Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4

[cliffwang]

Buying from third party companies like Tamron, theres all the time risk that something will be wrong. I have canon 550D and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC for about three years. I'm not happy with 17-50mm f2.8 VC, difficult to get it sharp, its soft at f2.8, sometimes I get errors, time to time a lot of mist focus shots and sometimes I even not sure if it suppose to work like this. You must to get used to them and when you'll be able to make good shots.

I think you should do your homework before you buy your toys.  Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC is soft from most of reviews.  However, the non VC version is very good.  Before I upgraded to FF, I was checking may reviews and even test Canon 17-55mm, Tamron 17-50mm VC, and Tamron 17-50 non-VC.  Canon 17-55mm was the best one and I had good time with the lens for about two years.  After I upgraded to FF, I used Canon 24-70 MK1.  Honestly, Canon 24-70 MK1 is not sharper than Canon 17-55 at all the time.  I believe that's because the IS feature on Canon 17-55mm.  I was so excited when Tamron released the 24-70mm VC.  After three months waiting for reviews, I decided to give the Tamron 24-70mm a try.  Guess what?  I sold my Canon 24-70mm in two weeks after I use the Tamron 24-70mm.  It's sharper than the Canon 24-70 MK1.  Moreover, I am happy with the VC feature.  I have some shutter speed about 1 second and they are still good.  That's almost impossible to happen on my old Canon 24-70mm.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I own both of these lenses, and, for now, am keeping them both.  Under normal conditions I use the Tamron more.  It is a very versatile lens that produces great results.  It also has a beautiful build quality and fantastic warranty.  F/2.8 is a big deal; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  It not only gives you more flexibility in low light, but also opens up more creative options.

That being said, the 24-105L is probably the best travel lens for full frame that Canon makes.  I chose it over the Tamron for a recent trip I returned from yesterday.  I supplemented it for lower light with the 40mm f/2.8 and the 135 f/2L.  I had to do three portrait sessions while traveling, too, and it is a great lens for shooting environmental portraits of larger groups when you don't need too narrow a depth of field (although the 135L was my primary portrait lens for couples/individuals for obvious reasons.  The biggest reason I took the Canon is the point that someone else raised:  filters.  I still don't have a great collection of 82mm filters, and unless I get more lens with this filter size, I probably won't invest in them.  A big factor is my Cokin P square filter system.  I have an adapter for the 82mm, but it vignettes until about 32mm, which limits landscape options.  I can shoot the Canon 24-105L at about 25mm without vignetting.

Both are good choices for different reasons.  Only you can determine which type of shooting you will do more often.  I have extensively reviewed the Tamron on my website and done a review as a wedding photographer as well.  The review link is in the "reviews" section here.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

P.S.  If this helps:  if I absolutely had to choose just one of these lens (and I'm glad I don't), I would choose the Tamron.  As a portraiture tool and general purpose lens it is very valuable.

P.S.S.  If cost was no object, I would probably go for the Canon 24-70 MKII.  I chose the Tamron because while I do professional photography (on the side), I felt the Canon wasn't worth the price difference.  If I was rolling in money, though, I think the Canon is the best glass available in the category.

[gilkeyb]

As an owner of the 5D3/Tamron 24-70 combo, I would tend to speak highly of the performance.  For low light shooting I think you would find the faster lens extremely valuable.  I don't find the VC to be as effective as the IS in my 70-200/2.8 IS II, but it still has value.  Sharpness I find plenty acceptable, though I don't tend to judge my shots down to a 100% level.

As some reviews have mentioned, it is a little shorter than 70mm on the tele end.  I have read around 65mm and that seems about right when comparing it to my 70-200.  There are times where I wish it had just a bit more reach, certainly.

In terms of build quality, I find the 24-70 quite nice.  I have also had the opportunity to [briefly] handle the 24-105 and I prefer the feel of the Tamron.  I don't know about the level of "weather-sealing" to the Tamron lens.  I did notice a rubber seal in the area of the lens mount, which would lead me to believe it has some level of weather sealing. 

Brian

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Tamron 24-70 VC as the 24-105 is good as a lens but mediocre as an L lens. Tamron also gives you the f/2.8 option. It does cost more though.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.

I took a few shots in the store with the Tamron vs my Canon 17-55mm, and it seemed quite a bit softer than the Canon. But then again, my 17-55 is very sharp, and it was the Tamron copy with the messed up AF too.  If I could be convinced that the Tamron 24-70 was the sharper lens and that the messed up copy that I saw in one store was just an anomaly, then I'd probably go for the Tamron. Otherwise I'd go for the Canon 24-105.

I've tried three 24-105 and all were softer than my tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 (or canon 24-70 II for that matter) be it f/4 or f/8, center frame or far edge. All three 24-105 did better than the 28-135 IS though for sure.

[Drizzt321]

I've currently got the 24-105, and while it's a great general purpose, I find it's getting left in the bag more and more often in favor of the 17-40 for some super-wide/wide, or a few primes, or my vintage 55mm f/2.8 Macro. Decent chance that will still be the case, even after I eventually buy the Tamron 24-70.

I'd say for walking around if I didn't know what exactly I'd be shooting, I'd take the 24-105. Otherwise, the Tamron is what I'll be using for anything where I might be in lower lighting conditions. It's definitely a lot heavier (boy is it!), but it gives me f/2.8, and IS, and very good quality. I'll definitely be evaluating the copy I get closely to check that it's a good copy, but I'm thinking in the next 3 months I'll be buying one for sure.

[robbymack]

For me it was the tamron. F2.8 and IS were important. If I find a good quality 24-105 used for maybe 500-600 I'll probably buy it as its a great travel lens and I do like a little more length than 70mm when traveling.  24-104 f2.8 IS pretty please canon?  I'd even be willing to pay the $5k you'd ask for it.

[drmikeinpdx]

As some reviews have mentioned, it is a little shorter than 70mm on the tele end. 

Ah yes, that helps to explain why I missed the long end of my old Tamron 28-75 for portraits. I was wondering why 5mm made such a significant difference.

Fortunately I recently acquired a 135mm f/2.0 L. 

[dilbert]

If you buy the 24-105 then you need to buy the 17-40 if you want to shoot wider than 30mm. The barrel distortion on the 24-105 at the wide end is crazy.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Canon is also noticeably worse in the vignetting department in my testing.  I also own the 17-40L and use it as my primary landscape lens.

I really, really wish the Tamron had stayed at the 77mm filter thread.  I might be selling my 24-105L right now if that was the case.

[Efka76]

I own Tamron 24-70 lens and i am extremely satisfied with them. Actually it is my most used lens i read a lot of reviews about this lens and it is much bette4 tahm canon equivalent (mark I). Canon 24-105 has a didferent focal length and also it gives one F stop less. For me the obvois choice is Tamron