Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70
Feb 4, 2015 12:04:14 #
Sort of new to UHH and am Looking for some input on preferences and experience with either the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD or the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM to be used on a Canon 5D Mark III. I currently have the Canon Ef 24-105 F/4 and am contemplating if the 2.8 is worth the $$. Would be my walk around town lens as well as hiking. thanks!!
Feb 4, 2015 12:54:43 #
Double E wrote:
Sort of new to UHH and am Looking for some input on preferences and experience with either the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD or the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM to be used on a Canon 5D Mark III. I currently have the Canon Ef 24-105 F/4 and am contemplating if the 2.8 is worth the $$. Would be my walk around town lens as well as hiking. thanks!!
I haven't tried the Canon lens, but have been very well pleased with the Tamron. It's a little on the heavy side, though.
Feb 4, 2015 22:47:56 #
I went to KEH but they only have a bargain rated model. If you're looking for an excellent lens, try looking for a used copy of the 28-70L. It's the Canon model from before the 24-70 models and still excellent. Consider as another budget conscious idea.
Feb 4, 2015 23:55:02 #
Thanks!
quote=DWU2]I haven't tried the Canon lens, but have been very well pleased with the Tamron. It's a little on the heavy side, though.[/quote]
quote=DWU2]I haven't tried the Canon lens, but have been very well pleased with the Tamron. It's a little on the heavy side, though.[/quote]
Feb 4, 2015 23:55:55 #
Will do- thanks!
CHG_CANON wrote:
I went to KEH but they only have a bargain rated model. If you're looking for an excellent lens, try looking for a used copy of the 28-70L. It's the Canon model from before the 24-70 models and still excellent. Consider as another budget conscious idea.
Feb 5, 2015 08:51:08 #
A caution. I had an issue with a Tamron 70-200 lens on my new canon 6D. Leaving the lense on the camera overnight with camera off drained the battery. I returned the lense to B&H and swapped it for the canon equivalent. I have a Tamron 28-300 that works OK. Just something to test for.
Feb 5, 2015 09:42:05 #
I have your setup and was wondering about those two lenses as well. I rented both first and the Tamron won out for a few reasons. The canon was just too expensive and it did not have image stabilization. Granted one does not always need it since it is a fast lens in low light but the images I make and the settings I use make the IS desireable. Also, the IQ between the two was not enough for my eye to see. So, I've been using the Tamron for 6 months and have no regrets.
Feb 5, 2015 10:09:28 #
On my Canon 5DIII, the Tamron is my "everyday" lens. Also have the 24-105 Canon f4L but the Tamron produces better images at least IMHO. Did not try the new Canon 24-70 f2.8L II because the Tamron did what i wanted and the new Canon is not image stabilized and is MUCH more expensive. Just my two cents worth.
Feb 5, 2015 11:28:17 #
Great help - thanks!
wowbmw wrote:
I have your setup and was wondering about those two lenses as well. I rented both first and the Tamron won out for a few reasons. The canon was just too expensive and it did not have image stabilization. Granted one does not always need it since it is a fast lens in low light but the images I make and the settings I use make the IS desireable. Also, the IQ between the two was not enough for my eye to see. So, I've been using the Tamron for 6 months and have no regrets.
Feb 5, 2015 11:29:45 #
I too have been disappointed at times with the 24-105 and often wonder if it is operator error versus being used to the quality of primes...thanks for the feedback
donphotog wrote:
On my Canon 5DIII, the Tamron is my "everyday" lens. Also have the 24-105 Canon f4L but the Tamron produces better images at least IMHO. Did not try the new Canon 24-70 f2.8L II because the Tamron did what i wanted and the new Canon is not image stabilized and is MUCH more expensive. Just my two cents worth.
Feb 5, 2015 12:27:52 #
At one time I had both the 24-105 and the 24-70/2.8 Canon lens. I got rid of the 24-70 as I did not use it because I liked the extra reach of the 24-105. If you are hiking, you don't need 2.8 outside. Same for walking around lens.
Double E wrote:
Sort of new to UHH and am Looking for some input on preferences and experience with either the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD or the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM to be used on a Canon 5D Mark III. I currently have the Canon Ef 24-105 F/4 and am contemplating if the 2.8 is worth the $$. Would be my walk around town lens as well as hiking. thanks!!
Feb 5, 2015 12:50:41 #
terryrays1949
Loc: Greentown, Indiana
My opinion from experience is that if you shoot a lot of low light w/o flash, then go w/ the Canon L 24-70 2.8. This is my walk around lens. I do not use flash. But...if you shoot mainly outdoor landscape - birds - nature photography, your current 24-105 is sufficient UNTIL you can go for a larger, telephoto lens.
Feb 5, 2015 13:04:47 #
Double E wrote:
Sort of new to UHH and am Looking for some input on preferences and experience with either the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD or the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM to be used on a Canon 5D Mark III. I currently have the Canon Ef 24-105 F/4 and am contemplating if the 2.8 is worth the $$. Would be my walk around town lens as well as hiking. thanks!!
E, unless you have a real need for a faster lens than the f4, you already have a 24-70 in the 24-105! It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to walk-around giving up 35mm of reach for one stop!
The 24-105 is my everyday workhorse. The few places I would need the 2.8 I can use flash or MUCH faster primes. It also has an 82mm filter, somewhat of an oddball in the Canon line. The 24-70 mkl uses a 77mm filter.
If you do weddings, by all means get the 2.8. ;-)
SS
Feb 5, 2015 14:39:09 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.