Comparing a $340 lens to a $1250 lens

Yes, I realize that. I still think it is relevant information.

 

How does the bokeh compare? Any examples?

 

True dat (lol).
The new Nikkor 24-70 doesn't have competition... it *is* the competition. I think of the 24-70 as the equivalent of 46 F/2.8 primes... lol

 

Not always... I think I recall one that got away back in 1975.

 

Damn you photoforum peoples.

In Jerry fashion, I've been doing homework for a while now on which lens I want to get. I picked up a Canon 10-22mm and have been loving it! I decided not too long ago that the Tamron 28-75 would be my next stop. Being an amateur and hobbyist, 3rd party lenses are fine when you are talking about a lens that is 35% the price of the other.

I've been saving for it and now you guys make me want to run out and get one today!

 

What I got from the OP..... Hooray for the little guy!!! Thanks, ksmattfish.. Today is a little brighter than yesterday!

 

I'd be interested in seeing a drop test. Anyone want to volunteer a lens? I've already conducted an impromptu test on my 24-70.

 

This is my main concern; the bokeh. While not important to others, it is very important to me. I'm moving toward fashion/model photography and portraits. The bokeh is the #1 reason why I'm wanting the Canon over a Sigma or Tamron. I was suppose to buy the Canon 24-70L but didn't because the price just went back up ~$1200. It was going for around $1050 in Dec so I'm waiting for another good sale. I woud love to save a ton of cash and go with the Tamron but only if the bokeh is nearly the same as the Canon.

ksmattfish; if you get some spare time, can you please perform a bokeh test between your Canon 24-70L and your Tamron 28-75? I'd really appreciate it

 

I can't tell which lens I used in the 12"x18" portraits of my kids on my walls without consulting the exif data.

Look guys, if you are a sharpener personality (likes to emphasize tiny differences) you should probably go with the expensive lens; you'll feel better. I have become a leveler personality (ignores tiny differences) over the last 15 years of shooting, and the differences seem insignificant to me.

EDIT: Oh what the heck, i'll try to come up with some examples soon.

 

Thanks for this, highly relevant.

I find it very interesting that you say that the Canon is a 1/3rd darker... I believe that lens construction affects a number of things that (frustratingly) never get discussed here. For instance, people speak of the various 50mm lenses for Canon... yes, they will talk about sharpness at certain apertures, maybe mention bokeh, but never color rendering, contrast, and range.

To be candid, even a discussion of that nature would be irrelevant, because I wouldn't be able to make up my mind unless I had a comparison shoot-out of the subjects I like.

But I love hearing that the Tamron can compete... it's good to know.

 

Here's the bokeh comparison thread

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ron-vs-canon-f-2-8-zoom-bokeh-comparison.html

 

I think this is a very good point. Different subjects have different requirements, and different photographers have different tastes. Personal testing is the only way to go.

I've also always said that you need to test the actual lenses you are considering buying, because there is quality variation even with Nikon and Canon. I sold cameras for 4 years so I had the opportunity to compare cameras and lenses that were supposed to be identical, and that wasn't always the case. Just because the reviewer got a good one doesn't mean the one you buy will be as good (or bad).