I have used both lenses. I forgot to mention that manual focus with the Tamron is much harder because of a much shorter throw than the Canon. The Tamron was designed this way so that autofocus motor does not have move as much to achieve focus. The Canon, however, requires more rotation of the focus right to move an glass element the same distance as the Tamron; I believe Canon's longer throw is much more prefered when manual focusing by most pros. Then, I conclude that Canon, again, is the better lens.
However, the Canon is more expensive (where Canon says most of the money goes to R&D) and the Tamron offers a great alternative by making it with some quality and longer focal length. Well, I checked www.photodo.com, and Canon just outright whooped butt. A Canon 3,9 vs. a Tamron 2,4 (where 5 is the best). Nikon's AF-S 28-70 f2.8 scored a 3,7 -- same as Minolta's 28-70 f2.8 (G). But don't take my word for it. Do try both lenses. And then fall in love with the Canon. yen The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain. ~ Aristotle ~ > OK, so you like the lens you own. > The question was have you actually used the Tamron lens and compared? > I have used both although not side by side. Compare any lens tests and > I think you would be surprised. Optically I would take the Tamron. > But it does lack the EOS features that many value and the Tamron is heavier. > Agreed on the filter size but remember its a F2.8 fixed all the way to > 105mm. > > Peter K * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
