Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.

I took a few shots in the store with the Tamron vs my Canon 17-55mm, and it seemed quite a bit softer than the Canon. But then again, my 17-55 is very sharp, and it was the Tamron copy with the messed up AF too. If I could be convinced that the Tamron 24-70 was the sharper lens and that the messed up copy that I saw in one store was just an anomaly, then I'd probably go for the Tamron. Otherwise I'd go for the Canon 24-105.

I've tried three 24-105 and all were softer than my tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 (or canon 24-70 II for that matter) be it f/4 or f/8, center frame or far edge. All three 24-105 did better than the 28-135 IS though for sure.

 

[Drizzt321]

I've currently got the 24-105, and while it's a great general purpose, I find it's getting left in the bag more and more often in favor of the 17-40 for some super-wide/wide, or a few primes, or my vintage 55mm f/2.8 Macro. Decent chance that will still be the case, even after I eventually buy the Tamron 24-70.

I'd say for walking around if I didn't know what exactly I'd be shooting, I'd take the 24-105. Otherwise, the Tamron is what I'll be using for anything where I might be in lower lighting conditions. It's definitely a lot heavier (boy is it!), but it gives me f/2.8, and IS, and very good quality. I'll definitely be evaluating the copy I get closely to check that it's a good copy, but I'm thinking in the next 3 months I'll be buying one for sure.

 

[robbymack]

For me it was the tamron. F2.8 and IS were important. If I find a good quality 24-105 used for maybe 500-600 I'll probably buy it as its a great travel lens and I do like a little more length than 70mm when traveling. 24-104 f2.8 IS pretty please canon? I'd even be willing to pay the $5k you'd ask for it.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

As some reviews have mentioned, it is a little shorter than 70mm on the tele end.

Ah yes, that helps to explain why I missed the long end of my old Tamron 28-75 for portraits. I was wondering why 5mm made such a significant difference.

Fortunately I recently acquired a 135mm f/2.0 L.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Canon is also noticeably worse in the vignetting department in my testing. I also own the 17-40L and use it as my primary landscape lens.

I really, really wish the Tamron had stayed at the 77mm filter thread. I might be selling my 24-105L right now if that was the case.

 

[Efka76]

I own Tamron 24-70 lens and i am extremely satisfied with them. Actually it is my most used lens i read a lot of reviews about this lens and it is much bette4 tahm canon equivalent (mark I). Canon 24-105 has a didferent focal length and also it gives one F stop less. For me the obvois choice is Tamron