Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard... If you disagree, state your objections below.

 

[Eldar]

I have the Canon 24-70 f2.8L II and I have not used the Tamron myself. But my wife needed a new walk around lens this summer, so we evaluated the Tamron and the new Canon 24-70 f4L IS.

As always I tend to trust Bryan at The-digital-picture.com. His reviews has consistently been in line with my own conclusions, when I have tried the products over time myself.

For the Tamron review, se below:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

I decided to go for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II, primarily because of its very fast and very accurate AF. I have had the lens since it was released and I have no bad images I believe I can blame the lens for. From what I have seen of examples, it also has the edge on bokeh.

I decided not to go for the Tamron for the reported inconsistencies in AF. This is pointed out by Bryan in the review above and it was confirmed to me by a friend who´s been using it for some time. He returned 2 lenses before he got a good one (he is very happy with Tamron customer service by the way), but he still gets the occasional (and very irritating) out of focus image, where he feels that it should have been good. Tamron´s EF compatibility is, as far as I know, based on reverse engineering and not licensing. That is a concern for me.

Based on what I have seen, the IQ of the Tamron is very good and I don´t believe I would be able to separate the two, unless the images was deliberately done at the known quality difference extremes. And I am not sure who would win. From that perspective I agree with the arguments used in the link you attached.

The VR is a very good argument for going for the Tamron. But for my use (there is always something moving), I am perfectly happy to skip IS on this lens. For my wife we ended up with the Canon 24-70 f4L IS. She lose one stop, IQ is great, it has a very impressive MFD and it is a very compact walk-around lens. The price is close to the Tamron.

The last reason I had for going for the Canon(s) is that I have owned (and still own) a lot of L-series lenses. I have not had any problem with any of them. I am willing to pay for consistent quality over time and Canon customer service (at least here in Norway) is excellent.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have the Canon 24-70 f2.8L II and I have not used the Tamron myself. But my wife needed a new walk around lens this summer, so we evaluated the Tamron and the new Canon 24-70 f4L IS.

As always I tend to trust Bryan at The-digital-picture.com. His reviews has consistently been in line with my own conclusions, when I have tried the products over time myself.

For the Tamron review, se below:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

I decided to go for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II, primarily because of its very fast and very accurate AF. I have had the lens since it was released and I have no bad images I believe I can blame the lens for. From what I have seen of examples, it also has the edge on bokeh.

I decided not to go for the Tamron for the reported inconsistencies in AF. This is pointed out by Bryan in the review above and it was confirmed to me by a friend who´s been using it for some time. He returned 2 lenses before he got a good one (he is very happy with Tamron customer service by the way), but he still gets the occasional (and very irritating) out of focus image, where he feels that it should have been good. Tamron´s EF compatibility is, as far as I know, based on reverse engineering and not licensing. That is a concern for me.

Based on what I have seen, the IQ of the Tamron is very good and I don´t believe I would be able to separate the two, unless the images was deliberately done at the known quality difference extremes. And I am not sure who would win. From that perspective I agree with the arguments used in the link you attached.

The VR is a very good argument for going for the Tamron. But for my use (there is always something moving), I am perfectly happy to skip IS on this lens. For my wife we ended up with the Canon 24-70 f4L IS. She lose one stop, IQ is great, it has a very impressive MFD and it is a very compact walk-around lens. The price is close to the Tamron.

The last reason I had for going for the Canon(s) is that I have owned (and still own) a lot of L-series lenses. I have not had any problem with any of them. I am willing to pay for consistent quality over time and Canon customer service (at least here in Norway) is excellent.

That is a pretty fair and reasoned approach. I don't know if I had just been fortunate, but I have used two copies of the Tamron (including the one that I own) and have not had AF issues at all. Mine is highly accurate, moreso than a lens like, say, my 85mm f/1.8 at similar aperture and after both have been AFMA'd.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A few notes:

the 24-70 II uses a new ultra-precision AF engine, it reads the amount of AF motor slippage slop to much finer precision so if the lens spins and stops and slightly under or over shoots on AF braking it measures that amount to a finer degree and so can more accurately compensate for it. Apparently it needs a new body such as the 5D3 or 1DX to be able to handle the higher precision signals for whatever reason.

So it may not just be a speed difference but a true difference in AF precision. If you look at the Lens Rentals AF precision tests for 5D3 with lenses with this feature and without there is a clear difference, for lenses with it is does AF almost as precise as contrast based liveview AF and for lenses without it is more random.

I thought some lens tests showed that the 24-70 II had better micro-contrast and biting resolution even center frame at f/2.8 and better edge at 24mm. The tamron 24-70 vc is the one such lens I have never personally used though.

I know the 24-70 II also fights of longitudinal CA (the sort that leads to purple fringes in front and green fringes in back of plane of focus and the typical PF complaints) exceptionally well. I wonder how the Tamron does. Maybe it does really well too? Or not?

Not to put down Tamron. I actually sold my 17-40L after getting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC. And my Tamron 28-75 2.8 actually delivers sharper across the frame even on FF at 28mm than any of the three 24-105 I've tried (although with a touch worse large scale color and contrast and obviously much less range, no IS, and ridiculously, in that case, slow AF).

As far as lens test sites I trust photozone.de numbers more than TDP's charts (and TDP seems to almost always have a bad copy of tamron somehow).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I couldn't find anywhere where you stated that you have used a 24-70mm ii. If I missed it, do let me know. Until then, a reviewer who only tries one of the two products is not worth the time or effort to even glance at.

Maybe go and rent one before you post a comparison between the two lenses???

That's a valid criticism, particularly if I were doing a head to head comparison or review of both lenses. In this case, however, the question was as to whether I felt the Canon was worth the extra money. I did extensive research at the time I purchased the Tamron and determined for myself that I didn't feel it was the extra money. That remains my opinion...and I am paid to have opinions 8)

 

[captainkanji]

"Canon 135mm f/2L might be a nice choice"

This is the lens that I am currently lusting over. I've seen some amazing shots with this on the 6D on flickr. From my research, the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the Sigma 35 'Art' are worth it to me over getting the Canon lenses. Even at around $1300, the Tamron is a big purchase for me. The Canon is totally out of my price range. If I had the Sigma 35, I'd probably never use the 24-105. Most of my convention photos are 24-35mm.

Thanks for the excellent reviews and photos with the 6D. The first few months I had this camera, there was nothing but hate in forums, but then I started shooting more with it and realized that most if it was unfounded. It's an excellent portrait/low light camera.

 

[YuengLinger]

Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation.

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others. One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach. Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

 

[scottkinfw]

I can't comment on the Tamron, so I guess this is somewhat pitiful, but I accept that. However, I feel strongly on this one.

I own the 24-70 2.8 II and a number of other L lenses. Honestly, some of the L lenses I like a lot, some I love. This lens is far and away the best one I own and it was worth the money. I wouldn't consider a third party substitute. So my disclaimer- I am biased, but this is a great lens. Is it worth the money, yes.

In reading the article, I must say that my "opinion" however is as irrelevant and unfair as is Austin's is, as I have not used the Tamron lens.

sek

For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard... If you disagree, state your objections below.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation.

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others. One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach. Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

With all due respect, I am a professional lens reviewer, and that's the reason why people ask me questions. I never claimed to have reviewed the Canon lens; I was simply offering an opinion as to why I did not feel the additional cost was justified. This thread is in the "Gear Talk" section; not reviews.

I have extensively reviewed the Tamron lens. My review of that lens has been viewed by tens of thousands of people on my website alone. I have been hired by a photo magazine associated with this website as a paid reviewer/blogger, and they aren't the only one. My work has been featured in half a dozen magazines and is currently in multiple ad campaigns (including Canon).

You make some very strong, blanket statements about my work. What are your credentials to make such an assessment, I might ask? As for wasting your time: you just read a free article on the internet; welcome to the real world. It cost you nothing; you contributed nothing.

I have no problem with you offering a difference of opinion. You have not done that; you have simply disputed my right to have an opinion based on your own standard.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I can't comment on the Tamron, so I guess this is somewhat pitiful, but I accept that. However, I feel strongly on this one.

I own the 24-70 2.8 II and a number of other L lenses. Honestly, some of the L lenses I like a lot, some I love. This lens is far and away the best one I own and it was worth the money. I wouldn't consider a third party substitute. So my disclaimer- I am biased, but this is a great lens. Is it worth the money, yes.

sek

For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard... If you disagree, state your objections below.

That is an opinion I can respect, even if I don't share it.

 

[scottkinfw]

Sorry if that came across rough.

Just thought that to be fair, an actual hands on comparison should have been done. I did read your post and your points are noted and good.

I am biased for Canon as stated.

sek

I can't comment on the Tamron, so I guess this is somewhat pitiful, but I accept that. However, I feel strongly on this one.

I own the 24-70 2.8 II and a number of other L lenses. Honestly, some of the L lenses I like a lot, some I love. This lens is far and away the best one I own and it was worth the money. I wouldn't consider a third party substitute. So my disclaimer- I am biased, but this is a great lens. Is it worth the money, yes.

sek

For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard... If you disagree, state your objections below.

That is an opinion I can respect, even if I don't share it.

 

[YuengLinger]

One more analogy: "I bought a Hyundai. It does everything I need a car to do. It would be a waste of money to buy a Honda (though I admit I never drove one).

I'd respect an article that sings the praise of the Tamron, as I'm looking to replace my nine year old ef 24-70mm. But pompously claiming that a lens you haven't used isn't worth the extra money because you are happy with what you have is simply a way to generate attention for yourself. You may have written helpful essays in the past; we are discussing this one.

 

[cliffwang]

Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation.

I see many Canon 24-70mm MK2 users here post like I heard Tamron @#%#$^. My lens is better because @#%&@. Can your lens &$#@. However, Dustin shows people what his gear can do. If you think Dustin is wasting your time, you should ask many people here shut up here. You should check Dustin's posts and you will see he really knows this lens than anybody else.

I also don't think 24-70mm f/2.8 MK2 worth the extra $1000 especially the lack of IS feature. A 24-70mm lens is a walkaround lens. Without IS feature is not acceptable for me. When you need slow shutter speed with handheld shooting, you will hate your 24-70mm f/2.8 MK2.

 

[Niterider]

Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation.

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others. One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach. Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

With all due respect, I am a professional lens reviewer, and that's the reason why people ask me questions. I never claimed to have reviewed the Canon lens; I was simply offering an opinion as to why I did not feel the additional cost was justified. This thread is in the "Gear Talk" section; not reviews.

I have extensively reviewed the Tamron lens. My review of that lens has been viewed by tens of thousands of people on my website alone. I have been hired by a photo magazine associated with this website as a paid reviewer/blogger, and they aren't the only one. My work has been featured in half a dozen magazines and is currently in multiple ad campaigns (including Canon).

You make some very strong, blanket statements about my work. What are your credentials to make such an assessment, I might ask? As for wasting your time: you just read a free article on the internet; welcome to the real world. It cost you nothing; you contributed nothing.

I have no problem with you offering a difference of opinion. You have not done that; you have simply disputed my right to have an opinion based on your own standard.

The problem though, is that no one is questioning your validity as a (cough... self proclaimed) professional lens reviewer. Both myself and YuengLinger (although rather harshly) found it odd that you base your opinion on a product that you have no experience with.

With much effort, I brought myself to reread your article and yes, you are not doing a head to head comparison. You do though compare the af, sharpness wide open, bokeh at minimum focus distance, and lastly you reference build quality. My point is, is that you have no proof that these comparisons hold up to the claims you are making. Amazing reviewers like Brian at TDP and Justin VanLeeuwen on Canonrumors.com have going for them is the have accumulated a lot of credibility making statements that have factual backing at supporting evidence.

The fact that you released an article regarding a lens you have never touched looses all credibility and for that reason, I will avoid all future "professional... reviews" you may seem so inclined to post.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation.

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others. One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach. Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

With all due respect, I am a professional lens reviewer, and that's the reason why people ask me questions. I never claimed to have reviewed the Canon lens; I was simply offering an opinion as to why I did not feel the additional cost was justified. This thread is in the "Gear Talk" section; not reviews.

I have extensively reviewed the Tamron lens. My review of that lens has been viewed by tens of thousands of people on my website alone. I have been hired by a photo magazine associated with this website as a paid reviewer/blogger, and they aren't the only one. My work has been featured in half a dozen magazines and is currently in multiple ad campaigns (including Canon).

You make some very strong, blanket statements about my work. What are your credentials to make such an assessment, I might ask? As for wasting your time: you just read a free article on the internet; welcome to the real world. It cost you nothing; you contributed nothing.

I have no problem with you offering a difference of opinion. You have not done that; you have simply disputed my right to have an opinion based on your own standard.

The problem though, is that no one is questioning your validity as a (cough... self proclaimed) professional lens reviewer. Both myself and YuengLinger (although rather harshly) found it odd that you base your opinion on a product that you have no experience with.

With much effort, I brought myself to reread your article and yes, you are not doing a head to head comparison. You do though compare the af, sharpness wide open, bokeh at minimum focus distance, and lastly you reference build quality. My point is, is that you have no proof that these comparisons hold up to the claims you are making. Amazing reviewers like Brian at TDP and Justin VanLeeuwen on Canonrumors.com have going for them is the have accumulated a lot of credibility making statements that have factual backing at supporting evidence.

The fact that you released an article regarding a lens you have never touched looses all credibility and for that reason, I will avoid all future "professional... reviews" you may seem so inclined to post.

And that is entirely your right to do. I won't waste any more time explaining what I was trying to accomplish here. Both of the reviewers you mention do a great job, and I enjoy reading their reviews as well.

 

[candyman]

I purchased the Tamron. I actually tested and compared the Tamron with Canon MK II. Though it wasn't a thorough fieldtest. I found the Canon to be sharper in the corner at 24mm. AF may have been a little faster on the Canon compared to the Tamron when shooting moving subjects (cars passing by). There is a difference between those 2 lenses but since I am not a pro-photographer earning money with photography, I decided that I could not justify paying 1000 euro more (that is about 1300 dollars). So for me personally it wasn't worth it.

 

[Eldar]

As far as lens test sites I trust photozone.de numbers more than TDP's charts (and TDP seems to almost always have a bad copy of tamron somehow).

Just a comment; If you read Bryan´s review (TDP) of the Canon 24-70 f2.8L II, you´ll see that he had significant issues with the first lenses he tested, so it is not just Tamron.

 

[terminatahx]

Uh, If Image quality and focusing performance is important to you, YES! Tamron is a value lens, nothing more.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Uh, If Image quality and focusing performance is important to you, YES! Tamron is a value lens, nothing more.

That's not even close to the truth.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm-lens-review-20563

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

I have yet to read a review that claimed that the optical or focusing performance of the new Canon was anything more than a minimal upgrade over the Tamron. The new Tamron sits right between the old Canon 24-70 and the new one in terms of wide open image quality. Stopped down there is no perceptible difference between the new Canon and the Tamron.