# Canon L or Tamron/Sigma advice



## rushfan21122 (Aug 20, 2013)

Hi... I have the Canon 5D markiii and I already have the Canon 24-105 f4L, and the Canon 24-70 2.8L markI and Canon 35L. My question is.. should I keep these or trade them for the Tamron 24-70 VI DC and Sigma 35 1.4. Don't know if I can justify the 24-70 markii at $2299 when I can get both tamron 14-70 vi and Sigma 35 1.4 for less than the 24-70 markII. Is the MarkII that much better than the tamron??
Appreciate your input!!

Thanks in advance,
Joe


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 20, 2013)

bump


----------



## surapon (Aug 20, 2013)

Dear Rushfan211122.
Just in my Idea, I love my EF 24-70 MK II ----No Comparision----Yes, I have Tamron Lenses and Sigma Lenses and I love them too.
Good Luck
Surapon

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 20, 2013)

Generic answer: it depends on how you intend to use the lenses.

Dustin, a member of this forum, has the Tamron 24-70, and it works well for him (see his review threads -- he posts a lot of images). The digital picture also has a review that is worth looking at:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

The general consensus is that the Tamron is close to the Canon version 2 in IQ and signifcantly better than the Canon version 1. I haven't tried the Tamron, but I have used the Canon 24-70 II and can vouch for its IQ and that the 24-70 II does indeed focus and track very well for sports (on a 5D III). I used it for a young boys basketball game, and it behaved like a shorter 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, AF-wise. Some will value VC over AF performance, so it really comes down to how to intend to use it. The Canon 24-70 II is better overall, but is it worth the 1k difference to you?

If I were choosing between the 35L and the Sigma 35 and didn't have either, I'd choose the Sigma 35. It has better IQ and it costs less. But given that you already have the 35L, I'm not sure if it's worth the transaction costs associated with switching, especially if you'd consider a 35L II (if it ever comes out). It depends on how often you'd use it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 20, 2013)

The new 35mm Sigma is solid. I wish I can say on the Tamron - reserve zoom.

Canon 24-70 II is near perfect - smaller, lighter, solid, *REALLY SHARP * @ f2.8 to f5.6. Many claimed it would be a perfect lens if "IS" was included in the design. HUGE PRICE TAG :-\


----------



## 7enderbender (Aug 20, 2013)

rushfan21122 said:


> Hi... I have the Canon 5D markiii and I already have the Canon 24-105 f4L, and the Canon 24-70 2.8L markI and Canon 35L. My question is.. should I keep these or trade them for the Tamron 24-70 VI DC and Sigma 35 1.4. Don't know if I can justify the 24-70 markii at $2299 when I can get both tamron 14-70 vi and Sigma 35 1.4 for less than the 24-70 markII. Is the MarkII that much better than the tamron??
> Appreciate your input!!
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Joe



What's lacking from the two lenses you have? Is it just the thrill of having something new that according to some charts and photos of brick walls is somehow more desirable? Are you getting paid less for your photos because they were taken with the "wrong" lenses?

I personally never had any interest in anything Tamron since they used to be just awful back in the days. Maybe that has changed, I don't know. Sigma I like and I do see the appeal of the new primes they came out with. Look pretty sturdy and well designed. But would I trade it for a 35L if I had one? Probably not.

Even more so with the original 24-70. That thing is build well and has been a staple of pro photographers since it came out. Don't see the advantage of the Tamron (IS is not a plus in my book since it's not very useful for that focal range and is another thing that eventually fails or throws things out of whack). Gee, I don't even see the real advantage of the 24-70 Mark II with all its plastic and ridiculous price tag.

I'd keep the Version 1 and the 35L and be happy.


----------



## Coolhandchuck (Aug 20, 2013)

Interesting question... Seeing that the highest rated prime lens that Dxo rates for a 5D iii is the Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM and the highest rated zoom is the canon 24-70 mk II, but the Tamron 24-70 VC is a very close second, it's up to you. Honestly this is the wrong forum for you to ask this question, kinda like going into Mac forum and asking about Windows computers. You will always have the fanboys.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> its called resolution/sharpness and evenness from 24-70mm mk2 compared with 24-70 mk1 which are a lottery to get one good copy, I have had 4
> and the (IS) in the Tamron makes my day like the IS in my 70-200MK2 = sharp pictures in situations where my own handshake puts the limit
> 
> the old 24-70 is a good lens if you get a good copy , but after a while its starts to loose up in the front lens package and lens must be tighten up , today there are better lenses=as the Tamron with (IS)



You have any photos taken with Tammy @ f2.8, shutter speed 1/30 or slower?


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 20, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I don't even see the real advantage of the 24-70 Mark II with all its plastic and ridiculous price tag.



Have ever shoot with 24-70 II before? 

As a prev. owner of 24-70 mrk I(2 new, 1used), sharpness at f2.8 was quite bad.

I was a bit worry when I pre-order mrk II. Reikan Focal showed my mrk II sharpness at f2.8 at 937. It was calibrated at x50 in lenght.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 21, 2013)

Dustin Abott has the 24-70 and he loves it. I have the MkII, and at times, I do wish a VC / IS is there. The problem is... if you call it that, is that the MkII is so sharp, that I'm so well aware of my own motion blur. Something that's not apparent when I have the Nikon D5100, but obvious now (if you're pixel peeping that is  ).

I'm in the process of selecting either the 70-200 Tamron vs the MkII. And honestly, under normal shooting condition that I put it through, they behave virtually identical. So much so, that I have to keep referring back to the EXIF data to figure out which image is made by which camera. Although I am able to afford the MkII 70-200, I'm seriously leaning toward the Tamron.


----------



## PureShot (Aug 21, 2013)

A few mount ago i bought the tamron 24-70mm for change my 24-105L
after many test i have decide to stay with 24-105mm L
the reason, image quality its a bit better with the tamron 
the 24-105mm have a better long range and produce a very good image too
my opinion stay with 24-105mm and when you have more money take the canon 24-70mmL mkii
http://www.studio-photo.ca/


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 21, 2013)

The canon 24-7mm II isn't 2299... look on other websites. And you can get it factory refurbished for 1800.


----------



## rushfan21122 (Aug 21, 2013)

Thank you everyone for your input. I appreciate everyone's input in making my decision since this site allows me to get advice from those much more knowledgeable than myself. This is truly just a hobby for me but with 4 young grandchildren... I ordered the Sigma 35 1.4 to compare to my Canon 35L . Everyone says the Sigma is sharper at 1.4 but some people prefer the bokeh of the Canon. Guess I will find out in a couple days. 

I am leaning toward the Canon 24-70 mk II will probably have to wait just a tad bit longer unless a real nice rebate or refurbished with 20%+ coupon from canon hits.. Seems like more quality issues on the Tamron than the Sigma and fewest issues with Canon.( Maybe it is just me but that's how it seems to me.. Nobody is perfect and they all have failure/DOA units). I am highly considering renting both of them for a couple days to compare how they perform to make my final decision. ....Everyone's agrees the Canon 24-70 mkii is that good or at least better than the other choices.. so I must ponder this longer. 
Maybe its me but I got used to having all Canon lenses (Used Tokina/Sigma in past but preferred Canon L glass) Got rid of everything not Canon and now I considering going back to Sigma/Tamron. The competition seems to be getter better to give Canon a run for the $$ it seems.

To Everyone THANKS for your input!


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2013)

rushfan21122 said:


> Thank you everyone for your input. I appreciate everyone's input in making my decision since this site allows me to get advice from those much more knowledgeable than myself. This is truly just a hobby for me but with 4 young grandchildren... I ordered the Sigma 35 1.4 to compare to my Canon 35L . Everyone says the Sigma is sharper at 1.4 but some people prefer the bokeh of the Canon. Guess I will find out in a couple days.
> 
> I am leaning toward the Canon 24-70 mk II will probably have to wait just a tad bit longer unless a real nice rebate or refurbished with 20%+ coupon from canon hits.. Seems like more quality issues on the Tamron than the Sigma and fewest issues with Canon.( Maybe it is just me but that's how it seems to me.. Nobody is perfect and they all have failure/DOA units). I am highly considering renting both of them for a couple days to compare how they perform to make my final decision. ....Everyone's agrees the Canon 24-70 mkii is that good or at least better than the other choices.. so I must ponder this longer.
> Maybe its me but I got used to having all Canon lenses (Used Tokina/Sigma in past but preferred Canon L glass) Got rid of everything not Canon and now I considering going back to Sigma/Tamron. The competition seems to be getter better to give Canon a run for the $$ it seems.
> ...



BH and Adorama offer great discounts during thanksgiving and x-mas times. You might be able get new 24-70 II for around $1800-$1900. They are authorized dealers.

If I have the needs for 35mm, the new Sigma will be my choice. The lens is rock solid and performs excellent.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > its called resolution/sharpness and evenness from 24-70mm mk2 compared with 24-70 mk1 which are a lottery to get one good copy, I have had 4
> ...



This one was taken last Christmas season @f2.8 / 0.4sec. The VC of Tamron is very amazing. I think for slow shutter speed, Tamron 24-70mm is much better than Canon 24-70mm MK2. CR user, Dustin, has posted many amazing pictures taken by Tamron 24-70mm.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Were you holding the camera? It looks like the camera was sitting on the table surface.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 21, 2013)

I own the Tamron and love it, though I can't vouch for the canon v2. What I can offer, however, is that you can practically trade your Canon v1 for the Tamron, which to me is a no-brainer. I've seen the Canon v1's selling used for $1100-1300, which is exactly the price of a new Tamron. Getting the Canon v2 would mean investing an extra $1k, which you could just as easily use on focal lengths you don't already have.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 21, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



That's why I said the Tamron VC is amazing. The bottle was sitting on small ottoman, and I was sitting on the floor and use my body to support the camera. Your body can be a good support for your camera body. However, without VC, that would be very difficult to take a picture like this.

Edit:
Here is the place for that photo. Sorry for my messy house.


----------

