thinking forward...

[JMWallace]

Ok, I doubt that there is anyone (except for maybe Don), that has all 3 of these lenses, but I would be interested in seeing some camparisons.

SITUATION: Since assisting in those 2 weddings, and noticing that BOTH WP's used the 24-70 Lalmost exclusively during the ceremony and reception, I have decided this focal length should move up in priority on my wish list.

Problem being, I have heard so much good stuff about the Tamron 28-75 and at 1/3 the price (DON, sshhhhhh I already know what your thinking about typing:p ) is this really a Canon L in disquise as has been inferred?

Then of course, add Jamie who has all but dumped his 17-40 & 24-70 for the EF-S 17-55 and now there is ANOTHER option is this FL.

IQ is the main thing for me here...not necessarily the price.



Thoughts????

[adam75south]

24-70 can be used on a 5d and i would guess that the 24-70 range would be alot more useful than the 17-55 range for weddings.

17-55 has IS and can be used better without flash than the 24-70.

tough decision....either way you win.

[jamison55]

I've owned all three. Well, if the Canon 28-70L counts...

My own personal experience (I know of other WP's who successfully use Tamron 28-75) was the the Tamron had too much trouble focusing in dark venues to be practical. A shame to, because in well lit areas it was SHARP, but I missed too many great shots at wedding receptions because the Tamron could not lock focus.

So (again, in my experience, YMMV), that leaves the 24-70 and the 17-55. Both have USM and can focus in a CAVE, both are sharp and contrasty, the L has slightly better color and is longer on the long end, the 17-55 has IS and is wider on the wide end.

You know which way I've gone, I have successfully used the 17-55 for 20 or so weddings this year, and find it an excellent lens for the application. The IS really works, and I prefer to have the extra on the wide end so the 17-55 is my choice.

[cdifoto]

If I'm the Don you're referring to...I've only ever had the 24-70 out of any of the lenses you mentioned so my opinions aren't worth snot. I can say I wouldn't touch the Tamron though. Canon and third party glass without some sort of USM just doesn't seem to fly very high. My Tokina seems to be ok but with so much DOF you wouldn't really notice misfocus anyway.

[JMWallace]

If I'm the Don you're referring to...

Nah, I was actually talking about Don (the unpaid Tamron rep) Schap. :D

[cdifoto]

Nah, I was actually talking about Don (the unpaid Tamron rep) Schap. :D

I kinda figured but thought I'd chime in anyway in case it really was me.

[RichNY]

My vote for such a venue (albiet almost completly inexperienced, by comparison) would be for 17-55 f2.8 IS + second body with maybe 85 f1.8 or prime or 70-200 f2.8 IS during a reception.

Just add a 10-22 and 580EX and you've described my exact setup. Now if talent weren't a part of the mix I'd be all set for WP;)

[cwphoto]

I echo Jamie's thoughts entirely (although I haven't used the Tamron extensively, a colleague had similar issues with his older 28-70 f/2.8).

Unless you are planning a move away from 1.6 land the choice is 17-55 all the way for me.

[JMWallace]

Well, seems to be a consensus...17-55.

Next question, so trade in/sell the 17-40 for it or keep it just for kicks???

Looking even FURTHER forward, I would REALLY, REALLY like to get a 1D, but closer to reality would be 5D, but the real reality is another 30D.

so, keep or get rid of 17-40?

[cwphoto]

Ditch the 17-40: slower, less range, no IS, and lower resolving power than the 17-55 - a no brainer if a non-1.6 isn't on the horizon.

[RichNY]

Ditch the 17-40: slower, less range, no IS, and lower resolving power than the 17-55 - a no brainer if a non-1.6 isn't on the horizon.

I agree, and even if FF is on your horizon you'd probably want the faster 16-35 instead of the 17-40.

[aparmley]

Ok, I doubt that there is anyone (except for maybe Don), that has all 3 of these lenses, but I would be interested in seeing some camparisons.

SITUATION: Since assisting in those 2 weddings, and noticing that BOTH WP's used the 24-70 Lalmost exclusively during the ceremony and reception, I have decided this focal length should move up in priority on my wish list.

Problem being, I have heard so much good stuff about the Tamron 28-75 and at 1/3 the price (DON, sshhhhhh I already know what your thinking about typing:p ) is this really a Canon L in disquise as has been inferred?

Then of course, add Jamie who has all but dumped his 17-40 & 24-70 for the EF-S 17-55 and now there is ANOTHER option is this FL.

IQ is the main thing for me here...not necessarily the price.



Thoughts????

I evaluated a stellar copy of the Tamron 28-75 for about three months - Many thanks to Mr. Vich for allowing me to test drive his excellent copy.

What is my opinion of that lens? An excellent all around consumer lens. if you won't push it, then its a great option. But, if you are going to challenge its AF speed and accuracy by shooting in lower light, subjects that aren't always holding still, then its performance will not deliver. To me, the lens is for the casual consumer shooter that shoot in decent to great light and don't need a quick accurate (the first time) AFing lens (The tamy does hunt frequently).

I was really looking for the Tamron to save me from spending $1k. I now know, having used a great copy of the Tamy, that I won't be happy unless I get either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8. I'm really leaning towards the 17-55 2.8 IS - not that it matters.

My advice for you in your situation, don't cut corners. There is a great reason why the 24-70 is a workhorse. Its a tried and true lens. I think the 17-55 is a better FL for a crop body to be honest and adding the IS would be a great benefit - dragging the shutter. . . ect. Could save you some time not having to deal with a tripod for getting those detail shots, napkins, flower arrangements, programs, cake detail. . . .

Good luck on deciding between the L And the EF-S IS. . . ;) :D

[aparmley]

A wise man once said:

Ditch the 17-40: slower, less range, no IS, and lower resolving power than the 17-55 - a no brainer if a non-1.6 isn't on the horizon.

[JMWallace]

Like you said about CW and I'll include Jamie...these are wise men and two of the premier WP's around these [forum] parts...how can you argue with that advice??

[jamison55]

Can't speak for Andy, but it hunted like a blue tick hound in low light situations on my 20D! In contrast the cheaper, slower, 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM focuses really well for mw in low light situations. Go figure...?!

JM - I appreciate the vote of confidence, but please take my suggestions with a grain of salt as I tend to be fickle! Just ask Andy. Two months after I was spouting the virtues of the 35/2 I was showing how soft it was next to the 35 f1.4! And in the interest of full disclosure, my 17-55 backfocuses on my 20D just enough to be anoying, not enough to really notice it in prints... I see it mostly in group formals where it likes to grab the background bush or tree or wall instead of the large group of people in front of it... I'll be sending it in to Canon for adjustment after my last wedding on 12/30 and will probably sell it if/when I get a 5D next year. Not discounting it, it's a SHARP, useful, lens, and as perfect as it gets on a 1.6 for a wedding photog...