Author Topic: Canon 24-70 F2.8 L USM II vs Tamron 24-70 F2.8 DI VC (Read 19878 times)

Poncke · « **on:** November 23, 2012, 13:09 »

I have been pondering on this, and checked out the reviews, but I am still on the fence.

Since I am landscape photographer I dont want soft corners (Tamron), but the Canon doesnt have IS. The Tamron is really good compared to the Canon. I dont know if I can justify the price for the Canon for that little extra.

So 1300 dollar (Tamron) vs 2000 dollar (Canon)

Canon 24-70 F2.8 L USM II vs Tamron 24-70 F2.8 DI VC

I'm serious about where I want to take my photography, I also want to get a 5DMKII.

Should I go for the Tamron for that price? Or is the Canon really better and should I just go for the top lens?

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2012, 13:17 »

To be honest I have never tried the Tamron but I do have the Canon 24-70, latest model. Its good but like all mid range zooms nothing to stand up and shout for. Its sharp and all that, gives a bit of CA at the wide end and thats just about it.

It hasnt got a chance compared with say the Nikon 24-70.

All in all they fall under the boring focal lengths so maybe your just as well off with the other one. Many people prefer the 24-105 actually.

tab62 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:03 »

I've been told that both are good lenses. I have the canon lens and it is one of my main lenses for travel. In studio I like my primes (35, 50, 100)...

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2012, 14:52 »

If you are a 'landscape photographer' then you don't need IS. No true landscape photographer I know would ever be without his tripod, his remote release and the camera set to 'mirror lock-up'. That's the way they work. Always.

chrisroll · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2012, 15:10 »

Hi,

A new stabilized version of canon 24-70 2.8 mm will comme soon

See this link :

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/canon-makes-the-ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-official/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-REG/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html

If you can wait...

Poncke · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2012, 18:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 23, 2012, 14:52

If you are a 'landscape photographer' then you don't need IS. No true landscape photographer I know would ever be without his tripod, his remote release and the camera set to 'mirror lock-up'. That's the way they work. Always.

Cheers, thats true. I am never without my tripod. But it will be my main lens, so I would use it for everything, hence the IS would come in very handy.

Its only 2 maybe 3 stops, but it is a big difference. The Tamron does come with VC.

I also noticed the CA on the Tamron is heavier, but I use Lightroom so in post I could get rid of that easily.

As for sharpness, they pretty much tie up in the midrange of the focal length.

Hard to make a choice.

Poncke · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2012, 18:13 »

Quote from: chrisroll on November 23, 2012, 15:10

Hi,

A new stabilized version of canon 24-70 2.8 mm will comme soon

See this link :

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/canon-makes-the-ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-official/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-REG/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html

If you can wait...

I can wait, I need to save up anyways, but how much more money would the IS version cost. You know... And f4 takes away from the f2.8

Thanks for posting the links.

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2012, 19:47 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 23, 2012, 18:12

Cheers, thats true. I am never without my tripod. But it will be my main lens, so I would use it for everything, hence the IS would come in very handy.

No it wouldn't. Not for 70mm maximum. I use a 24-70mm L for about 98% of my stock shots and would consider the option of IS to be more of a hindrance than a help. When shooting stock you'll generally need optimum conditions (otherwise they won't sell) which totally negates the need for IS anyway. A good part of the skill required to be a decent photographer is learning how to brace and hold the camera properly. Beyond that, if conditions require, you can up the ISO or shrink the final image down a bit. If all that's not enough then you might as well give up the idea of doing commercial photography __ IS won't help.

tab62 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2012, 20:04 »

the 'IS' is one very good topic for sure! You do pay extra for that thus is it truly worth it? Maybe for sports photographers that are chasing the action...

tab62 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2012, 20:07 »

Found this blog on the net about 'IS'

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Xo2l

Poncke · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2012, 02:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 23, 2012, 19:47

Quote from: Poncke on November 23, 2012, 18:12
Cheers, thats true. I am never without my tripod. But it will be my main lens, so I would use it for everything, hence the IS would come in very handy.

No it wouldn't. Not for 70mm maximum. I use a 24-70mm L for about 98% of my stock shots and would consider the option of IS to be more of a hindrance than a help. When shooting stock you'll generally need optimum conditions (otherwise they won't sell) which totally negates the need for IS anyway. A good part of the skill required to be a decent photographer is learning how to brace and hold the camera properly. Beyond that, if conditions require, you can up the ISO or shrink the final image down a bit. If all that's not enough then you might as well give up the idea of doing commercial photography __ IS won't help.

I dont see how having 2 stops extra in any given situation wont help.

When I said the lens is going to be my main lens, I meant everything from stock and non stock, even editorial shots. Even if I master hand holding techniques, etc, having 2 stops extra is a good thing in my book.

In the reviews I read, the IS was a big selling point.

I agree with you that you need to good techniques and all that, but I think the IS is a benefit.

I am not sure what you advise me to do tho, go for the Tamron or the Canon?

Thanks.

Poncke · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2012, 02:41 »

Quote from: tab62 on November 23, 2012, 20:07

Found this blog on the net about 'IS'

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Xo2l

Thanks for that

Poncke · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2012, 02:42 »

Ok, lets forget about IS.... on all other aspects, Tamron or the Canon?

Cant make my mind up.... aaah. Need to read up a bit more on both lenses.

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2012, 20:23 »

I like Tamron as a budget lens maker and recommended the 28-75 in another thread, but if you are going to drop over $1300 on a lens, you might as well go the extra and get the Canon, which will undoubtedly be better. Plus, if you ever DO have problems with a lens, believe me, you want to be dealing with Canon customer service over Tamron's.

Poncke · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2012, 20:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 24, 2012, 20:23

I like Tamron as a budget lens maker and recommended the 28-75 in another thread, but if you are going to drop over $1300 on a lens, you might as well go the extra and get the Canon, which will undoubtedly be better. Plus, if you ever DO have problems with a lens, believe me, you want to be dealing with Canon customer service over Tamron's.

Thank you Lisa. I am convinced I want IS...and I am also convinced I want the Canon.

So... I have to wait for the 24-70 IS. But thats fine, I need to save up anyways.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2012, 21:06 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 24, 2012, 20:33

Quote from: lisafx on November 24, 2012, 20:23
I like Tamron as a budget lens maker and recommended the 28-75 in another thread, but if you are going to drop over $1300 on a lens, you might as well go the extra and get the Canon, which will undoubtedly be better. Plus, if you ever DO have problems with a lens, believe me, you want to be dealing with Canon customer service over Tamron's.
Thank you Lisa. I am convinced I want IS...and I am also convinced I want the Canon. So... I have to wait for the 24-70 IS. But thats fine, I need to save up anyways.

I don't blame you on either score. I know in that range a lot of people don't need IS, but I LOVE it. Can't go wrong with Canon, for sure. Overall, I think Canon lenses have great quality control. I've seen no difference in quality from one copy to another of the same lens.

Can't say the same for Tamron or Sigma. I've gotten bad (soft or poor focusing) copies of both brands, and also good ones. Bit of a crap shoot. Good luck!

enstoker · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2012, 21:14 »

Think again about Canon 24-105 L IS if You are buying zoom lens.

Poncke · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2012, 04:12 »

Quote from: enstoker on November 24, 2012, 21:14

Think again about Canon 24-105 L IS if You are buying zoom lens.

Is it better than the 24-70 2.8?

By the way, the new 24-70 with IS is f4, which is also a bummer. Why cant they make the 2.8 with IS

enstoker · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:10 »

Image-Stabilized Version of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L Rumored to be Floating Around

Michael Zhang · Oct 29, 2012

Image Stabilized Version of the Canon 24 70 f/2.8L Rumored to be Floating Around 2470mmismockup

When Canon unveiled the followup lens to its popular Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L back in February, many photographers found it strange that the lens eschewed Image Stabilization even while two wide-angle prime lenses announced at the same time had IS. After all, a $2,300 lens that extends to 70mm on the telephoto end seems like it would benefit more from stabilization than 24mm and 28mm lenses. If you’ve been yearning for a “Brick” (as the 24-70mm used to be called) with IS, here’s some good news: the lens reportedly exists, and may already be floating around in the wild for initial tests.
Read more at http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/29/image-stabilized-version-of-the-canon-24-70-f2-8l-rumored-to-be-floating-around/#BGP7JdpxDPe4ZUg0.99

Kind regards.

Poncke · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:17 »

Thank you Enstoker, I definitely need IS because I want to get into stock video as well, and the extra light that comes with the 2.8 is important as well as the shallow dof for background blurring on portraits.

But as they say on that forum, the price tag would be through the roof.

Maybe I really need to rethink the whole thing and go with the 105mm for 1/3 of the price tag.

elvinstar · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2012, 15:07 »

Quote

Plus, if you ever DO have problems with a lens, believe me, you want to be dealing with Canon customer service over Tamron's.

I guess that I must be lucky because I had to send a lens in to Tamron and everything went very smoothly and quickly.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2012, 18:38 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 25, 2012, 04:12

Quote from: enstoker on November 24, 2012, 21:14
Think again about Canon 24-105 L IS if You are buying zoom lens.
Is it better than the 24-70 2.8?

It isn't better than the 24-70, but it is comparably good. You give up the f2.8, but gain the extra reach and the IS. Plus it is lighter, which for some of us is a plus.

Since I got the 24-105L it has been on my camera for 90%+ of my stock work.

Poncke · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2012, 18:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 26, 2012, 18:38

Quote from: Poncke on November 25, 2012, 04:12
Quote from: enstoker on November 24, 2012, 21:14
Think again about Canon 24-105 L IS if You are buying zoom lens.
Is it better than the 24-70 2.8?

It isn't better than the 24-70, but it is comparably good. You give up the f2.8, but gain the extra reach and the IS. Plus it is lighter, which for some of us is a plus.

Since I got the 24-105L it has been on my camera for 90%+ of my stock work.

Missing the 2 stops of light and smaller DOF, will that be a big issue? Considering I do landscapes, urban scenes, but also like to shoot with small DOF for freelance work?

wds · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2012, 22:29 »

I'm waiting to see what the image quality is like on the 24-70L f/4 IS. If it's excellent, I may sell my 24-70 2.8L and buy the f/4L for the IS and better image quality.

Lisa, I have heard that the 24-105 has heavy distortion on the wide end. Do you have any issue with that?

tab62 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 27, 2012, 00:16 »

I highly doubt you will get better quality on the Tamron lens compared to your canon 24-70 lens. The biggest plus for the tamron is the weight. The canon is like carrying a brick...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon 24-70 F2.8 L USM II vs Tamron 24-70 F2.8 DI VC (Read 19878 times)

Poncke

ClaridgeJ

tab62

gostwyck

chrisroll

Poncke

Poncke

gostwyck

tab62

tab62

Poncke

Poncke

Poncke

lisafx

Poncke

lisafx

enstoker

Poncke

enstoker

Poncke

elvinstar

lisafx

Poncke

wds

tab62

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors