Canon 24-105 vs Sigma 24-70 vs Tamron 28-75 ?

PD_BARBS

PD_BARBS

Suspended / Banned
Messages
986
Name
Peter Barber
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking to upgrade my walk about lens (currently a canon 28-105 USM II). I was originally was set on getting a canon 24-105 L as I want a better quality lens and like this focal range, but starting to question the expense of spending £600 when I could get either the the Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 for less than half the money.

So my question is whether the Canon is truely worth twice the money, what do i get extra for my money. I am thining I could get either the Tamron or Sigma (advice on which is best would be welcome) and save the £300 towards a 70-200, I won't even open the debate on the merits of Canon over third party lenses on this range.

Any advise would be appreciated.

Thanks
Peter
 
Rightly or wrongly, I'm a big fan of wide apertures. In that vein, I would always go for the 2.8 lens over the f/4. Certainly, other 'togs would agree to differ on this.

The Canon 24-105 offers more zoom range and IS, but I guess you knew that. The real issue is whether the zoom range and IS means more to you than the faster aperture. Don't forget that the f/2.8 aperture can mean that the high-precision AF sensor points get enabled and that, with more light entering the camera, AF is more accurate and reliable anyway.

If you go for a third party lens (you could always go for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8), the Tamron 28-75 always seems to get the plaudits. The couple that I've tried are as sharp as the Canon to my eyes.

I don't suppose I've helped much, sorry.
 
Thanks for this, I really like this focal range, but was considering the trade of the extra stop over focal length. I really want a versatile lens and don't want to have to put the nifty fifty on everytime I want to take an indoors photo of the kids.

Losing the length on the Tamron doesn't really bother me, as I have a sigma 10-20 for the wide end anyway.

What is the build quality of the Tamron like ?
 
PD_BARBS said:
What is the build quality of the Tamron like ?
Click to expand...

One could knock nails in with the Canon 24-70. The Tamron is nowhere near as solidly-built, but more than solid enough for photography.
 
I have the sigma 24-70 and love the f2.8 apature, but I keep coming back to the 24-105. I know it's a stop slower, BUT if focuses much faster and it's as sharp as a tack.

On a crop sensor, the 105mm gives excellent "reach" for a walkabout lens, and it's great for portraits. Personally, if I could afford it, I'd have both, and in the next few months I probably will (which will upset StewartR as I won't need to keep hiring one of his!)

Steve
 
If you could have both, which would you get first ?

Also with respect to image quality and build quality how does the Sigma compare to the Canon 24-105
 
PD_BARBS said:
If you could have both, which would you get first ?

Also with respect to image quality and build quality how does the Sigma compare to the Canon 24-105
Click to expand...

It depends on your "needs"... I required a faster apature but just couldn't stretch to the £800 or so for the Canon 24-70 f2.8 so went with the Sigma.

In terms of image quality, again I think the Canon has the benefit of the doubt, but the bokeh on a wide open Sigma is very pleasing. The build quality of the Sigma is vevry good for the money, and it comes with it's own soft case, like the L lenses do. It's probably one of the better engineered Sigma lenses around, and it's quite heavy.

The Canon is a good lens as a base to build from though. You can add the 70-200 (in one of its various forms) to give yo good coverage from 24-200mm. At around £500-£550 it makes a good investment as should you come to sell it they fetch a good price used too.

Steve
 
This is what started my dilema, for the £300 I can save I could get half a 70-200 F4 IS.:shrug:

What I don't want t do is regret the purchase, and end up getting the 24-105 in a few months anyway, so hoping to draw on people experiences.

So far in my short venture into Photography into photography I have mainly shot landscape, but now starting to dabble in a bit of portrait. There has been few times were I have wished for something with more reach than the 105mm, But if I get a shorter reach will I miss the extra 30mm or so:thinking:
 
If you can afford it and the 24-105 range suits you (which is what I wanted) I would go for the Canon f4. It is a great lens. I thought about the 24 - 70 because of the extra stop but the reach was more important to me so I got the 24 - 105 I would not exchange it for anything (except perhaps a Ferrari).
 
Leaning towards the Tamron, as the reviews on this lens are very favourable, and I am still struggling to justify the extra £350 for a Canon 24-105mm.

I think a trip to Jessops is in order to play around with the lenses should finalise my choice.
 
I have the 24-105mm f/4 L, and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. The former is great as an outdoor walkaround, and is a very good complement to a full-frame body in particular. The IS is pretty handy too - I was shooting landscapes yesterday handheld down at 1/6s without too many difficulties. The extra stop that the Tamron has makes it a better indoor lens, and mine is marginally sharper than the 24-105mm at apertures of f/5.6 - f/8 or so. I don't really use the longer focal lengths on the 24-105mm, but I'm mainly a landscape shooter. I don't think either will disappoint you :). I can't honestly say the Canon is worth twice as much, though, and so in your position, I think I would choose the Tamron and the 70-200mm f/4 - a lovely lens, that :)
 
marky_h said:
I have the 24-105mm f/4 L, and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. The former is great as an outdoor walkaround, and is a very good complement to a full-frame body in particular. The IS is pretty handy too - I was shooting landscapes yesterday handheld down at 1/6s without too many difficulties. The extra stop that the Tamron has makes it a better indoor lens, and mine is marginally sharper than the 24-105mm at apertures of f/5.6 - f/8 or so. I don't really use the longer focal lengths on the 24-105mm, but I'm mainly a landscape shooter. I don't think either will disappoint you :). I can't honestly say the Canon is worth twice as much, though, and so in your position, I think I would choose the Tamron and the 70-200mm f/4 - a lovely lens, that :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for this advice, as I mainly take landscapes myself, then it is this type of opinion I was looking for.

So for £650 I could get a 70-300 F4 and the Tamron 28-75mm, nice one.
 
Ive got the Sigma 24-70mm and the Canon 24-105mm on a full frame camera and that's when you really notice the difference.

You are absolutely right to go and try them both on your camera before you purchase.

If I had to upgrade any lens in my possession it would be the Sigma 24-70mm. Compared to the Canon it's slow and unwieldy.

I'd agree that the 70-200mm f4 is a cracker, I won't part with mine despite having the 2.8 simply because if I'm shooting at f5.6 anyway I really don't need the extra length and weight of the 2.8.

I use my 24-105mm as my walk about lens and since I've got the hang of using my flash the f4 is less of an issue indoors.
 
You may want to wait a little before taking the plunge as Sigma has a new version of the 24-70 set for release

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092303sigma_24_70_lens.asp

I have the current Sigma 24-70 and the Canon 24-105. Ignoring the obvious differences (IS, range and f2.8 v f4) the Canon lens is faster focusing and focusing is silent (the Sigma is noisy). Focus accuracy seems very similar. The Canon lens has a much better feel to it (solid build, smoother focus ring).

For outdoor events I consistently use the Canon 24-105 in preference to the Sigma 24-70. Indoors the IS on the Canon does make it very usable for still subjects and can be very useful for moving subjects when using flash and dragging the shutter.

The new Sigma with HSM focusing should address most of the usability issues of the current offering.

What we need is a Canon 24-70 or 24-85 f2.8 with IS and USM focusing for the same price as the Sigma :)
 
jpwone said:
You may want to wait a little before taking the plunge as Sigma has a new version of the 24-70 set for release

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092303sigma_24_70_lens.asp

I have the current Sigma 24-70 and the Canon 24-105. Ignoring the obvious differences (IS, range and f2.8 v f4) the Canon lens is faster focusing and focusing is silent (the Sigma is noisy). Focus accuracy seems very similar. The Canon lens has a much better feel to it (solid build, smoother focus ring).

For outdoor events I consistently use the Canon 24-105 in preference to the Sigma 24-70. Indoors the IS on the Canon does make it very usable for still subjects and can be very useful for moving subjects when using flash and dragging the shutter.

The new Sigma with HSM focusing should address most of the usability issues of the current offering.

What we need is a Canon 24-70 or 24-85 f2.8 with IS and USM focusing for the same price as the Sigma :)
Click to expand...

I seen some of the details on the new Sigma, but noone seems to know when it is coming out or what the price will be. Estimates for release are somtime in the first quarter of next year, so I could potentially be waiting for 4 months for it to appear. It also seems that the Tamron is the sharper of the two, although I do have a Sigma 10-20 and love it, so would be more than happy to get another Sigma.

The other alternative would be for either Sigma or Tamron to release a lens that challenges the 24-105, at half the price, that would be an interesting prospect.
 
I have found a second hand copy of the Tamron for £169, which is pretty good, question I have is are there older versions of this lens, this copy is a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di, while the newer ones have LD on them, does this make any difference.

Sorry for the idiot question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top