Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2004, 12:30 PM   #1
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46

I know this has probably been asked before but a search didn't enlighten me much. I need to buy one of these lenses and soon.

Which would be the best fora Canon 10D which is on the way?


Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 10, 2004, 1:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325

Depends on what you will be primarily shooting. The Tamron gives you f/2.8 all the way through the 28-75mm and razor sharp images but less zoom. But the Canon IS gives you the very nice IS which combats the f/3.5-5.6 and USM snappy autofocus. Honestly I prefer image quality and f/2.8 is great for low light.


Lighter, smaller, easy to handhold for a days shooting, razor sharp f4-11 rated just below the L glass

Lens: Rating:

Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L -> 4.16

Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L -> 4.15

Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP -> 4.14

Canon EF 3.5-5.6 28-135mm ImageStabilizer -> 3.25

Look here for lens comaprisons: http://camerasystems.info/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F400

mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2004, 5:54 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585

I have Canon lens and I love this lens. You can view a polo match where I used the Canon lens for all shots. www.pbase.com/gibsonpd3620 It is my walk around lens.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2004, 10:42 AM   #4
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 39

Basically, I'd agree with mrkryz. If you don't need the f/2.8 (don't be too sure you don't), then go with the Canon. If absolute AF speed is important, again the USM wins here. For stationary subjects, who wouldn't want IS? In addition, the reach of the 135 is nice.

Having said that, aside from a relatively slow AF speed, I have many good things to say about the Tamron. I saw none of the color casts some have reported, and sharpness was good. For me, f/2.8 is essential. Given it's excellent value, light weight and quality of the photos, I would recommend the Tamron with only AF speed being it's achille's heel.

See here for further musings:


tuthill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2004, 1:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,547

If you are planning to use the lens to shoot action shots,Image Stabilizationdoes you no good. You need to be able to shoot faster shutter speeds, so you'd need to go with the Tamron lens with it's faster f2.8 aperture. Landscapes and other subjects where nothing moves is where IS can get you sharp images at lower shutter speeds.

I'd be more inclined to go with the faster lens in the case of these two.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2004, 10:46 AM   #6
Senior Member
iblaineman's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 152

I think this is a tough question. I just tried the Canon 28-135 IS this morning. I own the Tamron butI haven't compared picture quality to the Tarmon 28-70. I caould easily hand hold a 1/30th second shot with some zoom in AV Mode. IS is really nice. F2.8 is great nice narrow depth of field. I think you would use F3.5 - f4 a lot more often then f2.8 on the tamron for the clearity. Focusing is a lot faster on the canon. Why can't we have f2.8 and IS in a small lightweight lense . So those of you with the Tamron how often do you use f2.8?How do you feel about the picture quality at f2.8 compared the canon at f3.5? I think both lenses are nice and you would be quit happy with either once you are use to using either of them.
iblaineman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2004, 10:51 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325

I use f/2.8 a lot more then most because of shooting indoors w/low light and then do some post processing in pshop to sharpen the image. By comparison it is very clean and sharp wide open and I am able to handhold down to 1/30 stationary objects. Takes a lot of practice and I cant have any cofee the hour before but ists not that tough at all. I do generally try and sit more towards f3.5 - 4.5.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2004, 10:57 AM   #8
Senior Member
Setiprime's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484

Hey Zendragon-

Pop up here and see what I shoot with the 28/135 IS

If it's any help.


Good shooting
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2004, 11:44 PM   #9
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 33

I have the 28-135 IS and LOVE it. I have a number of shots that wouldn't have come out if I didn't have the IS feature. I have no idea how it works but it's fantastic. I would highly recommend this lense. Unfortunately I have no experience with the Tamron XR but I would love to hear what you find.
xtaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 12:57 PM   #10
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,564


Don't forget IS can be helpful at time (ie static walls), but it also eats up more battery juice than non-IS lens... (thoses extra moving elements need power too!)

I'll go for the faster lens everytime, beside you also gain the shallower DOF for portrait. Remember you can always increase the aperture for more DOF, but try to decrease it! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:09 PM.