Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  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 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

  9. #9
    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

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

Posting Permissions

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