24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?

[stochasticmotions]

I used to have the original 24-70L, sold it and pretty much got the Tamron for no cost. Much sharper and image stabilization without having to shell out any more cash. New canon might be sharper than what I have but I think the tamron was good value for the money for me.
I also replaced my canon 100-400L with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (and 2X teleconverter), and likely will replace the canon 50 1.4 with the new sigma (already have the sigma 35 f1.4). I hadn't really look at it but I seem to have been replacing a lot of my canon lenses lately.

Next question would be weather to get the new sigma 24-105 to replace the canon 24-105L?

 

[slclick]

I used to have the original 24-70L, sold it and pretty much got the Tamron for no cost. Much sharper and image stabilization without having to shell out any more cash. New canon might be sharper than what I have but I think the tamron was good value for the money for me.
I also replaced my canon 100-400L with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (and 2X teleconverter), and likely will replace the canon 50 1.4 with the new sigma (already have the sigma 35 f1.4). I hadn't really look at it but I seem to have been replacing a lot of my canon lenses lately.

Next question would be weather to get the new sigma 24-105 to replace the canon 24-105L?

I went the S24-105 route and couldn't be happier

 

[Arctic Photo]

Aren't these two completely different beasts?

 

[JustMeOregon]

When Canon first announced the 24-70mm 2.8L II, just like everyone else I was surprised by the lack of IS which gave me pause... Even though I loved my workhorse 24-105, I knew I was going to get a mid-range zoom eventually, so after a month of staring at the MTF charts I pre-ordered the new Canon. I expected that the Canon lens was going to very good, but not this good... It really was been a game-changer for me. I shoot primarily landscapes and my tripod is usually pretty close by so I really don't miss not having IS. The only downside to the Canon for me has been that its IQ is so good that I'm now less likely to use one of my TS-E lenses...

 

[JumboShrimp]

Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.

 

[Sanaraken]

Never look at the Tamron. I just went straight with Canon. As I never buy any third party lenses. For the price its well worth it. Buy it right the first time and it will save you money in the long run.

 

[candyman]

Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.

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

 

[sagittariansrock]

I bought the 24-70II because I got a really good deal but was still quite circumspect, and thought I might give it a try but will probably settle in favor of the 24-105 (which I had bought around the same time).
Then I had taken the 24-70II to my anniversary dinner in a very dimly lit restaurant which rotates, with city lights all around, and the pictures my wife and the waitress (and myself) took came out so sharp, with amazing IQ and bokeh, that there was no returning that lens after that!
In general, I like to have the best lens I can afford in a certain FL range, and this was the best lens, period.

 

[mwh1964]

Canon 24-70L 2 all the way. Still got the 24-105 sitting there on the shelve looking a bit angry with me though.

 

[Cariboucoach]

Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.

Try here

http://dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

 

[ddl]

Started off with the Tamron - liked the VC but hated the slower focus. And then the VC died.

Took it back and got the Canon which has become one of my favorite 5D3 lens.

 

[Radiating]

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?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request>

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

 

[cliffwang]

That really depends on what kind photos you take. Do you need slightly better corner sharpness and faster AF or do you need the VC/IS feature.
Canon 24-70 MK2 has slightly better corner sharpness and faster AF. Tamron has incredible VC and cheaper price.
If you think better IQ/AF is worth for the extra 1000 dollars, go with Canon. If you need slow shutter speed, go with Tamron. I need a general purpose walk-through lens, so I pick Tamron.

 

[JohnQ]

Having shot with both, I would lean towards the Canon. The f/2.8 24-70 II is my go-to lens for almost everything. I have used it extensively on the 5D III as well as the 7D and it performs beautifully on both. Sharpness is amazing from corner to corner and throughout the entire focal range. Auto focus is FAST in all lighting situations. I have used this lens in all types of weather and subjected it to hot and cold temperature extremes. It holds up.

I even used it for a video project at work that was shown to several hundred people on a large wall-sized projection screen with absolutely no disappointment. The same project required me to go into a humid, sometimes dusty factory environment and again, the lens delivered.

The absence of image stabilization has never been a problem down to 1/25 sec. With this lens mounted to the 5D III you can basically shoot handheld in the dark.

I used the Tamron for only a couple of days. I rented a D800 to see what all the hype is about (very impressed!) and needed some Nikon compatible glass to go with it. The first one I received had a sticky aperture blade, so I sent it back. The second one was very nice and worked just as it should. The build quality was very solid. The image quality was vibrant and razor sharp. No complaints.

By no means would I not buy the Tamron version. My experience simply tells me what to expect from the Canon longer term. They're both great lenses. My other reason for going with the Canon is Canon Service. I have used them on several occasions and have been completely satisfied with the quality of the work they do.

Canon 27-70 photos: http://soyscapes.com/archives/tag/ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm
Tamron 24-70 photos and D800 review: http://soyscapes.com/nikon-d800-review

 

[Arctic Photo]

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?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request>

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

Hi, thanks for your elaborate answer. I don't know enough and can't see well enough to really understand the difference between the three comparing photos. I've lookes and looked and don't get it.

That also goes for the dog photo. To me it looked great. I couldn't pick up on the grey areas that you mentioned.

As you can read out from my reply I am an amateur and do way to little photography compared to what I would lile to do. I am also at best mediocre when it comes to post editing. Maybe I am making a fool of myself not seeing what's bad, would you mind to explain a little further? I am trying to learn here to increase my ability to capture and pick out photos that are great.

 

[privatebydesign]

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?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request>

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

What complete and utter rubbish. The dog photo has no contrast because it has been taken out, the dog has black fur, nose, nostrils, eye lids and pupils, yet not one pixel is close to 0.0.0.

You can get all the contrast in the grass you want if you don't take it out in the first place. Just a quick adjust on the crappy jpeg gets you this.

 

[ihendy]

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?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request>

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

wow - complete opposite from what I saw. Shot them both for about a month. Had to push the Tamron in post to get the same contrast and pop vs with the canon right out of the camera. Tamron was a good lens...Canon was clearly better in my experience. Wish I would have had your success as I wanted to love the Tamron so bad. Really wanted a VC third party lens to crush Canon's over priced offering.

ps onion bokeh on spectral highlights pretty pronounced on tamron. Canon was not as bad. But Bokeh way to subjective to in my opionion to get into it over.

 

[mrsfotografie]

...
Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. ...

I think you may have found an explanation why I don't like the Canon 24-70's. They're boring, and I think I know why - they're probably not intended as creative lenses but instead are reliable news photographer's tools. The lens that gets the shot 'safely' right every time because it is sharp and has a large aperture. I agree that from what I've seen the Tamron gives the best 'creative' photos and for that it would be my 24-70 of choice. But then as you said (and I agree) the 24-105 has a lot of 'pop' too and this, to me is important. I gladly add the extended zoom range at cost of a stop of light.

 

[Vossie]

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?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request>

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

To my eye the bokeh in these 3 pictures looks best in the 24-105, followed by the canon 24-70 and the tamron last. Very strange patterns in the highlights. I cannot compare the tamron 24-70, but I do own both other lenses; all I can say is that the contrast and color in the canon 24-70 are way more attractive compared to the 24-105. The images just have more "pop". I cannot share your conclusion that the 24-70 ii is a bad lens. I believe it is a great lens.

 

[Canon1]

I don't agree with radiating. The 24-70ii is an amazing lens that outperforms its peers in every criteria regarding image quality. The tamron is also an outstanding lens and you will likely be extremely happy with either choice.

I find it difficult to take someone seriously who states that editing images from a specific lens makes him/her want to vomit.

After careful review of both lenses I chose the canon. I felt it was worth the additional cost and loss of is/vr for the better iq. I shoot almost always on a tripod so stabilization does not matter to me.