GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

That lens makes a lot more sense on a crop sensor camera than the 24-70.


Kevin H, use the “quote reply” option when responding to a specific post as I have done here.
Helps us know which post you are addressing.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Kevin,

First of all, don't underestimate your T6i... It's a very capable camera with the best 24MP APS-C size sensor Canon has made to-date and an autofocus system largely inherited from the 70D (which in turn got a slightly dumbed down version of the high performance AF system in the original 7D). There's little correlation between camera cost and lens cost. In fact, higher quality lenses can make for much more difference and improvement in your images, than the camera they are used upon.

That said, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 is a "full frame" lens. It's designed for cameras with a larger sensor than your T6i's... which typically makes for a bigger, heavier and more expensive lens... with little to no real benefit when it's used on a crop sensor camera.

I see the Tamron costs $1100. I'm not sure which features of that lens are attractive to you, what you love about it or are hoping it will do for you... But there are excellent alternatives that cost less.

- For example, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM has excellent image quality, is well built and is designed for APS-C cameras such as yours... covers a slightly different range of focal lengths but still has f/2.8 aperture and stabilization, while being smaller, lighter and less expensive (currently $830). It would be a great choice for an f/2.8 "walk-around" zoom. The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 DC OS HSM for about $370 is an alternative.

- If you didn't need the f/2.8 aperture, Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM offers has a wider range of focal length, excellent image quality, very good build and overall performance in a reasonable size and weight.... for $800. Canon's own EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a cheaper alternative currently on sale for $300 (at B&H Photo, usually $600).

- Or, it's a full frame capable lens, but the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is super close focusing, able to give near macro .70X (almost 3/4 life size) magnification. That's far closer focusing than most lenses of this type (many only manage .25X to .30X, at best). As an f/4 lens, it's more compact and a bit lighter weight than an f/2.8 (though still a solidly built L-series)... costs $900.

- The Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($600) is the latest "upgrade kit lens" Canon offers with their APS-C models (usually with 7D Mark II or 80D, but will work just as well on a T6i). It's got a new "Nano USM" focus drive that's the best of both worlds.... fast and good tracking movement, like USM... as well as quiet and smooth like STM. So it's a good lens for both fast action still photography and for video work. With previous versions of the 18-135mm and most other lenses, you had to buy different lenses for those purposes: STM for video or USM for action/sports photography.

- Or, if you simply want inexpensive but capable, I'd suggest you look for a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM. This was recently discontinued so you may not be able to find a new one, but used ones are pretty easy to find... often for $200 or less. It's another full frame capable zoom, but reasonably compact and not too heavy. An older design dating from the film era, it's not as well built as some of the others mentioned, but has a nice range of focal lengths for a walk-around zoom and is able to make surprisingly good images (rivals some of the L-series), with fast, accurate focus and helpful IS.

Above are just a few alternatives. The Tamron is probably a fine lens, and it may be a good value when you compare it with Canon's own EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM (no stabilization), which currently is on sale for $1750 (usually $1900). But there are other possibilities... and while a full frame design lens might be overkill (bigger, heavier and more expensive than necessary) for your APS-C camera... if it fits your budget don't hesitate to use high quality lenses on your T6i. Heck, I've put $10,000 lenses on cameras that cost less than $1000 and gotten great results! In fact, in my opinion many people spend way too much time and money buying their camera... all the while largely overlooking and shortchanging themselves with the lenses they use upon it. I'd much rather see folks put about 2/3 their initial purchase budget into a fine lens, 1/3 into the camera... but most do it the other way around.

Lenses actually "make" the image... cameras just capture whatever the lens "sees".

MidnightManiac

Few things to consider, if in the future you are planning to upgrade to a full frame camera than go with the 24-70. I have a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG lens and it's my favorite walk around lens. I've had it a few years and like the results. Use it on my 5D, 5DIII and 7DII. The results on all 3 are very good. Investing in good glass is never a mistake. Using it on my crop 7DII the results may not be the same BUT still are very acceptable. Own a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (full frame lens) and use it all the time on my 7DII for sports photography and absolutely love that lens and the results. Canon, Tamron and Sigma make great lenses. I would put my money into lenses.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Kevin, if you can find a new or used version of this lens just prior to the G2, I can guarantee that you will not be disappointed. I have it and it's a great lens. It has a gold colored ring around the middle and, I've read, has the same optics as the G2. Apparently the VR has been improved on the G2. It should be lower priced than the new G2.

edfgrf1951 Loc: Chatsworth Ga.

I agree with the Sigma 17-50 great lens. Pretty close to 24-70 when you add the crop factor. Might want a fast wide angle prime.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Great idea, except if you are a photographer on a tight budget like me. (I can't be the only one.) The suggestions you make are suitable for shooters with a lot of disposable income, and/or possibly a serious case of GAS. >Alan

JBGLADSTONE Loc: Oregon

I had a T3I with the kit 18-55 lens. 6 months ago I upgraded to an 80D with the very sharp newer 18-55mm STM. Here is my lens investment;
24mm F2.8 pancake $75.00 Used. { Very sharp and works great }
40mm F2.8 pancake $90.00 Used. { Very sharp, maybe sharper than 24mm }
28-135mm Canon F3.5-5.6 IS $100.00 Used. { Test I have seen say "not a great lens" But it is providing me with pretty good pics for Flickr and 8 X 10 to 11 X 14 prints }
70-300mm Tamron $125.00 Used { I am amazed how sharp this lens is working on my 80D }
So here is my thinking, the 2 pancake lens will allow for semi fair wide angle and reaching out to A little longer for distance from subject. My 18-55 STM kit lens is very sharp for wide angle. Also I can take two pictures to create the wide angle by using post processing and probably have a wider angle than from say 10-22.

Does camera & lens I have come close to a full frame camera with $1500 to $2000 dollars lens, nope. But then again I am not trying to sell photos. I print most at 11 X 14 and they come out good. I post mostly on Flickr "John B". I will include a 2 photos I recently took with the Tamron/Spider & 24mm/Ball. The spider pic will show the individual web strings at the top of the hole,. If you can zoom in.
The 24mm pancake has given me a some very good pics. Recently I took a night photos and the 24mm gave me very sharp images of the houses about 1/2 mile away. I was impressed. I guess taking your time and using the lens and camera you have Correctly can make a difference. In a downtown street cruise-in, I used my 70-300. Yup, I had to stand back and wait for people to walk by or they would kindly wait. So what I am trying to say, adapting to your lens can makeup for not having the exact lens, Walk back or walk closer. Just make it happen. Enjoy taking photos.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I hear what you are saying, I am far from being flush with money, but I have learned there is no substitute for good glass.

I have bought my share of EBAY glass and slower glass, and after finally picking up some decent glass can easily tell the difference in the results.

I am a hobby shooter, retired, but I want the best I can end up with so I joined the CC plan to get the best software for post processing.

As others have said, it’s the glass that matters, and in my opinion they are right

BTW - I have to stick to my budget for gear, and get permission from my wife before splurging of course!!!

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I second this comment. I bought a 24-70 f2.8 but later discovered that most of what I wanted to do I could do with my 50mm f1.4 and for a fraction of the cost.

Mr palmer Loc: Currently: Colorado, USA, Terra, Sol

Tamron's old 28-75/2.8 has always been very highly regarded and is dirt cheap, especially since it's so old! But it is a serious pro lens that many used for many years.
Almost the same range.

cochese

Sigma 17-50. Fast sharp and inexpensive. Will work perfectly on your T6i. I use one on my 60D to shoot night sky photos, or at least practice shooting night sky.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

Consider the Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 PRO FX lens it s $679 right now at B&W. I’ve recently paired this lens with my Canon 5D MK II. It is killer and tack sharp. Whether Tokina, Canon or Tamron these lenses are not light weight. My Tokina is huge and weighs nearly 2.5 lbs. Read the reviews on the Tokina online. It rates higher than the G1 Canon 24-70 but not quite as good as the G2 lens.

Shutterbug57

I am not sure I understand your “my lens can’t cost more than my body” issue. Take a look at the pros shooting a field sport event. In many cases, while they may be shooting a $6.5K body, they hang a $11K len’s on the front (400/2.8). They do this because that lens is the best tool for the job. Heck, you could hang that lens on a F4 (an old pro film body) that you bought last week for a couple hundred bucks and still pull off great images.

Bodies come and bodies go (or get shuffled to the back of the closet), but good glass soldiers on. I have lenses I bought for my N90s that have worked on my D70s, D200 & now D500. Some of these lenses are nearly 30 years old and still work as they did when new. They were not cheap, they were the current pro glass when new, but they still pull off sharp images. That Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 is a great lens. I bought one when I got my D500. It is my only VR lens and I do like that feature quite a bit.

Shutterbug57

I have both the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2. These are in NO WAY comparable lenses. The G2 blows the doors off the older lens. My 28-75 is relegated to grandkid training camera duty on my old D70s where it gives acceptable, for the mission profile, performance.

cochese

Sigma 17-50 can be had in mint condition on ebay for just over $200, and brand new for about $350. Budget and quality. I only have Sigma lenses, all are EX series lenses, all but my 17-50 were bought used at considerable savings. And the 17-50 was only $350.