Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS vs. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II

[heptagon]

Hello dear photographers,

who has experience with at least two of the lenses Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS, Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II? I'm particularly interested in how well they perform for specific applications. Which one did you pick after comparing and why?

The Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS have about the same resolution. Do they perform similar in practice or do you prefer one over the other for some reasons. When do you actually use f/2.8?

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly is the sharpest of those lenses but it lacks IS which makes me believe that hand-held it may be impossible to obtain this resolution and the IS lens actually may win.

At 70mm f/8 all lenses look very similar:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=4&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

This makes me believe that they all are "good enough" for Studio settings when shallow DoF isn't required.


In contrast the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly loses to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm f/2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

So for shallow DoF portraits it wouldn't even be a second choice (135 prime would be the first) but still costs double of the other lenses. If you got the 24-60 L II, what was the reason to justify the extra cost?

Thanks for sharing your experience,
Heptagon

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In a studio environment, the flashes will negate any IS value. Most flashes / stobes / monoblocks fire between 1/1000th to 1/200th sec. So the amount of light is very bright and very brief. It will literally freeze any action, regardless of hand held or not or a slow shutter speed. The high levels of contrast will also cause the percieved sharpness to increase too...so the difference in sharpness between these lenses is very minimal in this context. Usually in the studio you will be shooting at f8-11 so wide open sharpness is not a requirement. All these lenses perform more than adequate in this aperture range, so its choice ot taste, legevity and brand.

 

[spinworkxroy]

I own both the 24-105 and 24-70II
I bought the 24-70II even though i own the 24-105 for 1 reason, sharpness at f2.8. That's also a big reason why many other buy this lens isn't it?
Depending on what you shoot, for me, it's 90% portraits, 10% events and for both, i don't need IS.
What i need is a sharp lens.
If possible, most times i'll use my primes but there are situations where a good zoom is essential and this is where the 24-70II really shines..it's almost as sharp as my primes for portraitures..

 

[Dylan777]

I own both the 24-105 and 24-70II
I bought the 24-70II even though i own the 24-105 for 1 reason, sharpness at f2.8. That's also a big reason why many other buy this lens isn't it?
Depending on what you shoot, for me, it's 90% portraits, 10% events and for both, i don't need IS.
What i need is a sharp lens.
If possible, most times i'll use my primes but there are situations where a good zoom is essential and this is where the 24-70II really shines..it's almost as sharp as my primes for portraitures..

+1

 

[RLPhoto]

I invested in fast primes then bought the 24-105. If I need faster than f/4, I use the fastest I can get. Sub- f/2.

But I generally always use my 24-105L at f/5.6 or smaller where the IQ difference is minimal. It does have a bit of distortion though.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Had all the 3 (24-105 f/4 L IS; 24-70 f/2.8 L II & 24-70 f/2.8 VC) ... 240-70 L II got stolen and I now have the other two. At f/2.8 the SHARPEST of the 3 is undoubtedly is 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... but when you get to f/8 or narrower, it will be very difficult to distinguish the difference. People buy fast glass because they want to shoot at its fastest aperture ... that is where 24-70 f/2.8 L II rules ... it is the undisputed King of any 24-70mm zoom lens ... that's why you pay a premium for it.

 

[Marsu42]

In contrast the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II clearly loses to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm f/2.8:

Don't rely on the dtp tests too much at pixel level, they usually only test one lens sample and there's a wider production spread, so if the 70-200L2 or 24-70L2 is sharper @70mm depends on your individual lenses.

Personally, I'll get the Tamron 24-70vc because I don't need to rely on cps, I don't need f2.8 all the time (it's sharper stopped down), the Canon mk2 w/o IS is more than double (!) the price and vc is useful even for shooting people when they're posing for candids. Imho the main applications for the new Canon are photojournalism and such where the objects are moving and fast af is important and for landscape if corner to corner sharpness is required.

 

[bchernicoff]

Heptagon, I sold my 24-105 in favor of the Tamron last month. You don't say which body you will use it on, but I had to AFMA the Tamron on my Mk3 where-as the 24-105 was spot on out of the box.

 

[awinphoto]

For what it's worth, as others said, when shooting in a "flash/strobe" environment, the flash will stop the action and essentially IS is a non factor in the results of the picture. IS does help framing the subject up in the VF though, which may be a benefit if handholding in a studio. At 2.8, I believe the Canon's 24-70 II trumps all competitors in this range. For $2100 it better trump all. Most portraits, in my experience, from 5.6-8, you may be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the lenses... Now whether you shoot all studio, or if you shoot on location, day to day (whatever your hobbies are), non-flash environments like wedding ceremonies or museums or the like, then IS may or may not help ya... IS may buy you 3-4 stops in ideal environments, where the 2.8 only has 1 stop advantage of the F4, BUT, IS wont stop action whereas, its really debatable if F4 doesn't stop the action, would 1 stop REALLY stop the action or not?

So... the 2 factors you have to weigh is the 24-105 and tamron is nearly similar prices whereas the 24-70 is a cool grand more expensive than either of those two lenses... and if you find 2.8 the holy grail, would you be able to live with tamrons inferior body and build and 2.8 sharpness for a $1000 less overhead.

As for me, both Sue Bryce and Sandy Puc endorses the 24-105 for portraiture, and give their sales averages, they are doing something right. For my everyday work, it serves me reliably, but you have to make your own choice.

 

[Jakontil]

obviously the 24-70II wins hands down...

been using 24-105 IS for some time before making a switch... miss the extra range on the latter but well compensated with the quality 24-70II provides

 

[ablearcher]

As already noted - for studio shooting the 2.8 vs 4.0 does not really matter. 24-105 is a workhorse for my studio work where extra 70-105mm FL does make a difference. In fact, for me this extra FL is so big, that I never even considered a 24-70 FL for studio use. If I need an even tighter shot then i go for 135 prime.

For outdoor use where there is a lot of use for faster lens its a different story. However, i still would not mind to have 2.8 AND that extra 70-105mm FL.

 

[robbymack]

I use both the 24-105 and Tammy 24-70. I've rented the canon 24-70ii. The canon 24-70ii is the sharpest without a doubt followed closely by the tamron and then the 24-105 but at f 5.6 or smaller your going to be hard pressed to find much difference unless you are printing very big. For studio work I'd take the 24-105 as you can get into the more standard portrait lengths (85 and up) without changing lenses. I'd also take the 24-105 as a standard travel lens although the tamron would be a very close second. I'd take the reach over the extra stop for travel and just throw a 50 prime in the bag for low light. For everything else it was a tough choice. The canon 24-70 is clearly the best from a iq standpoint, but IS is an important feature to me, it means I can shoot handheld at 70mm at 1/15 sec all day and not worry too much. Yes it won't stop much action but I'd rather have IS and not need it, than not have it and need it. The cost of the canon was also a concern. For that money it better be twice as good as the tamron, honestly it's not. You're paying extra for maybe a 5% improvement in iq, and even then only wide open, as you stop down the canon's advantage becomes less apparent. But if you pixel peep at 100% all day and enjoy shooting flat brick walls its the clear choice. In the end the IS and price of the tamrom won out plus the 6 year warrantee.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I sold my 24-105L for the Tamron 24-70 VC. I found I wasn't really using the 24-105L anymore. The Tamron does give up some in range, but is better in every other way. The 24-70II is still better optically, but comes at a huge premium and loses the VC/IS. If cost were no object, I would probably own the 24-70II; since I try to find the best compromise between image quality and value, I chose the Tamron. BTW, I have been more than pleased with my Tamron. For event work it is great.

One final consideration - the Tamron's AF is slightly slower than both of these other options. If you are shooting in environments where you need AF to be instant, then the Tamron isn't your choice. I did a walkabout today packing the Tamron and the 70-300L - the 70-300L was noticeably faster, although, to be fair, it isn't pushing nearly as much glass around.

 

[Sporgon]

I had a recent experience with my 24-105 which might be of interest.

Took it out on a shoot, didn't have enough room for it in the case, put it in it's little bag that it came with ( first time in 7 years ) and put on the back seat of Land Rover with other stuff. Didn't use it.

Got back, opened rear door of Land Rover to retrieve gear and out fell the lens, bounced on the sill, cannoned into the open door before hitting the tarmac drive, a drop of about two feet.

It's absolutely fine. I've checked it for de centring etc - all is well. It's only the second time a lens of mine has hit the deck, but when it does happen it's good to know the build can stand it.

 

[ChilledXpress]

I bought 2 Tamrons a few years ago...

Never again... for me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times I totally deserve it!!!

 

[heptagon]

Thank you all for the many helpful replies.

I'm going to upgrade from a 550D to a 5DIII (6D probably wouldn't do it) and need a standard zoom. I already own the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II therefore the extra range of the 105 is not all that much important. Having a canon lens on a canon body would be worth some premium however if the Tamron seems to work well it should be OK, too. Robust build quality isn't a No. 1 concern as I don't shoot professionally. The Tamron seems to be OK for me in this regard. As I need more of a walk-around-lens than a studio lens I think that the image stabilization is important for me and f/2.8 is nice to have for lower light. For studio work with flash all three seem to be ok except for portraits where the canon 24-70 f/2.8 II shines wide open. I think I can pass on that one. (For now.)

Sample variations seem to be a big concern but that is also true for the canon lenses especially early in the production. I've read some stories where somebody tested one, then another one, then about 5 Tamron lenses in order to find one which worked as expected over the whole zoom range. But then he was satisfied. Also Canon L lenses sometimes don't work as expected and have to be sent back. I will need to consider that and buy at a store where I know that returns work well.

It's still a close call but all in all I'm leaning towards the Tamron 24-70 or a really cheap, good, used Canon 24-105 if I find an opportunity. The Canon 24-70 L II is good but I think that I couldn't put it to use enough to justify the extra money for it also the missing IS would be a disadvantage in many situations since I usually don't carry a tripod.

 

[skitron]

Thank you all for the many helpful replies.

I'm going to upgrade from a 550D to a 5DIII (6D probably wouldn't do it) and need a standard zoom.

If you are about to buy a 5D3 body, why not do the kit and get the 24-105 for a measly $500 extra and see if you like it? You can eBay it all day long for $750 if you decide it isn't for you.

I bought a 5D3 body only and passed on the kit and was kicking myself in the head for passing. Fortunately I got a re-do when a family member wanted a new 5D3 body and already had a 24-105. So we "collaborated" on a kit and I got the 24-105 for the kit price. And I gotta say, it's a cool little zoom. Not going to replace primes, but funny how little compulsion I have to upgrade to a $2K zoom with less reach and no IS once this one is in hand for not much $.

Food for thought.

 

[awinphoto]

Thank you all for the many helpful replies.

I'm going to upgrade from a 550D to a 5DIII (6D probably wouldn't do it) and need a standard zoom.

If you are about to buy a 5D3 body, why not do the kit and get the 24-105 for a measly $500 extra and see if you like it? You can eBay it all day long for $750 if you decide it isn't for you.

I bought a 5D3 body only and passed on the kit and was kicking myself in the head for passing. Fortunately I got a re-do when a family member wanted a new 5D3 body and already had a 24-105. So we "collaborated" on a kit and I got the 24-105 for the kit price. And I gotta say, it's a cool little zoom. Not going to replace primes, but funny how little compulsion I have to upgrade to a $2K zoom with less reach and no IS once this one is in hand for not much $.

Food for thought.

I second that suggestion... worst case you sell it on craigslist/ebay for more than you paid in the difference for the kit.

 

[heptagon]

I think it depends on the location where one buys the camera. Locally (Germany) the 5D III is 2750 and the kit is 3550 and the 24-105 alone is 800, so no savings here right now. At ebay usually 600-750 are paid for that lens used.

 

[Drizzt321]

I've rented the Tamron 24-70 twice now, and my feeling is it's AF might be a bit slower and more deliberate in it's motion than the 24-105, but the IQ is very good, quite high, and the VC is pretty good. Not sure how it compares to Canon's latest 4-stop hybrid, but it's quite good. I do regret that extra 35mm a bit. Last night I was shooting at WitzEnd, a small music venue, and I was off to the side and the 24-70 didn't quite get me quite close enough, but my 135L was a bit long from the location I was sitting at.

Overall, if Canon were to somehow make a 24-105 or 35-105 f/2.8 IS, and it was at least as good of quality as the Tamron or closer to the 24-70 v2, I'd jump all over it for $1800-$2100 or so. Sure, I can crop in some on the 5d3 at the 24-70, but you lose some resolution on your subject. Shooting for small print or web you can still do that fine, but getting that extra reach out to 85-100mm can be very nice.

However, with the Tamron I can save enough to get me 1/4 of the way or so to the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS v2, so I think I'll be buying it in the next few months. I'll keep the 24-105 around if I'm walking around the beach or hiking, and use the Tamron the rest of the time. The 24-105 is also quite a bit lighter