Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - Is this capable? Can it hold me over until buying Canon?

[keith204]

I know 28-75 is the range I want. (or 24-70, etc).

I spent a week with my uncle-in-law who is a wedding photographer (manages shooting 8 weddings per week!). I didn't get to shoot with him, but did get to talk with him a bunch about wedding photography, and techniques, etc.

So, in the next couple months I am going to try to start doing weddings. I have a 17-85 IS, but really need a 2.8 lens.

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = $1139
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 = $369
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 = $429

The Canon will be a "Down the road" type of thing...that is, if I keep up with weddings and can rationalize such a price tag. But, for the time being, I am debating between the Tamron and Sigma. The Tamron has better sharpness reviews, so let's go with that one.

Does anyone have experience shooting in low-light with the Tamron? The main question.... would the Tamron 28-75 be a good lens to hold me over until I can afford the Canon?

 

[Stranger]

I cant say much about it being good enough to hold you over until the canon but i can say its an awesome lens.

I shoot Nikon and I love this lens.. It lives on my camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamar787/sets/72157603939959805/

A gallery shot with it. Im not a pro though so take this for what its worth lol. I also bought this lens until i can afford the Nikon.

It is kind of noisy though (sound wise) but my autofocus doesnt hunt much at all so thats a plus.

 

[keith204]

I saw those shots are taken outside...in bright light. How does it do in low-light? I will be utilizing large apertures a lot.

 

[rob91]

I have the Tamron 2.8. It's very nice. If I knew anything about lenses I could tell you more. I can say the 2.8 is helpful, I've recently done a lot of shooting inside my workplace in low light, not having to use flash was very nice. I will try to get some pics up for you in a little bit.

But on your question on whether or not will the Tamron hold you over until you get the Canon: do you have a choice? hehe

 

[THORHAMMER]

The canon is very good and the tamron is also very good.


I've shot tons indoors with the tamron and bouncing flash, plus low light outdoors portraits with it too. It a fantastic lens, sharper on the wide side.
you will have some small issues with hunting autofocus in low light and the focus motor can be slow when it hunts. The build quality is a little weird. But these are things we can do without for a 1000 dollar difference.

The Canon is built to go through a war, its weather sealed very well.
Full time manual focus comes in handy for some people.
Zooming does not extend the barrel at all, but its very heavy and
carrying it all day does take its toll too.

Latest wedding I shot , we used all sorts of lenses 50, 28-75 2.8, 24-702.8L and 70.200 2.8L , (I rented the L glass) I cant tell too much difference between the 24-70 or the 28-75, some have little more contrast on the 24-70 but normal people cant really tell too much, Theres things you can do with a filter, or in lightroom to pop it. If you are going to be able to use flash then the autofocus issue is moot.

Sure if you had all the money in the world you'd go with the canon, but the tamron is a good competitor. Keep in mind most of the canon lenses are built with photojournalists in mind too, so they have to be able to withstand all the elements and crazy conditions, if you get good with your focusing and lighting you can do fine with the tamron.

Heres a bunch of stuff I shot with the 28-75 to help you make a better decision.

good luck.


indoors (bounce flash)
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3200903_7fyKD#176523622

outdoors sunset(fill flash or no flash)
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3200732_6GRjm#176549531

outdoors sunset (fill flash) http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3241121_ubCvZ#179271027

more outdoors (with umbrellad strobes)
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3749432_RaC8Z#215645111

outdoor late afternoon no flash
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3756891_jQSXR#216131408



indoor low light shot
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3459604_ySMZn/1/215977028_NG2ZR/Medium

another indoor low light
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3459604_ySMZn/1/215977004_7JM22/Medium

Yet another
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3459604_ySMZn/1/215976947_RZNVK/Medium

beach silhouette
http://prints.uniqimage.com/gallery/3459604_ySMZn/2/194433966_M5tpq/Medium

 

[keith204]

PERFECT, Thorhammer.

Do I have a choice? Not really... I am wondering, do I save up for an extra month or two to get the Canon, or do I go ahead and get the Tamron when a wedding comes up, and then when I make some money off weddings, get the Canon? You know what I mean? I just don't want a lens that'll give crappy results to hold me over, but a lens with less durability, and possibly hunting in low light, will be acceptable for the time being.

Do you find the images acceptable at f/2.8? I understand a little less sharpness, but is it an OK trade-off for good bokeh and better ambient light?

 

[Stratman]

I have heard nothing but good things about the Tamron 28-75, and IF it was a little wider I would already have one. I am waiting to see the reviews of the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron, and may get that to replace my kit lens if the reviews are good.

 

[keith204]

I have heard nothing but good things about the Tamron 28-75, and IF it was a little wider I would already have one. I am waiting to see the reviews of the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron, and may get that to replace my kit lens if the reviews are good.

Yeah I was worried about the range too, that 28 might not be wide enough. However, the photographers I met this past week, all used 24/28-70 2.8 lenses, on Canon 40D and Nikon D300 bodies. They do primarily weddings, and don't have an issue with needing wider.

 

[Village Idiot]

Canon has an older 28-70 2.8L. They go for probably $600ish used.

I'm not entirely sure on the quality in comparison, but I know those who have it like it. It's really a FF lens imo. I think there's a Canon 17-85 too. Not entirely sure...Too tired to look it up right now.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yeah I was worried about the range too, that 28 might not be wide enough. However, the photographers I met this past week, all used 24/28-70 2.8 lenses, on Canon 40D and Nikon D300 bodies. They do primarily weddings, and don't have an issue with needing wider.

Heh....I use the 70-200 as my primary lens. 24/28 shouldn't be too bad.

 

[keith204]

I just purchased the Tamron from BH. Thanks for the advice everyone.

 

[Big Mike]

Congrats.

I went with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8...so I can recommend the brand. That being said...I will get the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS...sooner or later.

I personally feel that 24mm is too long for a primary lens on a crop body...but if it works for you, then go for it.

 

[S2K1]

I thought about this lens for weddings, but like Mike, I went with the 17-50 Tamron and love it. I found my sister's 24-70 Sigma on a K10D wasn't wide enough IMO.

 

[keith204]

Congrats.

I went with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8...so I can recommend the brand. That being said...I will get the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS...sooner or later.

I personally feel that 24mm is too long for a primary lens on a crop body...but if it works for you, then go for it.

I thought about this lens for weddings, but like Mike, I went with the 17-50 Tamron and love it. I found my sister's 24-70 Sigma on a K10D wasn't wide enough IMO.

Oh great, NOW you guys tell me to get something different.....

I could see myself getting a full frame camera within the next year, so that was another reason to go with the 28-75 instead.

 

[Big Mike]

Well, if you are planning on going with a full frame body (or even a 1.3 crop) then it does make sense to stick with full coverage lenses.