# 24-105 replacement



## painya (May 16, 2015)

Hello all, I am looking for a faster replacement for my 24-105. I will be able to finance it through selling that lens. And about 250$ extra dollars (maybe a bit more). I was thinking about the 28-70 canon. What are your thoughts? I would use this lens for event shooting and some landscape. 
Thanks
A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 16, 2015)

Canon 28-70L has very good image in the center of the frame, but not noticeably better than 24-105L in image corners.

I particularly think 28mm is not wide angle enough to events indoors.


----------



## painya (May 16, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Canon 28-70L has very good image in the center of the frame, but not noticeably better than 24-105L in image corners.
> 
> I particularly think 28mm is not wide angle enough to events indoors.


I should have mentioned I also own a 24mm 1.8 sigma, and 16-28 2.8 tokina


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 16, 2015)

Since the Tokina 16-28mm is a beautiful lens, I would sell 24mm F1.8 to help buy a Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii


----------



## painya (May 16, 2015)

Has anyone had any experience with the sigma 24-70? And if I sell both the 24 and 24-105 I only have 1200$ so the 24-70 2.8 ii is out of budget.


----------



## painya (May 16, 2015)

How about the Tamron 24-70?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 16, 2015)

The Sigma 24-70 is already an old project, and chromatic aberration is visible. The new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC has better image quality, and offers image stabilization. See comparison of both the link below.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=805&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## painya (May 16, 2015)

Wow the sigma sure gets soft at 70mm. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 16, 2015)

Having recently sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 L V2, I would suggest that you wait (save) and go for it!
The 24-105 is very good (though not perfect) in my opinion so I don't see the point in spending your hard earned cash for a minor (if any) upgrade. I waited until I save (and sold) enough to get the 24-70 V2 - was it worth it? YES!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 16, 2015)

It seems to me that the OP decided that F2.8 is the thing missing in your current lens.

I agree that Canon 24-70 F2.8 II is the safest choice, and higher performance. But Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC offers good image quality, and still has image stabilizer.

If one does not need a weather sealed lens, Tamron is a good option.


----------



## TeT (May 17, 2015)

painya said:


> Has anyone had any experience with the sigma 24-70? And if I sell both the 24 and 24-105 I only have 1200$ so the 24-70 2.8 ii is out of budget.



Where were you planning on selling the lenses and clearing $1200.00?


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 17, 2015)

When I rented the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC a few years ago, it had some trouble focusing in low light (on my 5D3). Could be a problem for event photography.

Has anyone tried that lens recently and can you report on the low light focus ability?

I recently took advantage of the decreased price and purchased the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L II and it is everything they say it is.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (May 17, 2015)

TeT said:


> painya said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone had any experience with the sigma 24-70? And if I sell both the 24 and 24-105 I only have 1200$ so the 24-70 2.8 ii is out of budget.
> ...



I see the sale getting $900-$1000 max. 24-105 white box lenses are available new for $600, lowering the used price to less than that. 24/1.8 Sigma lenses are available for $350 new.

I'd go with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC unless you're like me and hoping that Canon will surprise us and release a 24-70/2.8 IS some time shortly after the 5D4 is released.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (May 17, 2015)

To the OP:
What about getting more agressive:
Selling your 24, 50, 24-105 and 7D and buying 24-70 F2.8 USM L II.
Then you will have a FF only, zoom only, constant F2.8 solution covering 16-200 mm with the magnificent 24-70 F2.8 USM L II at the core.
In this setup, your 24-70 will be the best lens and used probably 90% of the time.
That's what I'd do, but that's me - YMMV.


----------



## painya (May 17, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems to me that the OP decided that F2.8 is the thing missing in your current lens.
> 
> I agree that Canon 24-70 F2.8 II is the safest choice, and higher performance. But Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC offers good image quality, and still has image stabilizer.
> 
> If one does not need a weather sealed lens, Tamron is a good option.


You are right about the f2.8



drmikeinpdx said:


> When I rented the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC a few years ago, it had some trouble focusing in low light (on my 5D3). Could be a problem for event photography.
> 
> Has anyone tried that lens recently and can you report on the low light focus ability?
> 
> I recently took advantage of the decreased price and purchased the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L II and it is everything they say it is.


This dissuaded me from getting the lens. Thank you for your input.



Chris Jankowski said:


> To the OP:
> What about getting more agressive:
> Selling your 24, 50, 24-105 and 7D and buying 24-70 F2.8 USM L II.
> Then you will have a FF only, zoom only, constant F2.8 solution covering 16-200 mm with the magnificent 24-70 F2.8 USM L II at the core.
> ...



Thanks for your input. However a bit too aggressive. I am foremost a portrait photographer, then a sports photographer, then lastly an event/ wedding photographer. So that is not an option.


Conclusion: Thank you all for your input. I am choosing to make an even swap for the 28-70 f2.8 for A) Reliable autofocus, B) Robust Construction C) Constant f2.8 aperture D) Little net cash lost E) Comparable sharpness with the 24-105


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 17, 2015)

Given that I have used the 24-105 L IS since just after it was introduced I would suggest that you re visit Chris Jankowski's post and me previous post.
The 24-105 is a very good lens so if you are going to upgrade make it worth it - the Canon 24-70 F2.8 V2 is worth the upgrade despite it's scary price!
Only you can decide but I don't want to see you regretting your decision. Better to put it off for a while, save, and get the right lens.


----------



## TeT (May 18, 2015)

If you like the 28 70 range, then the tamron 28 75 is peanuts (will net you some cash after the swap) and a extremely good lens(real life better than the charts) also (prolly better than the 28 70 canon). I had one and only sold it because the 28 was too narrow on my crop sensor camera... Would have been fine on FF


----------



## painya (May 18, 2015)

TeT said:


> If you like the 28 70 range, then the tamron 28 75 is peanuts (will net you some cash after the swap) and a extremely good lens(real life better than the charts) also (prolly better than the 28 70 canon). I had one and only sold it because the 28 was too narrow on my crop sensor camera... Would have been fine on FF


I'll check that out too!


----------

