# Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4



## FatDaddyJones (Dec 21, 2012)

I just bought a 5D3 - upgrading from a 7D. I need a good walk around lens to put on it. I take lots of low light pictures. Image stabilization is nice, but not that important to me. The extra stop in very important. Money is also a big factor in the purchase. I can't bring myself to pay the ridiculous price for the Canon 24-70 II. Whatever you may say about the quality - it's just too expensive. That brings me down to a choice of two lenses - the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4. 

Yes - I have tried out both lenses, shooting a few shots in a store, but never handling one on a long term basis. The 24-105 is a great lens, but I hesitate because I would really use the wider aperture in a 2.8 lens. The Tamron - I've tried two copies. One was awesome, one was terrible. The AF was fast in one, almost broken in the other. It was slow and shook right before it locked on. The picture was sharp in one and soft in the other. This scared me, but if the one was just a bad copy, and I ended up with a good copy, well maybe it would be better than the Canon lens. 

This question was asked on this forum a couple times already and most responses were comments such as "Canon lenses are better because they have 'Canon' written on them," or "get this other lens that you didn't ask about." 

Seriously... between these two lenses - from people who have shot with both of them, what would you recommend, considering the build quality, sharpness, resale value, long term reliability, etc. ? And of course there's the aperture thing.

Thanks in advance...


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 21, 2012)

If image stabilization is not that important, but the range is, why not the first version of the Canon 24-70 f2.8L? Should be quite a few in the used market at least. I've always been annoyed with the Tamron lenses because of the weird yellow cast in the shadows for when I photograph people... Canon lenses seem to be much more accurate with skin tone.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Dec 21, 2012)

I had 24-105 and sold it for the tamron..my copy is perfectly fine and it also has a 6year warranty so don't be affraid.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 21, 2012)

I think it comes down to do you want f/2.8 and a slightly shorter lens, or f/4 with a bigger range and lighter weight. I think (haven't really looked/compared) that the Tamron tends to be sharper and have less distortion, but the 24-105 is a somewhat more versatile lens for general walk around lens in moderate to slightly dim lighting.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 21, 2012)

f/2.8 won't do that much more than f/4 in low light. The midrange is blessed with lots of fast prime choices. I'd suggest choosing between the Tamron 24-70 and Canon 24-105 based on how you'd use it outdoors and travel. I'd then couple it with a fast 35/50/85 prime for indoor/portrait use. You can get good deals through the refurb store or used. For the price of the Tamron, you should be able to score the 24-105 with a fast prime or two.


----------



## enraginangel (Dec 21, 2012)

I am in the exact same situation as you. I have a 5Dm3 and I'm considering those two options. I keep teetering back and forth and I have decided that (when I have money) I will get the 24-105mm IS. 

There's just a couple things that made my decision...

- The Tamron cannot use all the AF points of the 5Dm3. Reports are out there that it doesn't use the peripheral AF points.
- The 82mm filter thread. Getting new CP and ND filters is just an extra cost to deal with
- All those people that complain about 3rd party lenses.

I bought a Sigma 70-200mm OS over the Canon 70-200 IS Mk II so I don't have a problem with 3rd party lenses, but I just hear too many horror stories about front/back focusing on Tamrons that it does affect my decision a little bit. 

I figure if I get the 24-105mm now, I will save up to get the 24-70mm f2.8 IS when it comes out 2 years later. That's the lens everyone wants anyway.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 21, 2012)

I have both lenses, and they are both excellent. The Tamron has a very good build, though I believe you could drive a truck over the Canon with no problem. As someone mentioned earlier, it depends on what your main use will be. The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting. The Canon has more reach, less weight and, I believe, a more robust build than the Tamron. For myself, the Canon stays home 80% of the time...


----------



## robbymack (Dec 21, 2012)

You said you would use f2.8 so there is your answer. Also whomever mentioned the tamron doesn't use the outer af points on a 5diii, that is simply untrue. It is however true that the f4 lens doesn't take advantage of the double cross f2.8 points on a 5diii. I own the tamron it is excellent better than my old canon 24-70i plus with 6 years of warrantee and roger at lens rentals singing the praises of tamron service it is by far the best deal out there in a fast mid range zoom IMHO.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Dec 22, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> f/2.8 won't do that much more than f/4 in low light. The midrange is blessed with lots of fast prime choices.



Really? I'd say that stop would make quite a difference when you need it. I've got a couple fast primes. I just want to get a nice sharp standard zoom, where wide is more important than the long end (in most of my shooting). I've got the Canon 70-300mm which I love for outdoor photography.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Dec 22, 2012)

brad-man said:


> The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.



I took a few shots in the store with the Tamron vs my Canon 17-55mm, and it seemed quite a bit softer than the Canon. But then again, my 17-55 is very sharp, and it was the Tamron copy with the messed up AF too. If I could be convinced that the Tamron 24-70 was the sharper lens and that the messed up copy that I saw in one store was just an anomaly, then I'd probably go for the Tamron. Otherwise I'd go for the Canon 24-105.


----------



## John Thomas (Dec 22, 2012)

robbymack said:


> You said you would use f2.8 so there is your answer. Also whomever mentioned the tamron doesn't use the outer af points on a 5diii, that is simply untrue. It is however true that the f4 lens doesn't take advantage of the double cross f2.8 points on a 5diii. I own the tamron it is excellent better than my old canon 24-70i plus with 6 years of warrantee and roger at lens rentals singing the praises of tamron service it is by far the best deal out there in a fast mid range zoom IMHO.



^^This. 

If you shot in low light the f/2.8 vs f/4 isn't just one stop better, is also the (great) difference in AF usage. A F/2.8 (or faster) lens use much more from AF engine than a slower lens (double cross AF points are enabled only at 2.8 or faster etc.).

Disclaimer: I have Tamron 24-70 on 5D3 shooting *a lot* in low-light, very pleased so far. Perhaps your copy will need AFMA but is nothing to worry about. Also, on Canon's 24-105 seemed to exhibit some CA on big contrast images.


----------



## Denisas Pupka (Dec 22, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> I had 24-105 and sold it for the tamron..my copy is perfectly fine and it also has a 6year warranty so don't be affraid.


Buying from third party companies like Tamron, theres all the time risk that something will be wrong. I have canon 550D and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC for about three years. I'm not happy with 17-50mm f2.8 VC, difficult to get it sharp, its soft at f2.8, sometimes I get errors, time to time a lot of mist focus shots and sometimes I even not sure if it suppose to work like this. You must to get used to them and when you'll be able to make good shots. 

Took only once this lens to beach and second day discovered pieces of sand inside. But I was also not happy with canon 17-55mm f2.8. It was very sharp, but build quality was very weak, maybe even worse than Tamron. I send canon back after one week. 

Thats why this is one of my reasons to move to full frame. Still not sure if that will be 6D or Mark III. Im not professional, but one or another decision have its own pluses and cons.

The same dilema about lens. I can try to risk again to move to tamron 24-70mm, but who knows how many weeks I will lose if something will be wrong, replacing it over and over. I have tamron 70-300mm VC and they really improved in focus system. At least I know if I'll go with Canon 24-105mm f4 theres much less risk and I'm not afraid to use it any time in beach or in bad weather condition. And If I'll have really low lite condition, I can use my Sigma 50mm f1.4 prime.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 22, 2012)

FatDaddyJones said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.
> ...



Just about every review out there of the tamron says its sharper than the canon 24-70i. That doesn't mean that there will not be some copy variation. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say well I tested a lens once for 5 mins and it sucked so I'll never buy it despite all the people out there that own it and produce stunning results with it. given your budget and what you want (fast standard zoom) the tamron is the only real choice here. Sure you could by a used canon 24-70i and in good shape it would be about the same price as the canon, but you'd lose IS and unless it was the cream of the crop it would likely be less sharp than your average tamron. Buy from a reputable seller and return it if you think you got a lemon. And with 6 years of warrantee and tamron offering maybe the best service outside of cps I doubt you'll have much to complain about.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 22, 2012)

FatDaddyJones said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > f/2.8 won't do that much more than f/4 in low light. The midrange is blessed with lots of fast prime choices.
> ...



If you already have fast primes and still think you need a f/2.8 zoom then go for the tamron. Yes, it's one stop from f/4 to f/2.8 and I wouldn't bother switching lenses for one stop much, but if it's really dark and no flash, then I'm choosing f/1.4 anyway. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 doesn't matter much to me at that point.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 4, 2013)

*Rented a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 *

I rented the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 from LensRentals.com during their end of year special. Gotta love their service, although charging me sales tax was not a welcome addition!

I wanted to see how the Tamron worked with my 5D3. I currently use an old Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that actually works fine for my needs.

Due to the weather, I mostly shot in my studio with strobes, so the stabilization did not get much of a workout. I did some limited testing with continous light sources and found that it did allow me to use shutter speeds two or three stops slower with equal motion blur. I found that I needed to shoot about three frames of each subject to make sure that one stopped the camera shake well enough to make me happy. If I were going to use this lens for slow shutter speed work, I'd probably set the camera for rapid fire.

In the sharpness department, I found nothing to complain about. It is at least as good as my old Tamron. I did not shoot any resolution charts, prefering to leave that kind of testing to folks like Roger Cicala at LensRentals. They say it is very sharp.

In the autofocus department, it generally focused fast and quietly. However there were some situations where the camera would not lock focus in dim light where I did not expect it to have a problem. I had to press the shutter button a second time to get a focus lock, which is not something I had ever noticed with the Mark III. I turned up the modeling lights on my strobes and the problem went away.

As for autofocus accuracy, I tested with my usual floor grid and found that there was some variation, as is typical of many zoom lenses. Sometimes it back focused moderately and sometimes it front focused moderately. It was more accurate if you focused at the same place twice instead of making it focus elsewhere in between test shots. Since most of my studio shooting is at 5.6 or 8 I elected not to put in any MFA correction and focus accuracy was not a problem. If I want every shot tack sharp at f2.8, I'll use my wonderful prime lenses.

My only major complaint about this lens is the size and weight compared to the old Tamron that I'm used to. If you are used to a Canon 24-70 Mark I you won't have a problem, but I found the extra weight made it hard to hand hold and unpleasant to carry around. I thought the extra weight might make it feel more stable, but that did not happen for me.

After renting the lens for a week, I have elected not to purchase one for $1299 - they never seem to go on sale. However I think this might be a useful lens for wedding and event photographers who photograph relatively non-moving people in dim light situations where the stabilization will be useful. On the other hand, the 5D Mark III allows you to use pretty high ISOs to keep your shutter speed up, so that may be a better solution for most photographers.


----------



## cliffwang (Jan 4, 2013)

Denisas Pupka said:


> Buying from third party companies like Tamron, theres all the time risk that something will be wrong. I have canon 550D and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC for about three years. I'm not happy with 17-50mm f2.8 VC, difficult to get it sharp, its soft at f2.8, sometimes I get errors, time to time a lot of mist focus shots and sometimes I even not sure if it suppose to work like this. You must to get used to them and when you'll be able to make good shots.


I think you should do your homework before you buy your toys. Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC is soft from most of reviews. However, the non VC version is very good. Before I upgraded to FF, I was checking may reviews and even test Canon 17-55mm, Tamron 17-50mm VC, and Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Canon 17-55mm was the best one and I had good time with the lens for about two years. After I upgraded to FF, I used Canon 24-70 MK1. Honestly, Canon 24-70 MK1 is not sharper than Canon 17-55 at all the time. I believe that's because the IS feature on Canon 17-55mm. I was so excited when Tamron released the 24-70mm VC. After three months waiting for reviews, I decided to give the Tamron 24-70mm a try. Guess what? I sold my Canon 24-70mm in two weeks after I use the Tamron 24-70mm. It's sharper than the Canon 24-70 MK1. Moreover, I am happy with the VC feature. I have some shutter speed about 1 second and they are still good. That's almost impossible to happen on my old Canon 24-70mm.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 4, 2013)

I own both of these lenses, and, for now, am keeping them both. Under normal conditions I use the Tamron more. It is a very versatile lens that produces great results. It also has a beautiful build quality and fantastic warranty. F/2.8 is a big deal; don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It not only gives you more flexibility in low light, but also opens up more creative options.

That being said, the 24-105L is probably the best travel lens for full frame that Canon makes. I chose it over the Tamron for a recent trip I returned from yesterday. I supplemented it for lower light with the 40mm f/2.8 and the 135 f/2L. I had to do three portrait sessions while traveling, too, and it is a great lens for shooting environmental portraits of larger groups when you don't need too narrow a depth of field (although the 135L was my primary portrait lens for couples/individuals for obvious reasons. The biggest reason I took the Canon is the point that someone else raised: filters. I still don't have a great collection of 82mm filters, and unless I get more lens with this filter size, I probably won't invest in them. A big factor is my Cokin P square filter system. I have an adapter for the 82mm, but it vignettes until about 32mm, which limits landscape options. I can shoot the Canon 24-105L at about 25mm without vignetting.

Both are good choices for different reasons. Only you can determine which type of shooting you will do more often. I have extensively reviewed the Tamron on my website and done a review as a wedding photographer as well. The review link is in the "reviews" section here.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 4, 2013)

P.S. If this helps: if I absolutely had to choose just one of these lens (and I'm glad I don't), I would choose the Tamron. As a portraiture tool and general purpose lens it is very valuable. 

P.S.S. If cost was no object, I would probably go for the Canon 24-70 MKII. I chose the Tamron because while I do professional photography (on the side), I felt the Canon wasn't worth the price difference. If I was rolling in money, though, I think the Canon is the best glass available in the category.


----------



## gilkeyb (Jan 4, 2013)

As an owner of the 5D3/Tamron 24-70 combo, I would tend to speak highly of the performance. For low light shooting I think you would find the faster lens extremely valuable. I don't find the VC to be as effective as the IS in my 70-200/2.8 IS II, but it still has value. Sharpness I find plenty acceptable, though I don't tend to judge my shots down to a 100% level.

As some reviews have mentioned, it is a little shorter than 70mm on the tele end. I have read around 65mm and that seems about right when comparing it to my 70-200. There are times where I wish it had just a bit more reach, certainly.

In terms of build quality, I find the 24-70 quite nice. I have also had the opportunity to [briefly] handle the 24-105 and I prefer the feel of the Tamron. I don't know about the level of "weather-sealing" to the Tamron lens. I did notice a rubber seal in the area of the lens mount, which would lead me to believe it has some level of weather sealing. 

Brian


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

Tamron 24-70 VC as the 24-105 is good as a lens but mediocre as an L lens. Tamron also gives you the f/2.8 option. It does cost more though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.
> ...



I've tried three 24-105 and all were softer than my tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 (or canon 24-70 II for that matter) be it f/4 or f/8, center frame or far edge. All three 24-105 did better than the 28-135 IS though for sure.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 4, 2013)

I've currently got the 24-105, and while it's a great general purpose, I find it's getting left in the bag more and more often in favor of the 17-40 for some super-wide/wide, or a few primes, or my vintage 55mm f/2.8 Macro. Decent chance that will still be the case, even after I eventually buy the Tamron 24-70.

I'd say for walking around if I didn't know what exactly I'd be shooting, I'd take the 24-105. Otherwise, the Tamron is what I'll be using for anything where I might be in lower lighting conditions. It's definitely a lot heavier (boy is it!), but it gives me f/2.8, and IS, and very good quality. I'll definitely be evaluating the copy I get closely to check that it's a good copy, but I'm thinking in the next 3 months I'll be buying one for sure.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 4, 2013)

For me it was the tamron. F2.8 and IS were important. If I find a good quality 24-105 used for maybe 500-600 I'll probably buy it as its a great travel lens and I do like a little more length than 70mm when traveling. 24-104 f2.8 IS pretty please canon? I'd even be willing to pay the $5k you'd ask for it.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 4, 2013)

gilkeyb said:


> As some reviews have mentioned, it is a little shorter than 70mm on the tele end.


Ah yes, that helps to explain why I missed the long end of my old Tamron 28-75 for portraits. I was wondering why 5mm made such a significant difference.

Fortunately I recently acquired a 135mm f/2.0 L.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 5, 2013)

The Canon is also noticeably worse in the vignetting department in my testing. I also own the 17-40L and use it as my primary landscape lens.

I really, really wish the Tamron had stayed at the 77mm filter thread. I might be selling my 24-105L right now if that was the case.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 5, 2013)

I own Tamron 24-70 lens and i am extremely satisfied with them. Actually it is my most used lens  i read a lot of reviews about this lens and it is much bette4 tahm canon equivalent (mark I). Canon 24-105 has a didferent focal length and also it gives one F stop less. For me the obvois choice is Tamron


----------

