Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vs Canon 24-70 f2.8 (Page 2): Why not just replace the 24-105L? I had the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105 and ended up selling the 24-70. They are both very good...

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Why not just replace the 24-105L? I had the Canon 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105 and ended up selling the 24-70. They are both very good lenses but I liked the extra reach of the 24-105L. You can buy a like new model for $500-600. Canon is replacing it with a new model when they announce the 5DIV. If you are going 24-70, consider the 24-70L/4 which is highly reviewed and will be less than either of the two lenses that you listed.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Jim Bob wrote:

I never said it was the best Mr. Dumbass. I said it was worth consideration.

Well Mr Jim Bob I do not remember being unpleasant towards you so why behave like a rude little boy? You certainly did say a Tokina was worth consideration but you also suggested the OP ignore the opinion of an unbiased individual who works in the industry and one assumes has a knowledge base that covers most makes of lenses and which bodies they work best with. The camera shop probably stays in business by advising its customers correctly so they return the next time they want equipment.
But ignore all that and just listen to rude boy Jim Bob who seems to have knowledge and experience of one lens only. That's a real clever idea aint it rude boy.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Billyspad wrote:

Well Mr Jim Bob I do not remember being unpleasant... (show quote)

Billy, I am going to pick on you. Unless you know that business, you do not know if whether they advise on what is good for the customer and themselves in the long-run or merely want to pad their bank accounts short-run. I prefer the former: everyone wins.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

DaveO wrote:

Some can argue that there is a contest! br br I... (show quote)

If you wish the non-vr version of the Nikon 24-70 is sharp, sharp, sharp. And you can get them for a good price now. My non-vr version is still going strong and is a great value. Besides, do you really need vr on a 70mm lens especially when the newer camera's are so great in dim light.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

abc1234 wrote:

Billy, I am going to pick on you. Unless you know that business, you do not know if whether they advise on what is good for the customer and themselves in the long-run or merely want to pad their bank accounts short-run. I prefer the former: everyone wins.

You are right of course but I trust the OP to ask the right question to ascertain if he is dealing with the right type of business. Our OP seems like a bright enough sort of guy to do just that. I trust Hogs with experience of one make of lens not at all when it comes to advice.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Billyspad wrote:

You are right of course but I trust the OP to ask the right question to ascertain if he is dealing with the right type of business. Our OP seems like a bright enough sort of guy to do just that. I trust Hogs with experience of one make of lens not at all when it comes to advice.

Billy, I am going to pick on you some more: make no assumptions.

Jim Bob

Billyspad wrote:

Well Mr Jim Bob I do not remember being unpleasant... (show quote)

Check your memory and while you're at it your intelligence as well.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Concur on all counts. I love my Canon Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II USM and I have yet to find a situation where I was unable to hand hold due to the lack of vibration reduction. This is the lens you will see hanging off of my Canon 6D body about 85% of the time.

burkphoto wrote:

The Tammy has vibration reduction and the Canon does not. The Canon has a quieter, faster, ultrasonic autofocus motor. Both are very, very sharp.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I saw the You Tube link some months ago that Jerry posted earlier. It was a comparison of the Nikon, Canon, and Tamron 24-70mm lenses. It is worth watching. Are third party lenses better than the Big Boy Brands? Some are not quite as good, some are equal, and some are not as good. Budget is also a factor. If you can afford to buy the very best, that is the best. Buy it. There are some lenses I would love to have, but out of my budget.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I tend to agree that each person issues a favorable opinion of his or her lens. Even reviews can be misleading and I have that experience.
Is VR important to you? If it is, the Tokina lens is not for you.
From the images I have seen the Tokina seems to be a very impressive lens priced more reasonably than the Tamron and it also seems to be lighter in spite of the heavy use of metal. Canon has no IS and for those who use Nikon the Nikon lens with VR requires a visit to a bank to buy it. There are always good option in the second hand market.
I have no experience with 24-70 lenses although I have used a Nikon original 24-70 without VR, a very good lens. I am sure you will be very happy using the Tamron lens.
If you have access to rent use the Tamron if VR is important. You cannot go wrong with Canon but their lens as I said has no VR. If you can try also the Tokina if as I said VR is not important to you.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

fotowerks wrote:

Time to upgrade. My 24-105 f4 lost communication w... (show quote)

Had two Tamron 24-70s for awhile. Upgraded one to a new Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L and could not believe the difference! Both were tack sharp at F/5.6 to F/11, but wide open the Canon was better. The real ball breaker was in several low light situations, the Tamron would not focus, but just kept hunting, while the Canon was focusing like a trooper. Tried switching both lenses between two cameras to verify if the problem was camera or lens ... same results with both cameras. Soon after sold the Tamron and now tote two Canon 24-70s and a Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS to all weddings and events.

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

I second the idea of looking at the Tokina 24-70 2.8. It does not have VR, but to my mind this is of debatable value in these focal lengths. I own the Tokina 24-70 and use it on my Nikon D7100. I love the image quality of the lens, which is near or at prime lens quality. It is very solidly built, not to mention that B&H has it for $899 in the Canon mount (curious why it is $100 less than the Nikon mount, but that's the price they are quoting on their website). I agree that it is a good idea to look at reviews of the lens, which are generally very favorable. This is the lens that stays on my camera most of the time.

Jim Bob

Nukepr wrote:

I second the idea of looking at the Tokina 24-70 2... (show quote)

Exactly. Built like a tank with exceptional image quality. You can pay twice as much for the Canon but you will definitely not receive 2 times better image quality.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

I bought the Tamron and love it. Pixel-peepers might could tell the difference between the two, and if that is worth the $600 to you, buy canon. If not, you will be very happy with Tamron.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

Personally, I'd look very hard at the Tamron SP 24-70 f2.8 VC USM lens. I use this lens as my "go to lens" for most of my photography in that range. First the Tamron has a very good VC (which is Tamron speak, for IS) plus the lens is sharp all round at every zoom level. It is a bit large, and heavy, but that comes with it being f2.8 lens. In my Canon catalog, only see IS offered in the Canon 24-70 f4L IS USM only. Keep in mind, the Tamron has a 6 year warranty, compared to Canons paltry one year, even on their "L" quality lenses. Plus, Tamron will tune your lens to your camera body free, but you'll have to send the lens to Tamron. You may want to wait for a few weeks until the new Canon 24-105 f4L IS USM is announced. (around 8/24/2016) This lens will cover the 24-70 and then some, and be a more reasonable lens for your needs. Also, the Tamron, is a SP lens, which means the glass quality is of a higher quality than their standard quality glass.

B

B