# Canon 24-105 IS vs Tamron 24-70 VC



## Mort (Aug 16, 2013)

So I know this isn't a very common comparison, but I am looking at buying the Canon 6d as well as a new lens. The way prices are looking, I can get the 6D w/ the 24-105 and a $500 rebate for $2600 while the 6D w/ the Tamron would cost $2800 with a $100 rebate. From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-105 IS vs Canon 24-70 VC*

You might clarify what you are asking about. The subject says Canon 24-70VC, which doesn't exist.

If you are talking the Tamron 24-70, some like it, some don't. It has some flare issues which may not affect indoor shooters and frustrate outdoor shooters, for example.


----------



## Mort (Aug 16, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-105 IS vs Canon 24-70 VC*

Woops! My bad....


----------



## bholliman (Aug 17, 2013)

It really depends on what type of photography you normally do. The 24-105L is a really good, versatile, lens. I have one of these and recently added a Canon 24-70 2.8 II. I don't have any experience with the Tamron, but Dustin Abbot and others have had excellent experience with it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.0

I use my 24-105 as a travel/day trip lens as its nice to have the added zoom reach (70-105mm) and IS. I use the 2.8 lens more when shooting portraits and the kids at play as it can isolate the subject better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 17, 2013)

Mort said:


> From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?



It's worth the money if you bought the 6d for low light shooting, if you are ok with a less reach & the thinner dof @f2.8 and don't intend to add really fast ~f1.4 primes to your lens zoo. Plus the Tamron has a 6y warranty, though of course no cps.

For the sharpness comparison, look here, the new Tamron lens has the edge if you get a good copy: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## bchernicoff (Aug 17, 2013)

I had been using the 5D Mk III with 24-105 for over a year then bought the Tamron. I had them both for a month or so to figure out which I liked better and the Tamron was the winner. I sold the 24-105. The pros to the Canon were smaller/lighter, longer reach, and standard 77mm filters (which I was invested in). The pros to the Tamron were one stop wider aperture and better sharpness. I found that the Tamron was as sharp at f/2.8 as the Canon at f/4. Similarly, it was as sharp at f/4 as the Canon was at f/5.6. I own the amazing Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, so the loss of reach would just mean more lens changes. And to be honest the 70-200 is so much better than the 24-105 and all overlapping focal lengths that I tended to be doing that already.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2013)

Mort said:


> From experience, what is the optical and performance difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8? Is it worth the extra money?



Yes...I would pick the latest Tamron 24-70. 

Keep in mind, 1stop more = x2 amount of light entering your lens. Beside f2.8, the Tamron performs better than 24-105 at f4.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 17, 2013)

Another vote for the Tamron. I have both lenses.

Pro 24-105: Smaller, lighter, 35mm extended reach and 77mm filter size.
Pro 24-70: Faster, sharper, less distortion and better VC (IS) by 1-2 stops, and the 6 year warranty.

For an everyday walk around lens, the 24-105 is hard to beat for its size, build and reach. That's why I still own it. But if IQ and versatility (2.8 for low light & stopping action) is what you're after, the Tamron wins hands down. It is a heavy lens though. Not a problem for me though, as it is the perfect compliment to my 70-200 2.8ll, which is not exactly a minimalist lens. There's really no bad choice here.


----------



## swampler (Aug 17, 2013)

Depends on what you're getting it for. For walk around, all purpose lens, the 24-105. In fact, I can't think of a reason I would take a Tamron over the Canon with the high ISO performance of the 6D, though I can see the argument for 2.8 in low light, fast moving action type shots.


----------



## Mort (Aug 18, 2013)

So a big thing to consider is the price. I can get the 24-105 for $200 less plus a $500 rebate. Is the f/2.8 really worth nearly $700 more than the f/4 of the 24-105? (By the way, I am planning on buying a 35/50/85 f/1.4/1.8 with the money saved. Prob the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 35 1.4)


----------



## Matto (Aug 18, 2013)

I have the 24-105 f4L and its a fine everyday lens. Can't comment on the Tamron, but hear its also great.

That said, you mention buying primes, so personally I would recommend just getting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 which is an awesome lens, have myself already. And make do with that for now, and hold out until the Sigma 24-70 f2 is released, reported to be be in the near future.

Enjoy whatever choice you make!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 18, 2013)

Mort said:


> So a big thing to consider is the price. I can get the 24-105 for $200 less plus a $500 rebate. Is the f/2.8 really worth nearly $700 more than the f/4 of the 24-105? (By the way, I am planning on buying a 35/50/85 f/1.4/1.8 with the money saved. Prob the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 35 1.4)



Well it's up to _you_ whether it's worth it. The 2.8 will get you better isolation/bokeh for portraits and creative purposes. It will also be much better if you are going to be doing much indoor/low light shooting with it. It is quite a bit sharper and has much better image stabilization. But it _is_ quite a bit more money. Many of the reasons to pick the Tamron over the Canon will be mitigated by your buying those primes, so it comes down to convenience & cash.

By the way, a HUGE +1 on the Sigma 1.4. It's also big and heavy, but oh so worth it.


----------

