Upgrade lens - Tamron 18-270 to Canon 24-105

[pasoviennese]

Thinking about upgrading from my Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 to a Canon 24-105 f4

Any one had both lens and a comparasion?

I know I'll be losing half my zoom range, but looking back at my photos, 80% of them are within the 24-105 range.

I do indoor sport photography, the most commonly used range is 35-100mm.
With my Tamron, at 35mm i get f4, but at 100mm I get f5.6
Compare that with Canon, i get f4 through out, so that's 1 whole fstop the difference.

Double light will help me a great deal. I know ideally a f2.8 lens would be great, but I can't afford it, and it'll be too big to carry around in a room with thoudsands of people.

That's the only thing I can think of at the moment. Anything else you would like to contribute to?

I can sell my Tamron and get a grey Canon lens online for about $300 difference. Worth it?

[inkista]

I've never used a superzoom, but I own the 24-105L, and my gut feel is that it simply isn't a good indoor sports lens. f/4, even with IS, simply isn't fast enough to get shutter speeds that will freeze fast action in available light, unless you're using a flash. And while a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM is probably the lens you really want, there are a few other lower-cost options.

The 24-105 is more typically used as a travel/walkaround lens outside.

What I'd actually recommend looking into is the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. You'll lose framing versatility, but light-wise, you're going to have a lot more aperture to work with. Compared to f/5.6, you've got three and one third stops more, which is roughly 10x the iso or one tenth of the shutter speed you're gaining for yourself. On the dpreview Canon SLR lens board, the 85/1.8 has been nicknamed "Mr. Basketball." It's sharp, it's fast, and it's speedy on the AF. It's small and discreet, and it's a little less than $400. If you think you want a little more reach, there's also its identical cousin, the EF 100mm f/2 USM. If you want a little less, there's the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.

[RichardTaylor]

I have used the Tamron 18-250 (on a 40D) and the Canon 24-105 on a 5D.

The Canon lens runs rings around the Tamron (within it's focal length range).

I agree with inkista re indoor sports shooting in low light, unless you are willing to shoot at high ISO and use noise reduction at when PPing, However I notice from a previous post that it may meet your needs better than your current lens.

[pasoviennese]

At the moment, my typical shooting parameter for indoor sport (dancesport, with good amount of spot light directed onto the dance floor) is as following:


Camera: Canon 30D
Focal length: 100mm (or there abouts)
f-stop: f5.6 (wide open at 100mm)
Shutter: 1/100 sec
ISO: 800

This gives me approximately +2/3 ev in manual mode.

So if my understanding is correct, going from f5.6 to f4 is a whole stop faster. So I can shoot at iso 400 instead.

I do have a f1.8 50mm but the DOF is not enough to get both dancer in focus when they are in dancing hold.

What I'm more interested is image quality, sharpness, contrast etc

Thanks!

[RichardTaylor]

I find the IQ of the 24-105 to be good. It more than meets my needs for web publishing and prints up to 10x8 (~A4)

Mostly lack of IQ is a result of my shooting skills and/or lighting.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by pasoviennese

At the moment, my typical shooting parameter for indoor sport (dancesport, with good amount of spot light directed onto the dance floor) is as following:

Camera: Canon 30D
Focal length: 100mm (or there abouts)
f-stop: f5.6 (wide open at 100mm)
Shutter: 1/100 sec
ISO: 800

This gives me approximately +2/3 ev in manual mode.

So if my understanding is correct, going from f5.6 to f4 is a whole stop faster. So I can shoot at iso 400 instead.

Yes. But if you have f/2.8, then you can also go to iso 400 and 1/200s. The more max. aperture you have, the more flexibility you have, and the more choice you have on how much subject motion blur you want to include. The general wisdom is that f/2.8 is your borderline for "available light". If you're smaller than that, then you're far more reliant on any existing lighting. I have shot available light with the 24-105L and been forced down to 1/60s by the f/4, with my iso maxed out to 1600.

If you know it'll work for your lighting conditions, then go for it, I'm just saying, in my experience, there was still a reason to go for a 135 f/2L, and it was the f/4 on the 24-105L.

I do have a f1.8 50mm but the DOF is not enough to get both dancer in focus when they are in dancing hold.

You could stop it down for more DoF, you don't have to use it wide open. BTW, the 50/1.8 II is a different type of lens from the gold-ringed USM lenses. Its focus capability in low light isn't as nice as the USMs. And it's at its sharpest at f/4. Most lenses are at their sharpest a stop down from wide open. This is also the why you want the extra "elbow room" of a big max. aperture.

What I'm more interested is image quality, sharpness, contrast etc...

The L glass will certainly give you that in spades, particularly the contrast. But the USMs, and particularly the ones that are >50mm are no slouches when it comes to sharpess and overall IQ, and the difference between L and non-L glass may be smaller than you think.