Gear Talk > Lenses

Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS vs. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II

<< < (2/5) > >>

Rienzphotoz:
Had all the 3 (24-105 f/4 L IS; 24-70 f/2.8 L II & 24-70 f/2.8 VC) ... 240-70 L II got stolen and I now have the other two. At f/2.8 the SHARPEST of the 3 is undoubtedly is 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... but when you get to f/8 or narrower, it will be very difficult to distinguish the difference. People buy fast glass because they want to shoot at its fastest aperture ... that is where 24-70 f/2.8 L II rules ... it is the undisputed King of any 24-70mm zoom lens ... that's why you pay a premium for it.

Marsu42:

--- Quote from: heptagon on February 15, 2013, 02:24:40 AM ---In contrast the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly loses to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm f/2.8:

--- End quote ---

Don't rely on the dtp tests too much at pixel level, they usually only test one lens sample and there's a wider production spread, so if the 70-200L2 or 24-70L2 is sharper @70mm depends on your individual lenses.

Personally, I'll get the Tamron 24-70vc because I don't need to rely on cps, I don't need f2.8 all the time (it's sharper stopped down), the Canon mk2 w/o IS is more than double (!) the price and vc is useful even for shooting people when they're posing for candids. Imho the main applications for the new Canon are photojournalism and such where the objects are moving and fast af is important and for landscape if corner to corner sharpness is required.

bchernicoff:
Heptagon, I sold my 24-105 in favor of the Tamron last month. You don't say which body you will use it on, but I had to AFMA the Tamron on my Mk3 where-as the 24-105 was spot on out of the box.

awinphoto:
For what it's worth, as others said, when shooting in a "flash/strobe" environment, the flash will stop the action and essentially IS is a non factor in the results of the picture.  IS does help framing the subject up in the VF though, which may be a benefit if handholding in a studio.  At 2.8, I believe the Canon's 24-70 II trumps all competitors in this range.  For $2100 it better trump all.  Most portraits, in my experience, from 5.6-8, you may be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the lenses... Now whether you shoot all studio, or if you shoot on location, day to day (whatever your hobbies are), non-flash environments like wedding ceremonies or museums or the like, then IS may or may not help ya...  IS may buy you 3-4 stops in ideal environments, where the 2.8 only has 1 stop advantage of the F4, BUT, IS wont stop action whereas, its really debatable if F4 doesn't stop the action, would 1 stop REALLY stop the action or not? 

So... the 2 factors you have to weigh is the 24-105 and tamron is nearly similar prices whereas the 24-70 is a cool grand more expensive than either of those two lenses...  and if you find 2.8 the holy grail, would you be able to live with tamrons inferior body and build and 2.8 sharpness for a $1000 less overhead. 

As for me, both Sue Bryce and Sandy Puc endorses the 24-105 for portraiture, and give their sales averages, they are doing something right. For my everyday work, it serves me reliably, but you have to make your own choice. 

Jakontil:
obviously the 24-70II wins hands down...

been using 24-105 IS for some time before making a switch... miss the extra range on the latter but well compensated with the quality 24-70II provides

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version