I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
- Thread starter JumboShrimp
- Start date
JumboShrimp said:
Did you check out the review thread about the Tamron that was done by Dustin?
I bought the Tamron after I used / compared it with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II. The last one was a tad better in the corners and a tad faster AF but not significant for me to justify an additional 1000 euro. If money is no option and you need the best of best, then you may go for the Canon. I am very satisfied with the Tamron (which is also better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8). And, I like the stabilization while using it in low light situations
Upvote
0
In the end, neither.
I owned the Canon 24-70/2.8L but I must say its focal length range bored me, then I bought the 24-105 F/4L for travel and fell in love with it. It was sharper than my 24-70 and the colors seemed better too. Add to that the extended range which really makes it a versatile zoom. Sure it has some distortion at the wide end but that is easily fixed in post for the critical shots. The 24-105L is now my general zoom outside of travel too. And as for the 24-70, I sold that in favor of a Sigma 35 F/1.4A which gives me much better image quality, two stops more for low light work and a lot more creative leverage. So I prefer the combination of a fast prime and a zoom with a smaller apeture, but wider range. Somehow this fits my shooting style best!
I owned the Canon 24-70/2.8L but I must say its focal length range bored me, then I bought the 24-105 F/4L for travel and fell in love with it. It was sharper than my 24-70 and the colors seemed better too. Add to that the extended range which really makes it a versatile zoom. Sure it has some distortion at the wide end but that is easily fixed in post for the critical shots. The 24-105L is now my general zoom outside of travel too. And as for the 24-70, I sold that in favor of a Sigma 35 F/1.4A which gives me much better image quality, two stops more for low light work and a lot more creative leverage. So I prefer the combination of a fast prime and a zoom with a smaller apeture, but wider range. Somehow this fits my shooting style best!
Upvote
0
Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.
I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long term...buy better quality/brand.. (It took me a good decade or so to learn this).
A year or two from now you won't even know where the $ is that you saved by going the cheaper route, and you'll wish you had just bought the canon to begin with.
I agree with mrsfoto...the 24-105 is a great lens if you don't need the extra stop of light...but it's IQ is less compared to the 24-70 2.8ii.
I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long term...buy better quality/brand.. (It took me a good decade or so to learn this).
A year or two from now you won't even know where the $ is that you saved by going the cheaper route, and you'll wish you had just bought the canon to begin with.
I agree with mrsfoto...the 24-105 is a great lens if you don't need the extra stop of light...but it's IQ is less compared to the 24-70 2.8ii.
Upvote
0
After using both I bought the Tamron.
If you do video then the IS makes it a more versatile lens. The Canon mk ii is sharper though. They're both noticably sharper and have less distortion than the 24-105 as well as being faster.
Does the sharpness of the mk ii justify the extra cost? Maybe, if you don't do video and like the focal range for stills. Personally I prefer the feel of a wider or longer lens for stills most of the time (16-35 and 70-200 just seem to give me more interesting images) but I find that 24-70 is my go to lens for non-fiction video so the Tamron ended up being a fairly obvious choice.
If you do video then the IS makes it a more versatile lens. The Canon mk ii is sharper though. They're both noticably sharper and have less distortion than the 24-105 as well as being faster.
Does the sharpness of the mk ii justify the extra cost? Maybe, if you don't do video and like the focal range for stills. Personally I prefer the feel of a wider or longer lens for stills most of the time (16-35 and 70-200 just seem to give me more interesting images) but I find that 24-70 is my go to lens for non-fiction video so the Tamron ended up being a fairly obvious choice.
Upvote
0
I read several reviews and compared both lenses on http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I chose the Tamron and have no regrets alt all. The IS easily outweighs the slightly lesser sharpness for me, certainly when taking into account the huge price difference. The build quality is impressive, AF works fine for me (I do not shoot action), also in low light. The sharpness is impressive: at f/5.6, the Tamron rivals my (non-L) primes.
You do not get red ring bragging rights, but I for one couldn't care less.
I chose the Tamron and have no regrets alt all. The IS easily outweighs the slightly lesser sharpness for me, certainly when taking into account the huge price difference. The build quality is impressive, AF works fine for me (I do not shoot action), also in low light. The sharpness is impressive: at f/5.6, the Tamron rivals my (non-L) primes.
You do not get red ring bragging rights, but I for one couldn't care less.
Upvote
0
I have owned the 24-70 2.8 Mk1, Canon 24-105 f/4 and the Tamron 24-70 VC. I would have loved the Mk2 but was changing lenses out when it first appeared and there were no price breaks like there are today. The Mk2 is a no brainer today at the price point it's being offered or at refurb prices. The Tammy just isn't sharp enough for larger prints and hunts in AF Servo too much for my liking. I ended up with a Sigma 24-105 which imho much better than the Canon offering in sharpness, corner and center and also in CA control and distortion. I have a feeling I'll pickup a Canon 24-70 someday tp truly compliment my 70-200 2.8 ISii but for now my money is better saved towards new 400 variants being professed in the rumor mills.
Upvote
0
Canon - better IQ, faster AF, IS/VC not useful for the majority of what I shoot in that focal range.
Upvote
0
Canon. AF is fast enough for sports (indoor basketball). Most of my pics have people in them, so IS is of little value. I do wish that these were designed to go to 85 rather than 70, which i find just a little too short.
Upvote
0
I had the 24-105 an sold it or the Tamron 24-70 after using both lenses for a while. I´m totally happy with the VC, which was very useful in alot of situations. I thought abot the 24-70 II, but I don`t want to miss VC. I have no problems with the AF. I found, the Tamron works very well with the 5D Mark III, even better than with the Mark II. But it`s also very good with the Mark II. I did some weddings with this combo and was very happy with the results. For even more sharpness I use the 35 1,4 and the 85 1,8 
Upvote
0
got the tamron because VC was a huge bonus for video. no brainer really. sharpness for stills was excellent as well.
only complaint is that both zoom and focus rings turn in the opposite direction.
only complaint is that both zoom and focus rings turn in the opposite direction.
Upvote
0
Tested the Tamron 3 weeks ago and the Canon one week ago. Tamron images were nothing special, ok sharp, but with pretty bad corners - mediocre sample??? Canon images were so incredibly sharp with great colour I knew there is no turning back and going for less. Combined with the 100IS Macro I can cover 95% of my needs without worries. In fact, with the Canon 24-70II for the first time I had quite a bit of moiré in the 6D images. I didn´t even know the 6D could be so sharp... Plus, after having used a Olympus 14-35/2 for years, I always wanted a standard zoom in the same league. Compared to this legendary lens, the Canon seems to be very very reasonably priced at the moment.
In Europe the Tamron is 800.-, the Canon is 1650.- (after 250.- cashback). I´m sure I´d have burnt around 250.- the moment I bought the Tamron - with the Canon there´d be very little loss in reselling, especially as the cashback has ended.
A friend of mine once said - about buying his bread and butter broadcast lens - there is the one bad moment when I pay, but there is a smile on my face every day after that.
In Europe the Tamron is 800.-, the Canon is 1650.- (after 250.- cashback). I´m sure I´d have burnt around 250.- the moment I bought the Tamron - with the Canon there´d be very little loss in reselling, especially as the cashback has ended.
A friend of mine once said - about buying his bread and butter broadcast lens - there is the one bad moment when I pay, but there is a smile on my face every day after that.
Upvote
0
Canon after trying a couple Tamron copies.
I wanted to love the Tamron. I read Dustin's review and decided to give it a try. The sharpness was great in the centre. AF was decent and VC was a definate bonus for video. First copy had focus issues on my 5d mmii. Swapped for a second copy. Three weeks in the VC started acting up. Started to jump when it locked in. It was very noticeable in the view finder and then the image lost some sharpness compared to when I shot with the VC off. Returned it for the Canon. It turned out to be a setting on my camera which I found out by resetting the camera to factory default settings. Once I changed the settings the lens worked perfectly, which means the first copy was probably fine too. Both samples had very little sample variation in sharpness unlike the Tamron. The lens has worked flawless for me every since. Image quality is prime quality and AF very fast.
I really miss the VC. I found I used it more than I thought I would, even in still shooting (mainly at night or indoors for static subjects). I also missed the extra thousand dollars the Tamron saved me, but I prefer the L lens over all. As I own mainly L lenses I prefer having a constant look. I prefer the cooler look from my L lenses to the warmer yellow cast from the Tamron. When I look back on my pictures a shot with both lenses, I find I prefer the L pics more. It's hard to explain, but that have a bit more pop.
I wanted to love the Tamron. I read Dustin's review and decided to give it a try. The sharpness was great in the centre. AF was decent and VC was a definate bonus for video. First copy had focus issues on my 5d mmii. Swapped for a second copy. Three weeks in the VC started acting up. Started to jump when it locked in. It was very noticeable in the view finder and then the image lost some sharpness compared to when I shot with the VC off. Returned it for the Canon. It turned out to be a setting on my camera which I found out by resetting the camera to factory default settings. Once I changed the settings the lens worked perfectly, which means the first copy was probably fine too. Both samples had very little sample variation in sharpness unlike the Tamron. The lens has worked flawless for me every since. Image quality is prime quality and AF very fast.
I really miss the VC. I found I used it more than I thought I would, even in still shooting (mainly at night or indoors for static subjects). I also missed the extra thousand dollars the Tamron saved me, but I prefer the L lens over all. As I own mainly L lenses I prefer having a constant look. I prefer the cooler look from my L lenses to the warmer yellow cast from the Tamron. When I look back on my pictures a shot with both lenses, I find I prefer the L pics more. It's hard to explain, but that have a bit more pop.
Upvote
0
I chose the Canon; hardly considered the Tamron after comparing on-line reviews (before that the 24-105 used to be my walkaround lens). No regrets; sharpness is so mch better that the 24-105.
Upvote
0
Vossie said:
Time and time I read this about the 24-105 being a lille softer, I think my 24-105 must be an exceptionally good copy. Its sharpness even compares favorably to my 100 mm macro. Not quite as good, but very sharp nonetheless. Last week I used it for some landscape shots in the snow and again I am very pleased.
Upvote
0
I went with the Tamron merely because I didn't have $2k+ to spend on a camera lens. I wasn't doing any paid work when I bought it so for me, it was a question of best value.
Having said that, just about every dollar I've made taking pictures has involved that lens, and given I do some video work and don't have my own stabilization rig, the VC is a major asset.
Having said that, just about every dollar I've made taking pictures has involved that lens, and given I do some video work and don't have my own stabilization rig, the VC is a major asset.
Upvote
0
I chose the Tamron after testing one in the shop and going away for a few weeks for a think. That $1000 extra for the canon wasn't happening. My tamron did however show a VC issue, otherwise the lens is damn sharp. Tamron fixed it up and I've had a good sharp reliable copy since. So I can vouch for Tamron service too. I'm happy with it, I can't compare to the canon mkii as I never tested it (points to the cost I personally think is nuts for such a lens). I use Zeiss otherwise, this lens filled the gap with an autofocus lens and I'm NOT disappointed with my choice one bit.
I do like the rendering, I find it beautiful especially for portrait oriented work. Soft almost muted colour, yes maybe lower contrast than the L's I've used but I like it anyway. Each to their own.
I do like the rendering, I find it beautiful especially for portrait oriented work. Soft almost muted colour, yes maybe lower contrast than the L's I've used but I like it anyway. Each to their own.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)