Would you replace the old 24-70mm f2.8L by the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC?

[Hjalmarg1]

I came across with a good offer for the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC and I am wondering if replacing my old 24-70 f2.8L is worth it.
I know DxO has rated the Tamron just one point behind the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II but anyone have experienced the Tamron in real life situations. Is is that good?

 

[Marsu42]

I came across with a good offer for the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC and I am wondering if replacing my old 24-70 f2.8L is worth it.

You'll find plenty of reviews and comparisons of the Tamron vs. the mk1 around CR, go back to the time when the Tamron was released. Essentially the Canon has better af, but the Tamron has better iq - though some people complained about the stronger "onion" bokeh lights.

The catch is to make sure to get a good copy of the Tamron, it might be better than right after release, but generally product variation seems to be larger with 3rd party manufacturers.

This is generally a good site to look at: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/tamron-24-70mm-f2.8-di-vc-for-canon

 

[tomscott]

TBH the MKI is renowned for being a jubious lens and getting a good copy is key they tend to need calibrating more often than not and tend to go out of tune. But get a good copy and you won't be disappointed! I bought a second hand copy in the UK a very late copy before the finished production run and its pin sharp and bought it for £750 which is less than half the MKII.

The Tamron again has similar problems get a good one and you'll be happy. Things I don't like about the Tamron is that its not built like the L I like the reverse zoom and lens hood design of the MKI. Also the bokeh isn't as nice but that is personal taste. Neither are a bad choice and in the centre/middle of the frame will be quite comparable but the edges of the MKI aren't quite as good wide open but stop it down to F5.6 and above and the gap is really quite slim.

The main draw of the Tamron is that is half the price and has IS, the MKI is also no longer available so you have to buy used and seen as tho these lenses are professional work horses they usually get good use.

The MKI is a stellar lens, but so is the Tamron. I chose the MKI because I like to stay in the Canon Camp.

Might be worth waiting and see what sigma do with the rumoured 24-70mm F2 IS

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Might be worth waiting and see what sigma do with the rumoured 24-70mm F2 IS

New Sigma 24-70mm f2 OS 'Art' would be a killer :

 

[Khnnielsen]

I came across with a good offer for the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC and I am wondering if replacing my old 24-70 f2.8L is worth it.
I know DxO has rated the Tamron just one point behind the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II but anyone have experienced the Tamron in real life situations. Is is that good?

I tried the Tamron out once, and the bokeh, which other posts have mentioned, really turned me off. The fast aperture doesn't matter much to me, if the bokeh isn't very pleasing to look at.

 

[sanj]

No.
1. Resale value and
2. F4 at this focal length is fine for me.

 

[RLPhoto]

I like the tamron. It's one of the lenses that shifted my perspective on third party lenses like the sigma 35mm Art. It's sharp, affordable, and has VC. VC alone makes this lens worth the investment and having used the old tank 24-70mm mkI, you couldn't give me one now. I didn't pay full price for mine and got it for 800$ on Craigslist. (Which I lose virtually nothing in the resale when it happens)

 

[iso79]

Sell you MK I and pick up a MK II 8)

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I actually traded my mk2 for a fuji rig and subsequently picked up a tamrom 24-70 vc for a pretty good deal just for handheld quick videos.

So far, I have found like others that AF is nowhere near as good as the mk2 (as anticipated). I have also found that it is optically inferior (slightly). I haven't had the mk1 for a while so I could not compare those two. I was always underwhelmed by the mk1 though. And the tamron seems to be almost as good as the mk2. Also, the vibration compensation seems to work decently well.

All in all, I would say for the money, I would rather go with the tamron over both the Canon 2.8s.

 

[Harv]

The following is an in-depth review by one of the best sources out there. It's worth a read.

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

 

[pwp]

TBH the MKI is renowned for being a dubious lens and getting a good copy is key...
The MKI is a stellar lens, but so is the Tamron. I chose the MKI because I like to stay in the Canon Camp.
Might be worth waiting and see what sigma do with the rumoured 24-70mm F2 IS

Slight contradiction there...yes there are stellar copies of the MkI in existence, but tend to be rare as hens teeth. After five MkI's all of which were utterly hopeless and unable to be rectified by Canon, I was happy as can be with a great copy of the 24-105 f/4is which I got to see me through until the MkII was released. I didn't expect it to be so good. The 24-105 is a lot of photographers most used and favourite lens, so you could consider one of these. They are a true bargain.

Sell your MK I and pick up a MK II 8)

If the budget allows this is the preferred route. My MkII is so good I've sold off all my primes in the 24-70 range.
Can't comment on the Tamron, but they do get good reviews.

-pw

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Buying the Tamron used is a risky transaction, the quality is variable, and some have reported issues. You either need to check it out carefully, get return rights when you purchase, or get a warranty. I will buy a used lens only if I get a low enough price to pay for a $300 repair and still have a used lens price. I can't do a deal like that often, but it happens.

For me, that means a used price for a apparently functioning lens like this of $750, maybe less, since I can buy new gray market for $900.

 

[cnardo]

Regarding a good copy of a lens. How do you know how good or bad your lens is unless you had a good lens to compare it to sitting right next to it? Do full service camera stores have the capability to test and adjust a lens? How do you know it isn't the camera?

 

[mgkaplan]

Optically both are excellent, with the Tamron being somewhat better.

The VC is the deal point.

If you keep an eye on prices on ebay - particularly through prodigital2000 - you may find this lens for $899 as I did.

At that price buying the Tamron is a no-brainer.

 

[cliffwang]

I switched to Tamron 24-70 VC from Canon 24-70 MK1.
1. Tamron has better IQ.
2. Canon has faster AF.
3. I feel AF on Tamron is more accurate than Canon MK1.
4. Tamron has great VC(IS).
5. Tamron does have more onion ring bokeh than Canon MK1.

Here is my opinion.
If you need faster AF and better IQ with extra 1000 dollars, go to sell your MK1 and get MK2. Otherwise, you should either switch to Tamron now or wait for Sigma 24-70.

 

[DomTomLondon]

I picked up the 24-70VC a few weeks ago and was not impressed that the focus ring turns the other way to all Canon lenses. The zoom ring is also at the front of the lens, which is awkward to use, and impossible, if you have the lens hood on in the reversed position. I liked the build quality and it is a good size and weight for the 5D3. The Autofocus was slower then the Canon 24-105L is tested it against, but still fast enough. Focus in low light was also quite good and about the same as my 35mm f2IS lens. But I was expecting better sharpness. I tested the Tamron against the 35f2IS, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, the primes were all better at f2.8 which is fair enough as they are all stopped down. But I decided to keep the primes and retuned the Tamron. I rather have 3 small, fast and light primes that have better IQ.

I decided I will wait and save up for the Canon 24-70ii. or see what Sigma brings out.