File :-(, x, )
24-70? Anonymous
Looking for a good Canon 24-70 alternative for the 5D. Is there any worth looking for? I've already got the Sigma, but it's a load of crap since it broke down by itself.

Pic not related.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:09 23:38:16Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height333
>> Anonymous
If you can find the old 28-70 version of it for less than $700 go for it. It's basically the same lens only slightly less wide but sometimes better image quality than the new one.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
and I want it to make ice cream! and do my laundry!

There's the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I don't know much about it or how you feel about Tamron in general.
>> Anonymous
50mm 1.4 + 85mm 1.8 + 17-40mm f4L

Roughly same price.
>> Anonymous
Tamron F/2.8 28-105mm
>> Anonymous
>>236149
While it's not what the OP specified, this would be a good setup for most people.

Contraindicated, though, if he usually shoots wide and needs speed, for obvious reasons.
>> Anonymous
>>236133

the thumbnail makes it look like the nikon 24-70

then i was like, red ring? hmm, the canon 28-70 ain't like that

then i lold at photoshopped black lens
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>236154
I think it's the old 70-300 5.6L
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>236189
nm, clearly ssays 70-200
>> Anonymous
the old 80-200 was black

but i don't think there is a black 70-200
>> Anonymous
I had a Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8, it was a great lens. The build quality was comparable to L lenses, although it lacked USM. Optical quality was very good, though not quite as good as the 24-70 f/2.8L. I'd still rate it as a top lens and it kicks ass all over the Sigma and Tamron lenses in the same price bracket.
>> Anonymous
zeiss 24-70 > nikkor 24-70 > canon 24-70 > tamron 28-75 > canon 17-55 > nikkor 17-55 > tokina 28-80 > sigma 24-70
>> Anonymous
>>236286
zeiss > nikkor > canon > tamron > canon > nikkor > tokina > sigma
>> Anonymous
>>236291
The build quality on the Tamron is sub-terrible, I wouldn't even include it in the lineup. It sucks that the 3rd party lens with the best optical performance has the worse build by far.
>> Anonymous
>>236296

Try taking pictures with your camera rather than hammering in nails and it will be less of an issue.
>> Anonymous
>>236309
I'd like to be able to take more than 12 pictures with my lens and I have no desire to baby it, so I'd like it to be made well.
>> Anonymous
>>236315

Don't be such a moron. You're exaggerating to the point of outright lies.
>> Anonymous
>>236296
>>236315

This must be the same fag in the Tamron thread going:

>>235227TAMRON: For Morons Only

OH NOES, THE PLASTIC FEELS CHEAP
>> Anonymous
>>236320
Actually I'm not, but I'll be sure to stop by that thread too. Build quality is as important as image quality in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a perfectly machined titanium-bodied lens that couldn't render a decent image, nor would I buy an optically perfect lens that was made of toothpicks and bailing wire. Tamron's build quality is vastly inferior to Tokina ATX and Sigma EX, which are both inferior to Nikon and Canon's high end lenses. Tamron's build quality is comparable with the cheap kit lenses that come with entry level DSLRs. If you find that acceptable, fine. I don't.

I like gear to last and to be ergonomically pleasing in addition to having acceptable image quality.