24-105L or TAMRON 24-70

M

mr bill

Messages
492
Edit My Images
Yes
Just sold my sigma older version 24-70 but need a replacement would ideally like the 2.8 L but a bit out my price range, i realise i need to compromise between 2.8 or the extra reach which for me both would equally useful but since i got the 70-200L i dont really want to go third party so much now apart from will have to when i get my 500mm.
any opinions on these 2 lenses appreciated
 
I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 and can not fault it. Very sharp copy spends a lot of time on my 5Diii.
I suppose you have to work out it f you need that extra reach. But you have the 70-200 so it makes sense to get the Tamron.
 
On a crop I'd get the canon 17-50mm f2.8 is every time over your options the gap between 50 and 70mm is nothing and the range and quality of the 17-50mm on a crop is unbeatable.
 
I upgraded from the 24-105 to Tamron 24-70 VC. The Tamron is better for sharpness, distortion and vignetting throughout the range at f/2.8 than the Canon is at f/4. IS/VC performance is very similar, but the Tamron is noticeably quieter. The Canon focuses slightly faster in good light but it low light they feel pretty much identical, and in really low light I think the Tamron just pips it. Canon has the extra 70-105 range and has proven to be very reliable over many years. Build quality feels pretty much identical when new, but nodbody knows how the Tamron will hold up after 5-10 years of use.

I would not go back to 24-105 after owning the Tamron. If the Tamron had a red ring and a Canon badge, almost every Canon FF user would own one. For most circumstances it is better tham the 24-105.

On a crop you want the 17-55 IS. It will likely serve you better than either of the above lenses and is similar in price. The 17-55 on a crop feels very similar to the Tamron 24-70 on FF. The 17-55 has inferor build, but optically it is a match for the Tamron and superior to the 24-105.
 
Last edited:
Orville said:
I upgraded from the 24-105 to Tamron 24-70 VC. The Tamron is better for sharpness, distortion and vignetting throughout the range at f/2.8 than the Canon is at f/4. IS/VC performance is very similar, but the Tamron is noticeably quieter. The Canon focuses slightly faster in good light but it low light they feel pretty much identical, and in really low light I think the Tamron just pips it. Canon has the extra 70-105 range and has proven to be very reliable over many years. Build quality feels pretty much identical when new, but nodbody knows how the Tamron will hold up after 5-10 years of use.

I would not go back to 24-105 after owning the Tamron. If the Tamron had a red ring and a Canon badge, almost every Canon FF user would own one. For most circumstances it is better tham the 24-105.

On a crop you want the 17-55 IS. It will likely serve you better than either of the above lenses and is similar in price. The 17-55 on a crop feels very similar to the Tamron 24-70 on FF. The 17-55 has inferor build, but optically it is a match for the Tamron and superior to the 24-105.
Click to expand...

Just a thought I don't know what bodies you both use but on older bodies the focus points that allow cross hair focus is often only the centre point so the speed advantage of f2.8 and sharpness depends heavily on if you use the centre point

I have not owned the tamron and certainly have nothing against them I had a number of f2.8 lens and it really is horses for courses low light faster shutter speed great for motion blur but not so great for dof that you may want for landscape

VC has had some good reviews and the IS on the canon is long in the tooth now try the 70-300 mm L lens for amazing IS
Lol

Good luck
 
M:hmmmm was looking at the 18-55 but tbh not long enough,prefer the extra reach
 
My Tamron is currently mated to a 6D, but has also been used on a 7D. The 24-105 feels a tad faster to focus on both bodies, but only in good light. In low light the f/2.8 on the Tamron helps, and perhaps it feels slightly better here. It is hard to judge because the differences really are very small, and lightning AF is not really essential for wide zooms anyway.

As most of my shots are taken during the day I would say that on balance the Canon is faster to focus, but both are good.
 
Orville said:
My Tamron is currently mated to a 6D, but has also been used on a 7D. The 24-105 feels a tad faster to focus on both bodies, but only in good light. In low light the f/2.8 on the Tamron helps, and perhaps it feels slightly better here. It is hard to judge because the differences really are very small, and lightning AF is not really essential for wide zooms anyway.

As most of my shots are taken during the day I would say that on balance the Canon is faster to focus, but both are good.
Click to expand...

Good points I think the 7D has more cross focus points than the 6d definite agree wide end zoom focus speed not important and dof is much better as well

Do you like the ff compared to the crop and speed of the 7D
 
border_all said:
Good points I think the 7D has more cross focus points than the 6d definite agree wide end zoom focus speed not important and dof is much better as well

Do you like the ff compared to the crop and speed of the 7D
Click to expand...
DOF is indeed better on FF but you generally need more expensive lenses to see the full potential. For instance, my 7D + 17-55 @ f/2.8 produced almost identical results to my 6D + kit 24-105 @ f/4. Side by side it was almost impossible to distinguish images taken from either combo, and at first I was rather disappointed with my upgrade. It was only when I upgraded to an f/2.8 lens that my FF mojo was restored.

Generally speaking FF will offer one-stop narrower DOF and one-stop better low light performance due to having a sensor that is ~twice the size of a crop. Hence comparing crop + f/2.8 to FF + f/4 yields very similar results. The problem is that FF lenses cost more than crop lenses of the same aperture (just compare the EF-S 17-55 to the EF 24-70L), so many people upgrade their bodies but end up with slower lenses. Tamron have solved the cost problem:thumbs:.

Regarding fps and AF, I never used 8fps mode on the 7D and really do not miss the extra AF points. The one single thing which I miss most about the 7D is it's extra size because the 7D was simply a better fit for my big hands.
 
Last edited:
Orville said:
DOF is indeed better on FF but you generally need more expensive lenses to see the full potential. For instance, my 7D + 17-55 @ f/2.8 produced almost identical results to my 6D + kit 24-105 @ f/4. Side by side it was almost impossible to distinguish images taken from either combo, and at first I was rather disappointed with my upgrade. It was only when I upgraded to an f/2.8 lens that my FF mojo was restored.

Generally speaking FF will offer one-stop narrower DOF and one-stop better low light performance due to having a sensor that is ~twice the size of a crop. Hence comparing crop + f/2.8 to FF + f/4 yields very similar results. The problem is that FF lenses cost more than crop lenses of the same aperture (just compare the EF-S 17-55 to the EF 24-70L), so many people upgrade their bodies but end up with slower lenses. Tamron have solved the cost problem:thumbs:.

Regarding fps and AF, I never used 8fps mode on the 7D and really do not miss the extra AF points. The one single thing which I miss most about the 7D is it's extra size because the 7D was simply a better fit for my big hands.
Click to expand...

Thank you

I thought the 6d was less af points the camera was just coming out when I sold my dslr which I loved and like you I preferred larger body camera as I did some motor sport and dogs running I liked higher fps

When I moved crop to ff it was a learning curve for me with the shallow dof and I did sometimes find my shots lacked sharpness front to rear the f2.8 never really suited me though in truth maybe that was weight the 70-200 f2.8 is a monster compared to the f4 and I also missed the crop 1.6 x for reach

Hope that the info is useful for original poster never intended to hijack the thread

Cheers

Allan
 
Another option is the 24-70 F4L IS - which gets very good reviews and is the same price as the Tamron 2.8 pretty much. I would have thought that the Canon lenses will tend to depreciate less, plus the 24-105 is relatively cheap at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top