll never regret. It holds up against my friends zeiss primes plus blazing fast auto focus
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
1526810
I have the Canon, but if you happen to get a good copy of the Tamron, then it's probably a better value. That being said, copy to copy consistency is going to be much better on the Canon side. You're more likely to get a lens with autofocus issues with the Tamron.
1526811
The tamron is supposed to be good, but if you got the money, I'd suggest buying the canon. It is spectacular. The only thing I don't like about it is that the inner barrel is plastic, though I guess this is also true for the tamron.
1526812
I had the Tamron first. I got it because it had good reviews, a lower price, and IS. Bottom line: it was very soft and had AWFUL back focusing issues over 50 mm. I sent it to Tamron for calibration and it came back worse. I ended up returning it and instead of getting another copy of the Tamron, got the Canon. Best decision I ever made. This is the sharpest lens I own, including all my primes. I was told by Tamron that 20% of their 24-70s have focus issues on the Mark III (which I have) due to the Mark III's focusing system and the Tamron not being totally compatible with it. I have a 60D as well and the Tamron also had back focus issues with that body as well, although slightly less. I would not hesitate to recommend the Canon, bar none.
1526813
Excellent in low light conditions, excellent control over depth of field, good broken, crystal clear images
1927445
Jen, I don't recommend this lens. I owned it for a short while when I was new to photography, and was disappointed with its IQ. Zoom lenses that cover this long of a focal length generally sacrifice image integrity to do so. This lens was no exception with heavy barrel distortion on the wide end, and it was very soft when zoomed even when stopped down. I would recommend getting a lens that does less, but does it better. This lens would not be any better than your kit lens. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for its value and IQ.
552635
Good bang for the buck is just get a zoom lens that has macro feature on it. Like the Tamron AF 70-300 mm. Look it up on Amazon.
2170940
i had this lens in my cart 8 months ago, but i am curious about the price. Is there a reason it has gone from 610 to 825 in that time???
1442987
I had the same dilemma but settle for the canon 18-200- the zoom on the Tamron is only about 220 not 270mm- Canon better IQ- Tamron has 6 years warrenty- Tamron is very small and light- Canon about $75 less but Tamron goive out rebate once in a while- (In my opinion) canon len retain their value longerThis is pretty much all the differences
88040
I have a canon 24-70mm f2.8 (very comparable with your Tamron) and as with all variable ND filters there is a degree of vignetting at the higher points, especially if you tend towards more full daylight shooting. the Tiffen is manageable however and still offers up great image quality.
357728
It's the only lens I use for my 800. With occasional hiccups trying to focus through car window glass. It's sharp enough for my varied uses. I was sold on the lens by tests performed and published on the blog Photography Life and you'll also find info on the 24-70, but the 2.8 will give you a softer background.
846334
A Sony or Tamron Lens. AF18mm-200mm F3.5-6.3 for APS-C DSLR's. Everday shooting sports, landscape,portraits and tele macro. This lens runs around $200.00.
1451391
Matthew, Sigma has released information of a replacement lens which will hit the market towards the end of March. the lens is priced at $499 and boasts significant upgrades to almost every aspect of the lens. With that being said the price of this version of the lens has been slashed (lucky people like me found it for $289). I would consider your need for this type of lens. Most of the bad reviews come from earlier models of this particular version (matted black Vs smooth black). The defective lens's rightfully so get poor reviews, however the functioning models get high praise. I have tested the sharpness and autofocus and my unit is perfectly fine. I decided that $500 was too much for a new lens and $289 was a bargain for its older brother. If you look around you may still find that clearance price. I hope this helped!
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
137014
There is one available from OneCall for $1,899.00, but I don't think I can trust it, and extra $200 isn't really worth the risk of getting a lens that may not have Nikon's warranty on it. Sigh... should I just go get the 105mm macro VR or the 70-200mm VR II?
990406
Some USA camera stores have the 35/1.8 AF-S lens in stock right now for $200. Forget about the price gougers.
1533863
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensivecons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me)CanonPros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VCIt comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
417541
Hi Christy, I am firm on the price. I am having a hard time parting with this lens. -- Ralph