- Messages
- 803
- Edit My Images
- No
A few days ago I took delivery of a Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. Since moving from a 7D with 17-55 F/2.8 to a 6D with 24-105 F/4, I have missed the F/2.8, and as I currently cannot justify the cost of a Canon 24-70 F/2.8 II, the Tamron looked like a good compromise. In the past I have also had regular use of a Canon 24-70L mkI, but will leave it out of this test.
Here are my thoughts on the lens versus the 6D kit 24-105L lens.
Build Quality
The lens feels very solid and well put together. It is certainly a big step up from my old EF 17-55mm, but perhaps slightly behind the 24-105L. The zoom ring feels slightly too stiff, but the buttons (VC, MF and Lock) are all good quality and it feels like it will last a long time. In the hand the Tamron feels similar in weight to the 24-105, but on a light 6D body it feels strangely heavier. This could be because more of the Tamron's weight sits towards the front elements of the lens.
Tamron 8/10, Canon 9/10.
Usability and Range
The Canon has an extra 35mm at the long end, whilst the Tamron is one stop faster. What the Canon gains in length it loses in light gathering ability, and for me the extra stop wins. My preference would be to use the Canon during daytime/outdoor walkabouts and the Tamron indoors or within dull environments. Both have Image Stabilisation and this performs excellently on both. The only noticeable difference is that the Tamron's VC is much quieter in operation, making it better for shooting video. AF performance is very good on both, and on my 6D neither requires any micro-adjustment. I will say that the Canon AF feels slightly faster, but there's not much in it.
Tamron 9/10, Canon 8/10
Image Quality
I guess this is the important part, and for reference I attach links to images taken of a plain brick wall from both lenses. Distortion is noticeable on both and is worst at 24mm. The 24-105 has more distortion at 24mm, but things are pretty even from 35mm onwards. Both lenses and easy to correct within Lightroom (see corrected and uncorrected shots within link below). Vignetting is also pretty bad for both lenses wide open, and remains noticeable throughout the range. This is common on FF bodies with zoom lenses and is also easily correctable. The Tamron is however the winner here because it offers similar falloff at F/2.8 as the Canon does at F/4. At the same F-stop the Tamron wins. Centre resolution is very good on both, but the Tamron again wins at same apertures. Quality drops towards the edges, but this is expected, and the Tamron again has a slight lead. At F/2.8 the Tamron is slightly behind the Canon when wide open at F/4 throughout most of the zoom range, but it is close and it is always nice to have that F/2.8 available.
Tamron 9/10 Canon 7/10
Conclusion
For me, the Tamron is better than the 24-105, and a better alternative to the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II may well be a bit sharper, it may vignette slightly less, AF slightly faster, and you'll have a better chance clubbing a baby seal to death with one, but it costs 2x the price and loses IS/VC. I think the Tammy is a great lens at a great price, and I can see myself using it far more than the 24-105. It has also filled the hole left by my beloved 17-55, and makes me feel happier about my 6D purchase. I give it 9/10
.
I think that I will keep both lenses. The extra reach of the 24-105 will come in handy for day trips, but I think it will become an occasional lens. I would love to own the Canon 24-70 II, but it is just too expensive when most of my pictures are for holidays and kid snaps.
Full IQ test images available here
Here are my thoughts on the lens versus the 6D kit 24-105L lens.
Build Quality
The lens feels very solid and well put together. It is certainly a big step up from my old EF 17-55mm, but perhaps slightly behind the 24-105L. The zoom ring feels slightly too stiff, but the buttons (VC, MF and Lock) are all good quality and it feels like it will last a long time. In the hand the Tamron feels similar in weight to the 24-105, but on a light 6D body it feels strangely heavier. This could be because more of the Tamron's weight sits towards the front elements of the lens.
Tamron 8/10, Canon 9/10.
Usability and Range
The Canon has an extra 35mm at the long end, whilst the Tamron is one stop faster. What the Canon gains in length it loses in light gathering ability, and for me the extra stop wins. My preference would be to use the Canon during daytime/outdoor walkabouts and the Tamron indoors or within dull environments. Both have Image Stabilisation and this performs excellently on both. The only noticeable difference is that the Tamron's VC is much quieter in operation, making it better for shooting video. AF performance is very good on both, and on my 6D neither requires any micro-adjustment. I will say that the Canon AF feels slightly faster, but there's not much in it.
Tamron 9/10, Canon 8/10
Image Quality
I guess this is the important part, and for reference I attach links to images taken of a plain brick wall from both lenses. Distortion is noticeable on both and is worst at 24mm. The 24-105 has more distortion at 24mm, but things are pretty even from 35mm onwards. Both lenses and easy to correct within Lightroom (see corrected and uncorrected shots within link below). Vignetting is also pretty bad for both lenses wide open, and remains noticeable throughout the range. This is common on FF bodies with zoom lenses and is also easily correctable. The Tamron is however the winner here because it offers similar falloff at F/2.8 as the Canon does at F/4. At the same F-stop the Tamron wins. Centre resolution is very good on both, but the Tamron again wins at same apertures. Quality drops towards the edges, but this is expected, and the Tamron again has a slight lead. At F/2.8 the Tamron is slightly behind the Canon when wide open at F/4 throughout most of the zoom range, but it is close and it is always nice to have that F/2.8 available.
Tamron 9/10 Canon 7/10
Conclusion
For me, the Tamron is better than the 24-105, and a better alternative to the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II may well be a bit sharper, it may vignette slightly less, AF slightly faster, and you'll have a better chance clubbing a baby seal to death with one, but it costs 2x the price and loses IS/VC. I think the Tammy is a great lens at a great price, and I can see myself using it far more than the 24-105. It has also filled the hole left by my beloved 17-55, and makes me feel happier about my 6D purchase. I give it 9/10
.I think that I will keep both lenses. The extra reach of the 24-105 will come in handy for day trips, but I think it will become an occasional lens. I would love to own the Canon 24-70 II, but it is just too expensive when most of my pictures are for holidays and kid snaps.
Full IQ test images available here
Last edited: