Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714

    A Couple More Lenses...

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    And at f4:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    That drainpipe is one sweet lens.

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,029
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    The Canon is rated at 4.15 and the Tamron is at 4.14. Pretty close.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

    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".
    Last edited by jamison55; 03-28-2005 at 07:25 PM.
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    59
    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?
    Nikon D50
    Nikon 18-55mm
    Nikon 50mm 1.8
    Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro
    Sigma 10-20mm
    Sigma 24-70mm f2.8

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Whoaaaaahh. Tales from the crip. . .
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by aparmley
    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
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    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...
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •