24-70mm 2.8L or Tamron

rick448

rick448

Messages
4,266
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I am considering selling my Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD to replace it with the 2.8L (either Mk i or Mk ii variety). This is mainly due to the fact that the Tamron is my only non L lens in my set up, rather than any real problems with it. I guess my question is, will I notice any improvement if I change? I realise that I will lose the stabilisation that i have with the Tamron, but am I likely to get better quality with the Canon lens?

Thanks :)
 
I have had a Canon 24-70 mark 1 in the past and have the Tamron equivalent now. The Canon was a very good lens and certainly has the "L" appeal. It is however very heavy hence its nickname "the brick" and has no IS. The Tamron is much lighter and has IS.

Now for the subjective bit - the IQ. IMHO I noticed no loss of IQ when I switched to the Tamron. The picture quality seemed to be very much on a par. I don't pixel peep and I guess that those who do might argue that one lens is better than the other but for normal every day use I would never sell the Tamron to replace it with a Canon mark 1. Now if you can afford the Mark 2 Canon that is a comparison I cannot comment on.

Good luck.
 
rick448 said:
Hi,

I am considering selling my Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD to replace it with the 2.8L (either Mk i or Mk ii variety). This is mainly due to the fact that the Tamron is my only non L lens in my set up, rather than any real problems with it. I guess my question is, will I notice any improvement if I change? I realise that I will lose the stabilisation that i have with the Tamron, but am I likely to get better quality with the Canon lens?

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

I'm no Canon user but have had the Tamron 24-70 and found it a very good lens, I've been doing a fair bit of reading on the Canon 24-70 i/ii lenses (as I'm thinking about one with an adaptor on my A7riii), if your going to the 24-70 ii it seems its a stunner of a lens but I probably wouldn't swap it for a 24-70i
 
All I can suggest is that you do not try out the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 - if you do your credit card will not be happy!

Joking aside I love mine. It is not simply the fast/accurate AF or the sharpness - it is the RAW files that come straight out of the camera, I hardly need to do anything to get what I want from them.:)
 
johnf3f said:
All I can suggest is that you do not try out the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2 - if you do your credit card will not be happy!

Joking aside I love mine. It is not simply the fast/accurate AF or the sharpness - it is the RAW files that come straight out of the camera, I hardly need to do anything to get what I want from them.:)
Click to expand...
Thanks John. It’s looking like I may need to make the purchase!
 
I take it that this is the version 1 of the Tamron lens?
there is now a v2.
one question is what do you shoot? do you need the best autofocus for moving targets?
do you need the 'better' weather sealing?
Do you shoot any videos where IS would be really helpful?
 
DizMatt said:
I take it that this is the version 1 of the Tamron lens?
there is now a v2.
one question is what do you shoot? do you need the best autofocus for moving targets?
do you need the 'better' weather sealing?
Do you shoot any videos where IS would be really helpful?
Click to expand...
I have started doing dance shows where my daughter is taking part and the 24-70 range is proving the best solution. I don’t do video at all and as I am shooting the dancing at 1/200 ish IS isn’t a deal breaker. I think it is the original Tamron lens, the AF in AF servo is probably the biggest weakness I’ve found.
 
I would take the Tamron over the mk1 canon due to the IS but the mk2 canon seems a pretty nice step up.

That said I think the G1 Tamron has 4 stops of IS which can mean shooting at iso 400 rather than 6400 so that can also put a different light on things quality wise!
 
I hope so too, I'm sure I won't be disappointed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top