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

[privatebydesign]

That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.

A few years ago I worked making content and creating characters for video games. I'm responsible for implementing the first bokeh effects into a best selling video game. I'm personally responsible for creating some of the most iconic images of the last decade, and in doing so I consulted a few people on bokeh which consisted of dozens of optics experts that researched for universities. I'm certainly glad you set the record straight. For years, I've been foolish enough to believe that Ivy League professors were legitimate and knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible. The Canon adds glow to objects that are out of focus. This is a very simple concept to understand.

You can decide if you like this glow or if you do not like this glow personally. However I can tell you that it is an unusual feature. Basically all of the common pro Canon, Nikon or third party lenses do not exhibit this behavior.

Hope that helps.

I admit the word "faster" was too easy to misinterpret, I should have used smoother.

As for your bio, I am unimpressed, as you would be were I to tell you I was the first Westerner to walk the entire length of the Great Wall Of China on my hands and that I also hold four Guinness world records.

But back on topic, anybody with your reputed skills and reputation should be able to understand the lunacy/futility/pointlessness of "proving" lack of contrast in an image that one, they didn't even take, and two, had all the black taken out!

Read the actual words I wrote, I have not said your opinion is without merit, I have said your "proof" is without merit. As I already said, your point could be easily made were you to post an unedited copy of your Bridget's "proof" dog image. Alternatively you can lose even more credibility by throwing out all kinds of subject changing irrelevancies.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Notice how each number retains a similar level of detail, so we're not experiencing more blur

Again these are both at f/2.8 and we are not changing the amount of background blur, if you look at the 10 and 8 they both have the same level of detail,

It's quite obvious that the Canon lens is delivering more OOF blur at an equivalent aperture. In the TDP images you posted (which also demonstrate how badly the Tamron handles OOF specular highlights), the size of the blur discs is noticeably larger in the Canon images compared to the Tamron images. In your own ruler shot 'comparisons' the '60' on the right (Canon) is more OOF than the '40' on the left (Tamron), and likewise on the LensAlign ruler. Once again, your 'evidence' actually argues against your conclusions.

This is one of the weirdest arguments I´ve ever come across. I totally disagree and think you have made a grave mistake in your concept. Why should high contrast in unsharp areas be a quality sign? Quite the contrary. A lens with good bokeh should exactly do what you describe and show in this image: To soften shapes quickly and blend them with uniform brightness distribution. Sure this will lower contrast. This is exactly what helps in focus objects "pop". I see in your image a much quicker transition into softness in the Canon which is good and which for me is one thing Canon generally does well - high MTF in the sharpness plane AND a soft bokeh. The Tamron clearly has worse bokeh, or maybe it has a smaller effective aperture than the Canon with more depth of field.

+1

The Canon 24-70 II has better bokeh, across the board. That means better rendition of the OOF specular highlights (where the Tamron 24-70 is rather a mess) as well as a smooth but rapid transition from crisp focus to significantly defocused, where the defocused areas have low detail and low contrast.

Granted, "good bokeh" is subjective…but the general idea is that good bokeh focuses the viewer's attention on the subject. A viewer's eye/brain are drawn to tonal contrast in the periphery of a photo just like the eye/brain are drawn to movement detected by peripheral vision in a live scene - drawing the eye away from the subject is a distraction. Good bokeh makes distractions in the background less distracting by blurring them more and lowering their contrast.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible.

Specifications lie. If the Canon and Tamron lenses are set to the same focal aperture and focal length, but give blur discs of different diameters for an identical subject, then cleary we're not comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. (Note that while blur disc diameter can be affected by spherical aberration, and made larger by over- or under-correction thereof, the difference in diameters taken together with the difference in OOF blur from the ruler shots, indicate a difference in the actual DoF.) The iris diaphragm diameter of the Canon 24-70 II is larger than that of the Tamron 24-70 for a given set of matched settings - that may be due to differences in rounding of the actual focal lengths and/or rounding of the actual iris diaphragm diameters. The larger physical aperture of the Canon lens means a thinner DoF at equivalent settings, meaning more OOF blur from the Canon lens at a given distance away from the in-focus region.

 

[sagittariansrock]

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...

 

[privatebydesign]

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...

Good point

And I forgot to borrow some of Neuros sarcasm tags, sorry.

 

[sagittariansrock]

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...

Good point

And I forgot to borrow some of Neuros sarcasm tags, sorry.

By the way, I appreciate you (and some others like Neuro, Jrista) trying to drill some reason and sense of balance into these debaters. At the end of the day (thread?) that effort itself might not succeed, but people like me get to know a lot about photography in the bargain.

 

[J.R.]

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...

Good point

And I forgot to borrow some of Neuros sarcasm tags, sorry.

By the way, I appreciate you (and some others like Neuro, Jrista) trying to drill some reason and sense of balance into these debaters. At the end of the day (thread?) that effort itself might not succeed, but people like me get to know a lot about photography in the bargain.

I had consciously stopped posting simple "+1" posts but in this case it is unavoidable ...

+1

 

[Arctic Photo]

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...

Good point

And I forgot to borrow some of Neuros sarcasm tags, sorry.

By the way, I appreciate you (and some others like Neuro, Jrista) trying to drill some reason and sense of balance into these debaters. At the end of the day (thread?) that effort itself might not succeed, but people like me get to know a lot about photography in the bargain.

I had consciously stopped posting simple "+1" posts but in this case it is unavoidable ...

+1

+1

 

[gshocked]

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.

Hi,

I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I had Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... which was stolen shortly after buying it ... so I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (coz I could not afford another $2200 at that tmie so I got the Tamron for less then half the price of Canon II version, as I need that focal length & aperture at that time).

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

Anyway, that was the old story ... the new story is that about an hour ago I sold my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (and the Canon EOS-M, EF-M 22 f/2, EF-S 18-55, EF-M adapter + Sunpack RD 2000 flash) ... now the wallet is heavier with enough money to buy the L II and some 8)

However, I am now rethinking about which lens to get ... the options running in my head are:
OPTION 1
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + EF 300mm f/4 L IS + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS
(This is so I can use the 2 small primes with 5D MK III as well as the Sony a7)

OPTION 2
EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II + Tamron 150-600 VC

OPTION 3
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Tamron 150-600 VC + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS + Sony a6000

OPTION 4
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Panasonic GH4 + Panasonic 100-300 (200-600mm equivalent FOV) f/4.5-5.6 MOIS
(I like the idea of trying different systems and the compact size of such a long FOV with the Panasonic 4/3 system).

Decisions, decisions, decisions :-\ :-\ :-\ ... will know in about 10 days.

 

[AudioGlenn]

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.

+1

 

[AudioGlenn]

That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.

A few years ago I worked making content and creating characters for video games. I'm responsible for implementing the first bokeh effects into a best selling video game. I'm personally responsible for creating some of the most iconic CG images of the last decade, and in doing so I consulted a few people on bokeh which consisted of dozens of optics experts that researched for universities. I'm certainly glad you set the record straight. For years, I've been foolish enough to believe that Ivy League professors were legitimate and knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible. The Canon adds glow to objects that are out of focus. This is a very simple concept to understand and is not debatable.

You can decide if you like this glow or if you do not like this glow personally. However I can tell you that it is an unusual feature. Basically all of the common pro Canon, Nikon or third party lenses do not exhibit this behavior.

Hope that helps.

I believe you'll find that people will be more willing to hear your arguments if you state them from a more neutral point of view. Your initial post, though very thorough, was worded in a way that made you come across crass. It seems it put some readers on the defensive.

I personally disagree with you. From my experience, the Canon produces images that I like... at the very least, the IQ did not make me feel like vomiting!

I appreciate the experience all of the CanonRumors forum members bring to this forum and I do a lot of reading on here. That said, you shouldn't have to boast about your accomplishments or who your sources are to verify that your argument is valid. The argument itself should have its own validity. Again, not a very good move on your part to prove your point.

 

[Northstar]

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.

Hi,

I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?

I liked my 24-105 but I need the f2.8 for my use....and I find the 24-70ii a little sharper. I do miss the 71-105 though..

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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.

Hi,

I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?

I liked my 24-105 but I need the f2.8 for my use....and I find the 24-70ii a little sharper. I do miss the 71-105 though..

Wishful thinking of course, but wouldn't it be awesome if Canon did make a 24-105 f/2.8 L IS? ... with such a lens + 100-400 L II IS & a 16-35 f/2.8 L II, most photographers would be set for pretty much any situation ... what is that old saying about "when pigs fly"! ;D

 

[candyman]

I had Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... which was stolen shortly after buying it ... so I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (coz I could not afford another $2200 at that tmie so I got the Tamron for less then half the price of Canon II version, as I need that focal length & aperture at that time).

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

Anyway, that was the old story ... the new story is that about an hour ago I sold my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (and the Canon EOS-M, EF-M 22 f/2, EF-S 18-55, EF-M adapter + Sunpack RD 2000 flash) ... now the wallet is heavier with enough money to buy the L II and some 8)

However, I am now rethinking about which lens to get ... the options running in my head are:
OPTION 1
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + EF 300mm f/4 L IS + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS
(This is so I can use the 2 small primes with 5D MK III as well as the Sony a7)

OPTION 2
EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II + Tamron 150-600 VC

OPTION 3
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Tamron 150-600 VC + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS + Sony a6000

OPTION 4
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Panasonic GH4 + Panasonic 100-300 (200-600mm equivalent FOV) f/4.5-5.6 MOIS
(I like the idea of trying different systems and the compact size of such a long FOV with the Panasonic 4/3 system).

Decisions, decisions, decisions :-\ :-\ :-\ ... will know in about 10 days.

You suffer from GAS
Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600

 

[drjlo]

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur. I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way. Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality? The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS :-\

 

[Northstar]

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur. I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way. Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality? The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS :-\

What was your shutter speed? You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed. ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.

 

[Canon1]

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur. I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way. Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality? The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS :-\

What was your shutter speed? You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed. ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.

Agreed.

A properly exposed image at ISO 3200 is excellent with the 5DIII. For events like this I would not even hesitate to push to ISO 6400. You coul dhave doubled your shutter speed 3 times.

Also, IS will help to eliminate hand shake, but if you were getting blurry photos from hand shake, your shutter speed was probably so slow that it did not fully freeze subject motion... of course IS would not help you at all in this case.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur. I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way. Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality? The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS :-\

Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move (even though they may look like they aren't) ... for hand held shots, VC/IS is very helpful when the subject is still (not moving) or when you have big huge lenses, as the IS/VC will help stabilize the viewfinder to get the focus right on the bird's eye etc ... without stabilization it gets quite crazy when hand holding non-IS/VC lenses, I still remember trying to focus on a bird's eye with the non-OS Sigma 50-500 lens at at 500 on my Canon 400D camera ... like others have already pointed out that blurry shots are most likely due to insufficient shutter speed.
Cheers.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You suffer from GAS
Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600

Oh yes, absolutely ... I am currently experiencing severe G.A.S ... especially since I've sold some of my gear, my wallet is rich with about US$3000 8) :-[

Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600

Yes, I sold it, ... I am thinking of getting the 150-600 VC, coz I really like how well it autofocuses and its image quality ... but I'm still in 2 minds about its build quality ... so, I am forcing myself to hold on for a few days before I pull the trigger. :-\

 

[candyman]

You suffer from GAS
Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600

Oh yes, absolutely ... I am currently experiencing severe G.A.S ... especially since I've sold some of my gear, my wallet is rich with about US$3000 8) :-[

Well, I wonder if everyone here suffers form G.A.S. :
I am going to buy the Canon 6D tomorrow 8)
The first item on my current list....and sure....the list changes all the time....never empty ;D