# canon 24-105 L VS tamron 28-75 f2.8



## wgp1987 (Oct 6, 2009)

i have the canon 24-105 L lens that came in a kit with my 5d. before i got the 5d i purchase the tamron and got amazing results on my 30 with it. when i found out that i was getting the 24-105 i returned the lens thinking it was goin to be much better. now that i have taken a few shots with the 24-105 im thinking that i would rather have the tamron. am i crazy? wait ... i know i am crazy but would you think its a bad idea to sell my 24-105 to get the tamron and some other equipment that is needed?


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 6, 2009)

Yes, you are crazy!  Why would you give up one of the best lenses on the planet!

Better yet, can I have it?  I'll even get you that Tamron.


----------



## chammer (Oct 6, 2009)

the tamron 28-75 2.8 has been compared a lot to the 24-70 2.8L. for my money, since im not getting paid to do this, the tamron is it. i already shoot with the tamron 17-50 2.8, and the 28-75 is supposed to be even better...and if the shots from my 17-50 are any indication, its a no brainer....and i save almost $1000.

here's a great video from a pro photographer on the two lenses:


----------



## chip (Oct 7, 2009)

I also bought the 5d2 with the 24-105mm kit lens and I love that lens! It is sharp and works great. I have never used a Tamron lens but I doubt it will be as good as the Canon lens


----------



## Dao (Oct 7, 2009)

If you want to travel light and save some money, the Tamron is better.   But I do not think the Tamron can beat the Canon in terms of build quality.


This article may help.

Juza Nature Photography

Direct quote from the above link
"All the lenses are pretty good,                   but each one has its weaknesses. The Canon 24-105 is very                   sharp; it has a very useful zoom range,                   professional built quality, fast autofocus and image                   stabilization - overall, it is my preferred standard zoom, but                   it has an huge problem: flare. If you take often photos with                   the sun or other strong light sources into the frame, I don't                   recommend the Canon 24-105: at f/16, it is almost unusable                   with strong light sources; otherwise it is an excellent                   choice.                   The Sigma is almost as expensive                   as the Canon; the built quality is great, and the HSM AF motor                   is as good as the Canon AF. In terms of image quality, it is                   on par with the Canon in the center, but it is softer in the                   edges, in particolar at 24mm. A great advantage of the Sigma                   is the impressively low flare: even with the sun directly into                   the frame, it showed almost no flare. If you take often photos                   that include the sun, the Sigma 24-70 is a better choice than                   the Canon, if you don't mind the soft corners at 24mm (on FF                   cameras).​ The Tamron has been a pleasant                   surprise. This lens is really cheap, it costs less than half                   the Sigma and the Canon, but it has great image quality: it is                   as sharp as the Canon, and sometimes it is even better. It lacks of IS and the AF is not as                   good as Canon and Sigma AF, but for its price it is truly a                   bargain; I recommend this lens for those who have a limited                   budget and want an sharp f/2.8 standard zoom."​


----------



## Derrel (Oct 7, 2009)

The fellow at Juzu also forgets to mention that at the short end, from 24 up to about 40mm, the 24-105L suffers terribly from distortion, and it also shows quite a bit of light fall-off or vignetting on full frame. And at the longer end, it's not a very good 90 to 105mm range telephoto in terms of sharpness. And it needs to be stopped down to f/8 for good center-to-corner sharpness. I bought the lens in the kit form large box package with my 5D, and while it is a solidly-made lens, it does have some weak performance areas. I think of it as "the 5D's kit lens". Indoors, it does not focus with much authority on the 5D especially in lower light levels or situations where the subject is low contrast or has little detail. For the price, some people might expect better optical performance. It's not "horrible", but it does have distortion, flare, and vignetting issues. But it sure is a handy focal range!

The Tamron 28-75 is an f/2.8 lens,and it is one of the few third party lenses that have garnered acceptance from a lot of "lens snobs" and highly critical professionals. It actually out-performs Canon's 50/1.8 in MTF and against the light performance. It's sort of a legendary lens in its own right. It's understandable why you might really,really like the Tamron 28-75.


----------

