Canon 24-105 IS vs Tamron 24-70 VC

Mort

EOS M50
Jun 28, 2013
25
7
www.facebook.com
So I know this isn't a very common comparison, but I am looking at buying the Canon 6d as well as a new lens. The way prices are looking, I can get the 6D w/ the 24-105 and a $500 rebate for $2600 while the 6D w/ the Tamron would cost $2800 with a $100 rebate. From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,477
713
Re: Canon 24-105 IS vs Canon 24-70 VC

You might clarify what you are asking about. The subject says Canon 24-70VC, which doesn't exist.

If you are talking the Tamron 24-70, some like it, some don't. It has some flare issues which may not affect indoor shooters and frustrate outdoor shooters, for example.
 

bholliman

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 6, 2012
1,473
0
USA
www.flickr.com
It really depends on what type of photography you normally do. The 24-105L is a really good, versatile, lens. I have one of these and recently added a Canon 24-70 2.8 II. I don't have any experience with the Tamron, but Dustin Abbot and others have had excellent experience with it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.0

I use my 24-105 as a travel/day trip lens as its nice to have the added zoom reach (70-105mm) and IS. I use the 2.8 lens more when shooting portraits and the kids at play as it can isolate the subject better.
 

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,316
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
Mort said:
From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?
It's worth the money if you bought the 6d for low light shooting, if you are ok with a less reach & the thinner dof @f2.8 and don't intend to add really fast ~f1.4 primes to your lens zoo. Plus the Tamron has a 6y warranty, though of course no cps.

For the sharpness comparison, look here, the new Tamron lens has the edge if you get a good copy: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
 

bchernicoff

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 9, 2011
569
1
I had been using the 5D Mk III with 24-105 for over a year then bought the Tamron. I had them both for a month or so to figure out which I liked better and the Tamron was the winner. I sold the 24-105. The pros to the Canon were smaller/lighter, longer reach, and standard 77mm filters (which I was invested in). The pros to the Tamron were one stop wider aperture and better sharpness. I found that the Tamron was as sharp at f/2.8 as the Canon at f/4. Similarly, it was as sharp at f/4 as the Canon was at f/5.6. I own the amazing Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, so the loss of reach would just mean more lens changes. And to be honest the 70-200 is so much better than the 24-105 and all overlapping focal lengths that I tended to be doing that already.
 

Dylan777

EOS 1D MK II
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
6
Mort said:
From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?
Yes...I would pick the latest Tamron 24-70.

Keep in mind, 1stop more = x2 amount of light entering your lens. Beside f2.8, the Tamron performs better than 24-105 at f4.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,312
82
S Florida
Another vote for the Tamron. I have both lenses.

Pro 24-105: Smaller, lighter, 35mm extended reach and 77mm filter size.
Pro 24-70: Faster, sharper, less distortion and better VC (IS) by 1-2 stops, and the 6 year warranty.

For an everyday walk around lens, the 24-105 is hard to beat for its size, build and reach. That's why I still own it. But if IQ and versatility (2.8 for low light & stopping action) is what you're after, the Tamron wins hands down. It is a heavy lens though. Not a problem for me though, as it is the perfect compliment to my 70-200 2.8ll, which is not exactly a minimalist lens. There's really no bad choice here.
 

swampler

EOS 80D
Oct 29, 2011
148
0
Depends on what you're getting it for. For walk around, all purpose lens, the 24-105. In fact, I can't think of a reason I would take a Tamron over the Canon with the high ISO performance of the 6D, though I can see the argument for 2.8 in low light, fast moving action type shots.
 

Mort

EOS M50
Jun 28, 2013
25
7
www.facebook.com
So a big thing to consider is the price. I can get the 24-105 for $200 less plus a $500 rebate. Is the f/2.8 really worth nearly $700 more than the f/4 of the 24-105? (By the way, I am planning on buying a 35/50/85 f/1.4/1.8 with the money saved. Prob the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 35 1.4)
 
Aug 18, 2013
1
0
I have the 24-105 f4L and its a fine everyday lens. Can't comment on the Tamron, but hear its also great.

That said, you mention buying primes, so personally I would recommend just getting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 which is an awesome lens, have myself already. And make do with that for now, and hold out until the Sigma 24-70 f2 is released, reported to be be in the near future.

Enjoy whatever choice you make!
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,312
82
S Florida
Mort said:
So a big thing to consider is the price. I can get the 24-105 for $200 less plus a $500 rebate. Is the f/2.8 really worth nearly $700 more than the f/4 of the 24-105? (By the way, I am planning on buying a 35/50/85 f/1.4/1.8 with the money saved. Prob the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 35 1.4)
Well it's up to you whether it's worth it. The 2.8 will get you better isolation/bokeh for portraits and creative purposes. It will also be much better if you are going to be doing much indoor/low light shooting with it. It is quite a bit sharper and has much better image stabilization. But it is quite a bit more money. Many of the reasons to pick the Tamron over the Canon will be mitigated by your buying those primes, so it comes down to convenience & cash.

By the way, a HUGE +1 on the Sigma 1.4. It's also big and heavy, but oh so worth it.