Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm

[JPlendPhoto]

I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.

If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.

So I think you get the idea I would like a general purpose lens which is good in low light, f/2.8 is not bad, and one which is more suited to weddings than my 17-40mm. I have read a lot of reviews comparing the Tamron 24-70 to Canon’s and as I have said, the Canon is better than the Tamron but only just and I am very close to buying the Tamron. My dilemma is I love the look of the Canon 135mm f/2, the price is not that much different to the Tamron 24-70. So both are very good lenses but I am not sure which one is best for me right now. I am leaning towards a 24-70mm as it would sit in nicely between my 17-40 and my 70-200, also the fact it is more versatile than the 135mm.

I would appreciate your views on this, thanks!

 

[mackguyver]

I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.

If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.

So I think you get the idea I would like a general purpose lens which is good in low light, f/2.8 is not bad, and one which is more suited to weddings than my 17-40mm. I have read a lot of reviews comparing the Tamron 24-70 to Canon’s and as I have said, the Canon is better than the Tamron but only just and I am very close to buying the Tamron. My dilemma is I love the look of the Canon 135mm f/2, the price is not that much different to the Tamron 24-70. So both are very good lenses but I am not sure which one is best for me right now. I am leaning towards a 24-70mm as it would sit in nicely between my 17-40 and my 70-200, also the fact it is more versatile than the 135mm.

I would appreciate your views on this, thanks!

Given your needs, the 24-70 would be the best choice. The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception). The 70-200 (2.8 or 4) IS is going to be better for events, too, as subject motion isn't usually a big deal so IS works well. The 24-70 is also much more versatile, as you say. The 135 is best for headshots and candid photos, and while it was my first L (for headshots), it's probably not a great lens to buy until you've got the basics covered.

 

[mrsfotografie]

The Tamron 24-70! It can double as 112 mm f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor too.

 

[Sanaraken]

I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II

 

[JPlendPhoto]

I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II

Thank you mackguyver and mrsfotografie (I'll be using it on my 5D MKII)

Sanaraken, as I said the Canon 24-70 is great, but it's not £1000 better, its a stupid amount of money really when you compare it to the Tamron 24-70. Why do you say save when the Tamron is nearly as good as the Canon?

 

[mrsfotografie]

I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II

Thank you mackguyver and mrsfotografie (I'll be using it on my 5D MKII)

Sanaraken, as I said the Canon 24-70 is great, but it's not £1000 better, its a stupid amount of money really when you compare it to the Tamron 24-70. Why do you say save when the Tamron is nearly as good as the Canon?

One could even argue the Tamron is actually better in certain conditions, because it has IS and the Canon doesn't

 

[bholliman]

I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 II and love it. That said, from everything I read the Tamron does look like a terrific lens and a excellent value. As you pointed out, its probably between the Canon 24-70 Mk1 and Mk2 in quality. You appear to be comfortable with using a third party lens, so I'd say go for it.

I am an amateur with no wedding photography experience, but from what I've read and know about focal lengths I think a 24-70 zoom would be more useful than a 135 overall.

The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception).

Most of my shots with my 135L are head or head and sholder shots at 10-20 feet. I would think a 135 would be handy for weddings, but not as useful overall as a 24-70. The 135L can take some "wow" shots that are just not possible with any 24-70 2.8 however...

 

[JPlendPhoto]

That is true mrsfotografie
What are the chances of Sigma bringing out a 24-70 f/2 in the next few months?

 

[JPlendPhoto]

I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 II and love it. That said, from everything I read the Tamron does look like a terrific lens and a excellent value. As you pointed out, its probably between the Canon 24-70 Mk1 and Mk2 in quality. You appear to be comfortable with using a third party lens, so I'd say go for it.

I am an amateur with no wedding photography experience, but from what I've read and know about focal lengths I think a 24-70 zoom would be more useful than a 135 overall.

The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception).

Most of my shots with my 135L are head or head and sholder shots at 10-20 feet. I would think a 135 would be handy for weddings, but not as useful overall as a 24-70. The 135L can take some "wow" shots that are just not possible with any 24-70 2.8 however...

For the price of the 24-70 II I could get the Tamron 24-70mm AND the Canon 135mm But I think the 24-70mm is the best thing for me at this time, as you say, its more useful.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Good decision. The Tamron 24-70 is a great lens when it comes to IQ and it's backed by a solid warranty. The VC was a welcome addition for the focal range.

I know there are wedding photographers who use primes instead of the zooms, but then they've got the general-shooting focal length covered by a fast 35mm or 50mm. The advantages of the primes are improved low light capability, lower size and weight, and sometimes better image quality. Those photographers however, have a solid understanding of how the focal length limitations and the venue will influence how they need to work during the course of the day.

Anyway, it seems I've gone off on a tangent but I do believe you're making a sensible choice. The 135L is a great lens but is more specialized, you can always consider getting one further down the line when finances allow for it.

 

[mrsfotografie]

That is true mrsfotografie
What are the chances of Sigma bringing out a 24-70 f/2 in the next few months?

Nil, but I'm sure they will come with a 24-70 f/2.8 A. Can't say if it will have OS though...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are earning money from wedding photography, get the Canon 24-70. If you only use the lens occasionally, the Tamron may do fine. There have been a lot of issues about build quality (lack of it) posted. For the price, its pretty good optically, but you want the highest reliability for paying jobs.

 

[JPlendPhoto]

Your right StudentOfLight, that is something one day I hope to understand so not going for all primes right now makes sense.

Mt Spokane Photography, at this stage I am not earning a lot of money from photography, not enough to justify spending an extra £1000 on Canon's 24-70mm.
Would like to know where you are reading about these issues, I have read a lot about this lens and people are saying the opposite, the build quality is good, yes not as good as Canon's but still good enough.

 

[JPlendPhoto]

I found this interesting, not a lot better it seems:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___884_0_886_483

 

[7enderbender]

Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess.

I have and love the 135. It works great for those environmental sneak up portraits during events. It has a great look and it's just my thing. What I always find odd is that people want faster, non-f/4 lenses for low light. Yes, you can do that too but for me it's primarily about control over DOF.
For everything else there are speedlites etc.
Yes, I know there are those moments at a wedding where you can't use it.

For the standard stuff during the reception your f/4 lenses are just fine I would argue. In fact their benefit is that they are lighter. And you probably shoot at 5.6 or 8 anyway.

Fast primes serve a different purpose in my view.

If you'll do more weddings you could also look at the 100L macro. Serves well for portraits, has IS if you like that and of course is a macro lens for ring shots and other details.

 

[JPlendPhoto]

Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess.

I have and love the 135. It works great for those environmental sneak up portraits during events. It has a great look and it's just my thing. What I always find odd is that people want faster, non-f/4 lenses for low light. Yes, you can do that too but for me it's primarily about control over DOF.
For everything else there are speedlites etc.
Yes, I know there are those moments at a wedding where you can't use it.

For the standard stuff during the reception your f/4 lenses are just fine I would argue. In fact their benefit is that they are lighter. And you probably shoot at 5.6 or 8 anyway.

Fast primes serve a different purpose in my view.

If you'll do more weddings you could also look at the 100L macro. Serves well for portraits, has IS if you like that and of course is a macro lens for ring shots and other details.

That’s my problem; I don’t know where I am going with my photography. I am pushing for weddings but my next one is not for a while. I am interested in architecture and landscapes, which is why I will definitely be keeping my 17-40mm, for now anyway.

Having faster lenses for weddings, from my experience, is needed especially in low light. Going all prime is something to consider, but with my experience I don’t think I should be doing that now.

 

[Northstar]

I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.

If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.

So I think you get the idea I would like a general purpose lens which is good in low light, f/2.8 is not bad, and one which is more suited to weddings than my 17-40mm. I have read a lot of reviews comparing the Tamron 24-70 to Canon’s and as I have said, the Canon is better than the Tamron but only just and I am very close to buying the Tamron. My dilemma is I love the look of the Canon 135mm f/2, the price is not that much different to the Tamron 24-70. So both are very good lenses but I am not sure which one is best for me right now. I am leaning towards a 24-70mm as it would sit in nicely between my 17-40 and my 70-200, also the fact it is more versatile than the 135mm.

I would appreciate your views on this, thanks!

It sounds like you're looking for a fast and special lens to fit in between your 17-40 and 70-200... My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.

From what I've read, it's going to be a pretty special lens and probably will sell for less than $1000.

I obviously wouldn't wait a year for it, but it sure sounds like it might be available pretty soon.

Also, regarding the cost of the canon 24-70 vs the tamron 24-70....remember, high quality lenses from a leading brand like Canon are assets, not an expense. If taken care of they will only slightly depreciate over time, they'll work better and last longer, you'll enjoy the experience of using it more, shooting with the best lens gives you more "street cred" with potential clients and other pros, and the resale value will probably be $1000 or more in 10 years if you want to sell it.

 

[Sanaraken]

I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II

Thank you mackguyver and mrsfotografie (I'll be using it on my 5D MKII)

Sanaraken, as I said the Canon 24-70 is great, but it's not £1000 better, its a stupid amount of money really when you compare it to the Tamron 24-70. Why do you say save when the Tamron is nearly as good as the Canon?

I got the Canon 24-70 II for $1600 after rebate and cash back during the holiday. Its $500 better than the Tamron and also maintain its value. It would save you money in the long run. Most who owns the Tamron 24-70 end up getting the Canon version when it was on sale. If you want the Tamron go get it. Its your money. I would rather get the Canon 135 f2 than the Tamron 24-70.

 

[JPlendPhoto]

Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time.
I also have to disagree in part, but yes I guess the Canon would last longer.

Sanaraken, I live in the UK and the cheapest I can see the Canon 24-70 is at £1800, so I don't see how I can get it much cheaper.

 

[surapon]

If you are earning money from wedding photography, get the Canon 24-70. If you only use the lens occasionally, the Tamron may do fine. There have been a lot of issues about build quality (lack of it) posted. For the price, its pretty good optically, but you want the highest reliability for paying jobs.

+ 100 for me too, Mr. Mt Spokane is right on the target, Canon 24-70 mm L F/ 2.8 ( Both I & II) are great for the Wedding, Plus with Another Lens EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L ( MK I or II) on another Camera = Good for the Wedding Job-----YES, I see 80 % of my home town PRO. Wedding Photographers ( Including ME ) have Canon EF 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II in their 3 Rd. Camera too, That will be perfected Job, If you make a great Money in that Wedding Job.
Good Luck.
PS, BTW = Canon EF 100 MM F/ 2.8 L. IS USM is great for shoot the Macro Photos of the Ring, Wedding Cake and the Bride's Shoes, Plus Great for Long range Portrait Bride's Photos too.