I'm thinking of selling my Canon 24-105 f/4 with IS lens. The two lenses I'm thinking of replacing it with are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I or the Tamron f/2.8 24-70 with VC. Has anyone used and/or compared both of these lenses? I would like to hear of your experience if you have as well as your thoughts, inputs and recommendations. I would use this lens as my walk around lens, indoor functions, sunrises and sunsets on beach and video. As much as I'd like to have the Canon 24-70 MK II, it's a bit out of my budget. For portraits I'm truly enjoying my 85mm f/1.8.
Need Help with a 24-70 lens
- Thread starter MagnumJoe
- Start date
- Status
If you can find a MK I that works properly (most have issues that owners are not aware of), its not a upgrade. I'd keep the 24-105 or buy a refurb MK II.
Upvote
0
Save money until you can afford the 24-70 2.8 ii. You will not regret it.
If you do video, you might as well hang on to your 24-105.
If you do video, you might as well hang on to your 24-105.
Upvote
0
MagnumJoe said:
I had five 24-70 f/2.8 MkI lenses over many years and they were all dogs. As a stop-gap until a 24-70 f/2.8II made its long over-due appearance, I switched to a 24-105 f/4is which was significantly better than any of the 24-70 MkI lenses. I now have a 24-70 f/2.8II which can only be described as stellar, but I can't quite bring myself to on-sell the 24-105. It's such a great lens. The extra reach is handy for events work and it makes a versatile travel lens.
If you can't make the $$ reach to a new 24-70 f/2.8II, keep the 24-105 you already have. It's a lot of photographers favourite lens for good reason.
-PW
Upvote
0
Whatever you do, don't sell the 24-105 in favor of a 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I. As said before, the 24-105 is a lot better. My 24-70 is for sale for this reason. The 24-105 is a great general purpose and travel lens. For low light I think I'll stick with primes.
Upvote
0
I agree with the general consensus here. Don't buy a Mark I. If you insist on/absolutely must have a 28-70 f/2.8, the Tamron is a better choice. than a Mark I.
I just bought a Mark II that I'm hoping to take out this weekend, weather permitting, but I'm not ready to part with my 24-105, and I'm not sure I will be anytime soon.
On the other hand, you have an 85 f/1.8, a truly outstanding and underrated lens. That does fill the gap but you still may miss the high end of the zoom range on the 24-105.
One other consideration is which body you are using. If you are using a 5D3 or a 6D, there are image correction profiles available for Canon lenses only. These really help getting better results from less good lenses, but they do not, to my knowledge, exist for third party lenses such as the Tamron. In that case, I'd keep the 24-105 and save for the Mark II. It will be worth the wait.
I just bought a Mark II that I'm hoping to take out this weekend, weather permitting, but I'm not ready to part with my 24-105, and I'm not sure I will be anytime soon.
On the other hand, you have an 85 f/1.8, a truly outstanding and underrated lens. That does fill the gap but you still may miss the high end of the zoom range on the 24-105.
One other consideration is which body you are using. If you are using a 5D3 or a 6D, there are image correction profiles available for Canon lenses only. These really help getting better results from less good lenses, but they do not, to my knowledge, exist for third party lenses such as the Tamron. In that case, I'd keep the 24-105 and save for the Mark II. It will be worth the wait.
Upvote
0
I've had a few copies of the 24-70 f2.8L over the years, and all have been great; the only thing better is the 24-70 f2.8L II and it's really outstanding.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Agreed, with the reverse zoom design, the hood is always most effective. Also, because the hood mounts on the lens body, not the barrel, it is sturdier and great in rainy conditions because no water can get on the inner barrel.
That said, the 24-70 MkI is a bit of a monster to carry around, both for the audience (it's an intimidating piece of kit) and the photographer (it weighs approx a kilo and is front heavy, especially at wide angle). These are things one might consider next to image quality.
Upvote
0
MagnumJoe said:
I owned the 24-105 for a while before getting the 24-70 Tamron 2.8 VC. I shot a few test charts, and the Tamron was sharper in the center @ F/2.8 than the Canon was @ F/4. This was having both manually focused on my 5d3 to isolate the AF microadjustment. The Tamron is not perfect; it vignettes wide open and I don't like the colors quite as well, but it's the only game in town for 2.8, 24-70 and IS. I use mine all the time.
Here's a raw 5d3 video I shot Saturday with the Tamron @ around F/4.5 to give you some idea of the look:
Nicholas caught his first fish! on Vimeo
Not saying the Canon 24-105 is bad - it's lighter and has more range. The biggest thing for me was I shoot a lot of video, and the IS motor on the 24-105 is really noisy during playback. The 24-70 Tamron is very quiet (but the focus ring in noisy). Sigh. There is no perfect lens.
If Canon made a 24-70 2.8 with IS I'd get it immediately.
Upvote
0
Unless you can go with the Mark II version of Canon's 24-70, I would suggest you stay away from their Mark I.
If you really want f/2.8 look at the Tamron. It is an exception lens! Superior IS to the 24-105 and sharper. Also comes with a 6 year warranty!!!!
If you really want f/2.8 look at the Tamron. It is an exception lens! Superior IS to the 24-105 and sharper. Also comes with a 6 year warranty!!!!
Upvote
0
Just something to be aware of with the Tamron. If you use a 5D3, some of the 24-70's have a weird problem with extreme back-focus on the peripheral (outer) AF points. I sent my lens in 4 times, once with my camera, and Tamron kept sending it back saying it was fine. I finally got them to send me a replacement, I should get it on Thursday. If you google Tamron 24-70 5d III outer focus issue, peripheral focus issue or some derivation, you can see that other's have had the same problem. I wish I had noticed it before the end of my return window so that I didn't have to deal with Tamron. It is a sharp lens, and I'm not trying to say don't get the lens. I'm just saying to check for this phenomenon before your return window closes.
Upvote
0
I'm waiting to see what Sigma can do with this 24-70 range lens. The f2 rumors are VERY cool (if it can be done)!
If it's not amazing, I'll just get Canon's MK2.
If it's not amazing, I'll just get Canon's MK2.
Upvote
0
whatever you do don't buy the sigma 24-70. The AF is wildly inaccurate and the bokeh is very 'crunchy' (for want of a better word
Upvote
0
alexturton said:
I agree Alex, but I am referring to the new teased 2.0 version coming out next year.
Upvote
0
- Status
