Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 vs. Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8?

Wikzo

I'm New Here
Apr 23, 2020
13
9
Hello. I am soon looking into buying either the EOS R, the R5 or the R6 (depending on the upcoming announcements). I am also going to buy a 24-70 lens, because it seems like a versatile tool to have (I only shoot stills).

I've heard many good things about the new RF lenses and would like to own the Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM lens, but it's quite expensive, so instead I am considering the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD EF G2 lens (with the EF-RF mount adapter), which is significantly cheaper and seems to have many of the same qualities.

In fact, the Canon RF is almost twice as expensive as the Tamron!

(I know that there is also an Canon EF 24-70mm, but I want to have the image stabilization that both the Tamron and the new RF lens have.)

Does anyone have experience with both lenses --- and if so, do you think the Canon RF is worth twice the cost compared to the Tamron?

Thanks.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
414
180
Hello. I am soon looking into buying either the EOS R, the R5 or the R6 (depending on the upcoming announcements). I am also going to buy a 24-70 lens, because it seems like a versatile tool to have (I only shoot stills).

I've heard many good things about the new RF lenses and would like to own the Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM lens, but it's quite expensive, so instead I am considering the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD EF G2 lens (with the EF-RF mount adapter), which is significantly cheaper and seems to have many of the same qualities.

In fact, the Canon RF is almost twice as expensive as the Tamron!

(I know that there is also an Canon EF 24-70mm, but I want to have the image stabilization that both the Tamron and the new RF lens have.)

Does anyone have experience with both lenses --- and if so, do you think the Canon RF is worth twice the cost compared to the Tamron?

Thanks.
I've used the Canon EF28-70/2.8L or the follow-on EF24-70/2.8Ls since 1996. I never found the focal range to be quite big enough, nor the aperture quite compelling enough. It's nowhere near getting the background blur or low-light capability of say a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.

But I've loved the first-generation (smaller, if not as sharp) EF 24-105/4L IS on the SLRs. The second gen was a lot sharper but a lot bigger and I didn't try it. The RF 24-105/4L IS has the size of the first-gen with the sharpness of the second-gen. It's a very compelling choice. I know it's tempting to think that the obvious answer isn't the best fit for one's own unique needs, but sometimes it really is this easy. Thanks to the IS being worth easily 3-4 stops, it actually is a couple stops better than the 24-70/2.8's for hand-holdability (at least if your body doesn't also have IBIS). Meanwhile, it has about the same ability to blur backgrounds as the 24-70/2.8's. Those have 70/2.8=25mm apertures at the widest, and the 24-105 has a maximum aperture of 105/4 =26.5mm. (Here I really mean aperture as in, hole that light goes in, not aperture as is usually used to refer to f-stop). Background blur basically comes from aperture in the sense I use here, and both lenses can get a fairish amount of background blur if you want, though it won't be mind-blowing. (50mm f/2 is also 25mm aperture, so from a given distance, that would give about the same blur albeit a wider photo.)

In turn, if the lens has IS as good as this one does, then you don't really need the IBIS which will be the selling point of the R5. That lets you consider the R, which honestly is a heck of a camera.

I've had as many as 16 lenses for my Canon outfit in the past, and furthermore I've had up to 4-5 camera outfits at once (Canon, Leica rangefinder, Mamiya medium format rangefinder, Rollei medium format SLR, and Contax rangefinder). And yet, this one lens (And the R I use it on) are versatile enough that I do 95% of my shooting with this one lens now. It's sharp enough you don't need to switch to primes for sharper images. It's low-light enough you don't need primes for better light gathering. It's just wide enough you might not truly need far wider lenses, etc. etc. And on the mirrorless cameras the viewfinder brightness and focusing isn't related to light-gathering, so you don't need bigger apertures just to see well or focus.
 

Wikzo

I'm New Here
Apr 23, 2020
13
9
I've used the Canon EF28-70/2.8L or the follow-on EF24-70/2.8Ls since 1996. I never found the focal range to be quite big enough, nor the aperture quite compelling enough. It's nowhere near getting the background blur or low-light capability of say a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.
Thanks for your elaborate answer. These are the lenses I currently have:

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/4-5.6 IS II (kit lens)
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD

I am using a Canon 750D (Rebel T6i), so I am looking forward to upgrading to fullframe. As you said, EOS R is a good camera, so I am probably going to buy that. But I will wait until the announcements in May (fingers crossed) and see what R5 and R6 have on offer. Hopefully, the EOS R will also get discounted even further.

I've only worked with APS-C sensors before, so I have no practical experience with blurry backgrounds on fullframes (since they allow you to get closer to the subject, fullframe sensors allow for shallower depth of field).

I want to buy a lens that has a versatile range, which I can use in many kinds of scenarios. A go-to lens that I can carry round 80% of the time.

Right now, I use my 75-300mm when shooting wildlife pictures and the 24mm or 50mm when doing street photography (I bought the 24mm, because 50mm on a cropped sensor was a bit too much).

The reason I am considering the 24-70mm is exactly because of the f/2.8 instead of the f/4 of the RF 24-105mm. But as I wrote, I have no sense of how much more/less blur I will get due to the f/4. However, I already have my 75-300mm for range.

I just looked up the RF 24-105mm f/4 and found it at a price very close to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8.

(renting lenses is not really an option where I live - and I need to buy the EOS R first, anyway)

UPDATE:
Reading through this thread, I am leaning more towards the 24-105mm now. It seems like a good range and that extra stop might not be so important, anyway.
 
Last edited:

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
842
877
Thanks for your elaborate answer. These are the lenses I currently have:

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/4-5.6 IS II (kit lens)
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD

I am using a Canon 750D (Rebel T6i), so I am looking forward to upgrading to fullframe. As you said, EOS R is a good camera, so I am probably going to buy that. But I will wait until the announcements in May (fingers crossed) and see what R5 and R6 have on offer. Hopefully, the EOS R will also get discounted even further.

I've only worked with APS-C sensors before, so I have no practical experience with blurry backgrounds on fullframes (since they allow you to get closer to the subject, fullframe sensors allow for shallower depth of field).

I want to buy a lens that has a versatile range, which I can use in many kinds of scenarios. A go-to lens that I can carry round 80% of the time.

Right now, I use my 75-300mm when shooting wildlife pictures and the 24mm or 50mm when doing street photography (I bought the 24mm, because 50mm on a cropped sensor was a bit too much).

The reason I am considering the 24-70mm is exactly because of the f/2.8 instead of the f/4 of the RF 24-105mm. But as I wrote, I have no sense of how much more/less blur I will get due to the f/4. However, I already have my 75-300mm for range.

I just looked up the RF 24-105mm f/4 and found it at a price very close to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8.

(renting lenses is not really an option where I live - and I need to buy the EOS R first, anyway)

UPDATE:
Reading through this thread, I am leaning more towards the 24-105mm now. It seems like a good range and that extra stop might not be so important, anyway.
I have skeptically bought my RF 24-105, just in case I'd need such a universal lens.
Result: I'm using it all the time, when I don't need extreme tele- or wide-angle lenses.
It's really sharp, covers an interesting range, has IS, wheather sealing. Only minor drawback is it tends to CAs in contrasty situations, easy to correct il LR.
Just buy it, you'll like it !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,609
512
Davidson, NC
That is such a handy range. I got the non-L EF 24-105mm kit lens with my 6D2. I use it a whole lot more than I expected. I'm about to head out with it in a few minutes to take some pictures for our neighborhood newsletter the editor asked me to shoot.

I've been using S and G class compact cameras for years that have 24-100mm or 24-120mm equivalent lenses when I travel, so that range just seems to fit how I think. It might anyway. When I choose another lens, I know why, and I'm glad I have the choice. Sometimes when I take another lens along on a shoot, it never comes out of my car. I used my T3i until I got the 6D2, and had no trouble getting used to FF.

With image stabilization and relatively low noise up to ISO 3200, I rarely feel the need for a faster lens. If I do, I have f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes to use, though mostly that is more for blurring backgrounds than low light. And all the time, I'm glad I'm not lugging around much bigger lenses to get that extra stop.
 

yungfat

EOS 90D
Feb 16, 2013
125
47
I've used the Canon EF28-70/2.8L or the follow-on EF24-70/2.8Ls since 1996. I never found the focal range to be quite big enough, nor the aperture quite compelling enough. It's nowhere near getting the background blur or low-light capability of say a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.

But I've loved the first-generation (smaller, if not as sharp) EF 24-105/4L IS on the SLRs. The second gen was a lot sharper but a lot bigger and I didn't try it. The RF 24-105/4L IS has the size of the first-gen with the sharpness of the second-gen. It's a very compelling choice. I know it's tempting to think that the obvious answer isn't the best fit for one's own unique needs, but sometimes it really is this easy. Thanks to the IS being worth easily 3-4 stops, it actually is a couple stops better than the 24-70/2.8's for hand-holdability (at least if your body doesn't also have IBIS). Meanwhile, it has about the same ability to blur backgrounds as the 24-70/2.8's. Those have 70/2.8=25mm apertures at the widest, and the 24-105 has a maximum aperture of 105/4 =26.5mm. (Here I really mean aperture as in, hole that light goes in, not aperture as is usually used to refer to f-stop). Background blur basically comes from aperture in the sense I use here, and both lenses can get a fairish amount of background blur if you want, though it won't be mind-blowing. (50mm f/2 is also 25mm aperture, so from a given distance, that would give about the same blur albeit a wider photo.)

In turn, if the lens has IS as good as this one does, then you don't really need the IBIS which will be the selling point of the R5. That lets you consider the R, which honestly is a heck of a camera.

I've had as many as 16 lenses for my Canon outfit in the past, and furthermore I've had up to 4-5 camera outfits at once (Canon, Leica rangefinder, Mamiya medium format rangefinder, Rollei medium format SLR, and Contax rangefinder). And yet, this one lens (And the R I use it on) are versatile enough that I do 95% of my shooting with this one lens now. It's sharp enough you don't need to switch to primes for sharper images. It's low-light enough you don't need primes for better light gathering. It's just wide enough you might not truly need far wider lenses, etc. etc. And on the mirrorless cameras the viewfinder brightness and focusing isn't related to light-gathering, so you don't need bigger apertures just to see well or focus.
+1 for the recommendation.

I personally own the EF24-105mm F4 version 1, the kit come together with my 6D. This is a very versatile lens that can do almost everything on travel and general photography. (of course depends on what you are doing)

I also had Tamron 28-75 F2.8, but I always feel the Tamron is kinda of stuck in the middle lens. Not as wide and not as long as my 24-105.

Although I have sold both of these lens, and I'm preparing to join the R5 party. If I purchase the R5, I will still go for the 24-105mm F4, which is the versatile range that might caused you lazy. (This is the only downside)

Hope you can find your dream lens soon.

Cheers
 

Able

I'm New Here
Oct 20, 2018
15
4
Florida
www.ablemediaworks.com
Public service announcement:
There are compatibility issues between the EOS R and the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2. The lens will work fine until you set the camera down for a min and it goes into “sleep mode.” Afterward, you will Either have to power cycle the camera, or actually take the lens off from the body and re-connect it to get the autofocus to work again. It’s happened to me and has happened to every EOS R user I have contacted who has this lens. It’s a lens firmware issue until there is an update.