Tamron 17-50 to 24-105L

ding76uk

ding76uk

Messages
4,096
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
As above really. I shoot a 40D and wondered would I miss the small end of the Tamron if I decide to go with this?

I mainly shoot people, gigs and action sport (I have fisheye for this).

Rest of lenses are nifty fifty, 10mm fisheye, 70-200 F4L

My gut feeling is I wouldn't miss it. Also is there a jump in quality from the results this lens would produce.

To fund it I would sell the Tamron when I have the rest of the cash ready, so will not have the option of keeping both.

Opinions please.
 
This is something I have been considering as well as its not often I go wider than 24mm. tbh I doubt there would be much between them in terms of image quality, although IS and USM focusing would be a bonus.
 
Well I've not used the Tamron, but I've had my 24-105 for over a year. It is a fantastic lens. Focus is quick, accurate, and most importantly the resulting images are always sharp.
Having said that you might miss the extra f stop if you are shooting indoors.
 
It would be the stop of light that bothered me more than the loss of the wide end especially if your shooting gigs and natural light portraits.
 
ding76uk said:
I shoot a 40D and wondered would I miss the small end of the Tamron if I decide to go with this?

Opinions please.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm amazed that you think other people can help you with this. Why don't you just look at the metadata in your photos to see how often you use focal lengths between 17 and 23mm? You can do this very easily using ExposurePlot.
 
ding76uk said:
IS could be useful to me, and the focussing should be better (again opinions needed to verify this). I have used the lens briefly as my Father in Law to be has one. I did consider stealing his, but thought I need his permission to marry his daughter in 3 weeks, so thought better of it:D
Click to expand...

You could always marry her (congratulations by the way (y)) and then "borrow" it perhaps on a long term option :)

I've got a similar decision, wanting to buy the 24-105, but unsure if I should go for a F2.8 lens :shrug:
 
i feel that i would defo miss the wide end, 17-24 is alot missing in a shot.

but thats jsut me
 
if you are doing anything indoors AND want to freeze motion then f4 on the 40d blows, id be most worried about losing F2.8 advantages, secondly i think 24mm isnt wide enough, 17mm gives you more options.
i own a 40d too.
 
StewartR is right, how often do you use 17mm?

Personally I wouldn't miss it at all, I've got a 17-40 but it's used so rarely I'm wondering why.
 
for gigs...is the L glass f4??? then it's far too slow unless you're one of these people that stick a flash under the guitarists nose!

L glass is lovely. you do have a lot of DOF play in your photos that I've seen. might miss that if you go f4
 
StewartR said:
To be honest, I'm amazed that you think other people can help you with this.
Click to expand...

All I was looking for mate was opinions of people who did it what I am thinking of, and whether they did or did not miss there focal length. I am amazed at such a scathing reply.

I have looked at metadata, and found I rarely used it at 17. Just after opinions on what lens to go for and wondered if people had, and had or had not missed it. If it bothers you, then why bother to post a reply?

Anyways, how about the 24 70 f2.8 as an alternative? Just only having the 40D as a main camera and only 400d as backup which has lower top iso speed I am looking for something with a little more reach. 3 songs is not long when you factor in changing lenses a cpl of times.

Also is the L lens going to give me more quality, esp in the focusing in low light?
 
id go with the f2.8L
i havent used these lenses but as a 40d owner i must have read every review going on these lenses you are looking at, which is no coincidense as we end up at this point with the 40d in general.
My money is on the 24-70 2.8.

The real difficulty with the 40d is its low light capability, which with 2.8 at your disposal becomes irrelevant. at f4 it is a real issue that can see you miss a lot of shots.
I know this simply from playing with me 50mm 1.8, at 2.8 it rocks in low light, at 4 it doesnt.
L glass is cool and willl give you the best pictures the 40d is capable of to the point that the camera is the limiting factor, not the lens.
 
ding76uk said:
All I was looking for mate was opinions of people who did it what I am thinking of, and whether they did or did not miss there focal length. I am amazed at such a scathing reply.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be scathing.

The way I read it, you were asking us if YOU would miss the shorter focal lengths. Not whether WE would.
ding76uk said:
If it bothers you, then why bother to post a reply?
Click to expand...
Because (a) I thought that any information other people would provide about whether THEY miss the shorter lengths wouldn't necessarily be relevant to whether YOU would; and (b) I wanted to suggest looking at YOUR metadata to see what YOU do in practice.

I was trying to be constructive and helpful. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
 
ding76uk said:
Anyways, how about the 24 70 f2.8 as an alternative?

Also is the L lens going to give me more quality, esp in the focusing in low light?
Click to expand...
Sound like a good idea to me. Personally I prefer the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, but if you don't need the 17-24mm range then I guess it's not so useful. I don't shoot gigs so I'm not qualified to say whether IS would be helpful. I suspect not.

However one of the guys who works with me DOES shoot gigs, and his weapons of choice are fast primes. For the price of a 24-70 f/2.8 you could probably pick up 3 primes in the f/1.4 to f/2 range. Changing lenses during a limited set might be a pain, but with two bodies it doesn't seem to be a big issue for him.

Just something to consider.
 
I would miss f2.8 and 17mm, in fact I wouldn't consider it as a change. Thats the way I shoot gigs and in fact almost anything, but everyone has their own style, do you intend on going FF anytime soon as thats where the 24-105L shines.

+1 for fast primes as an alternative, siggy 30mm f1.4 is a lovely lens
 
ding76uk said:
Also is the L lens going to give me more quality, esp in the focusing in low light?
Click to expand...

The focussing won't actually be as good (on average) if you go for the L. It's the body that determines the focus and an f/2.8 lens will permit more accurate focussing on your 40D.

As a separate note, the Tamron 17-50's sharpness is probably better than the 24-105.....contrast and bokeh would see the L edge it out though.

Bob
 
StewartR said:
I was trying to be constructive and helpful. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
Click to expand...

It's cool, was a bad morning, and prob just way I read it, thanks for your help though, you made a good point.

As I see my progression, I will be looking at the 5D2 at some point in the future as my gig/portrait/everything else body and keep the 40D to shoot skate sequences. So that is my main reason to look to the lenses I have been.

Primes have always been something I want to experiment with, but, I feel the zoom lens offers me the most for my money at the present time, with primes being a later luxury.

so the F2.8L could be my choice, followed by an upgrade of the 70 200 F4L to the 2.8

Hmm the wedding budget could have covered this:D Not sure she would be happy with no reception and a pork pie for the meal though.:LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top