A Couple More Lenses...

[jamison55]

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]

And at f4:

[TenD]

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]

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]

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... I'm actually pretty happy with Tamron, especially for less than 1/2 of an "inexpensive" used "L".

[tigerli]

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]

Whoaaaaahh. Tales from the crip. . .

[jamison55]

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]

Whoaaaaahh. Tales from the crip. . .

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

[tigerli]

Jamison, love your wedding photos.

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