PDA

View Full Version : A Couple More Lenses...



jamison55
03-28-2005, 06:18 PM
Received my Canon 80-200 f2.8L "magic drainpipe" today. So far this lens lives up to its great reputation.

I also picked up a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for a buddy of mine. I read good things about this lens, and it was a steal when bundled in with the "L".

So since I have three lenses with a similar (80-75-70) focal length and a fast f2.8 aperture, I thought I'd do a little test.

MA is under a foot of water, so this is an indoor test. I used a 500watt halogen worklight, custom white balance, ISO 100, f2.8, 1/200th sec.

jamison55
03-28-2005, 06:20 PM
And at f4:

TenD
03-28-2005, 06:46 PM
I have had an 80-200 f/2.8 since before I went digital. I was looking for a bargain mid zoom and back then it was, I paid about $640 for it in excellent condition. First roll I ran through it, I was in love. I had been using a 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II, after the first frames I saw from the drainpipe I knew I was in for a case of L fever.
In your comparison, I am a little disappointed in the Tamron's performance wide open. It's no comparison to the 80-200. The Tamron sharpens right up at f/4 though. I wonder how it stacks up against the Canon 28-70 f/2.8L.

D70FAN
03-28-2005, 06:58 PM
I have had an 80-200 f/2.8 since before I went digital. I was looking for a bargain mid zoom and back then it was, I paid about $640 for it in excellent condition. First roll I ran through it, I was in love. I had been using a 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II, after the first frames I saw from the drainpipe I knew I was in for a case of L fever.
In your comparison, I am a little disappointed in the Tamron's performance wide open. It's no comparison to the 80-200. The Tamron sharpens right up at f/4 though. I wonder how it stacks up against the Canon 28-70 f/2.8L.

The Canon is rated at 4.15 and the Tamron is at 4.14. Pretty close.

jamison55
03-28-2005, 07:22 PM
I have had an 80-200 f/2.8 since before I went digital. I was looking for a bargain mid zoom and back then it was, I paid about $640 for it in excellent condition. First roll I ran through it, I was in love. I had been using a 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II, after the first frames I saw from the drainpipe I knew I was in for a case of L fever.
In your comparison, I am a little disappointed in the Tamron's performance wide open. It's no comparison to the 80-200. The Tamron sharpens right up at f/4 though. I wonder how it stacks up against the Canon 28-70 f/2.8L.


I noticed that a few years back these lenses could be had for the mid 600's - another case of digital cameras bumping up the price of lenses. These days you are lucky to find one used for $750 (I spent $800 shipped). It came down to a choice between this and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (same price). From samples online, the Canon colors "popped" a bit more. Can't wait to have a little brighter weather to really take it for a spin... :D I'm actually pretty happy with Tamron, especially for less than 1/2 of an "inexpensive" used "L".

tigerli
03-01-2006, 07:58 PM
If I am not mistaken, the comparison shots show that Sigma's 24-70mm is NOT as sharp as Tamron's 28-75mm.

I got an impression from other reviews that Sigma's 24-70mm is better than Tamron's 28-75mm. Am I mistaken?

aparmley
03-01-2006, 08:35 PM
Whoaaaaahh. Tales from the crip. . . :D

jamison55
03-02-2006, 03:42 AM
If I am not mistaken, the comparison shots show that Sigma's 24-70mm is NOT as sharp as Tamron's 28-75mm.

I got an impression from other reviews that Sigma's 24-70mm is better than Tamron's 28-75mm. Am I mistaken?

This particular copy of the Sigma was definitely NOT as sharp as this copy of the Tamron. The Tamron I owned was very sharp from f2.8 on. The Sigma was soft until f5.6. I got it cheap as part of a package deal (my associate needed a mid range zoom). He sold in on EBay (for a profit) the next week. He now owns a SHARP copy of the Tamron that is a constant source of frustration at dark wedding receptions where it struggles to focus...

jamison55
03-02-2006, 03:44 AM
Whoaaaaahh. Tales from the crip. . . :D

I know, right. Total blast from the past. I don't own any of those lenses anymore! And look, I shot food packaging...what's wrong with me :confused:

tigerli
03-02-2006, 06:24 AM
Jamison, love your wedding photos.:D :D

So what lens do you use or recommend for shooting wedding now, esp. in low light, after you sold both the Sigma and Tamron? :confused:

jamison55
03-02-2006, 07:21 AM
Thanks Tiger!

I have come to the conclusion that the most reliable lenses are the professional grade lenses made by the camera manufacturer. I have replaced all of my third party lenses with Canon lenses in the "L" series, and they all focus accurately in all sorts of lighting and are sharp to boot. It took me 27 weddings to pay for it all, however :eek:.

Not sure what the Nikon equivalents are (Nikon's naming conventions confuse the he!! out of me), but I could probably shoot an entire wedding with the 17-55 f2.8 DX and the 70-200 f2.8VR. I'd probably also add a 35 f2 at some point (because I like the focal length so much on a CF body) and an 85 f1.4. A 10.5 DX fisheye would complete the kit, along with an SB800.

And had the D70 not been $300 more than the Digital Rebel when I first started out, that would probably be what my kit would look like today (mounted on a D200, with a D70 as a backup).

Having said all of that, I shot 10 or so weddings before I started to have enough money to upgrade, and made due with high quality third party optics (like that Tamron 28-75). OK, to be honest, my first three weddings were with the kit lens, the 50 f1.8, and the dreadful Sigma 55-200. It wasn't until my fourth wedding that I bought the Tamron. I had a LOT more OOF shots that I had to throw away, but I was always able to deliver a product that my clients were happy with (especially at my dollar store price level). I always recommend that you buy the best glass you can afford now, and upgrade as you can afford to. If that's third party or slower OEM, than make that work for you. It's the photographer that makes the photo, not the gear! Let's not let Mastercard have too much of our money!