# Tamron 24-70 f2.8 or Canon 24-105 f4 ??



## hamada (Mar 31, 2013)

im thinking about going FF and buying a 6D for landscape and portrait work.

there are two kits i can buy that cost nearly the same.

one with the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC (2549 euro).
the other with the Canon EF 24-105mm f4 IS USM (2489 euro).

im not sure what to buy. ???

i have a 100mm f2.0 i will use for portraits, but i need something wide for landscapes.
have no money right now for a 14mm or 16-35mm.

i also have the 70-200mm f4 IS i use for landscapes.

so buying the 6D as kit with one of these lenses seems like a good idea.

what i want from the lens is sharpness and good contrast (AF speed is not that important).

main use for the lens would be landscape and architectural stuff.
well "architectural" means churches, bridges and stuff i shot when i travel. 
not real estate photography. 

what´s your experience or advice?


----------



## Efka76 (Mar 31, 2013)

It is very strange that you quoted so high price for Tamron. In Lithuania I bought this lens (brand new) for EUR 1,000. This was in half a year ago. I am vary happy with the quality of this lens and definitely recommend it to you. It is better than 24-105 4L lens. However, you have to take into account what focal length you really need.


----------



## hamada (Mar 31, 2013)

no you got that wrong as i wrote i want to buy a KIT. the price is for 6D + lens.



> It is very strange that you quoted so high price for Tamron. In Lithuania I bought this lens (brand new) for EUR 1,000. This was in half a year ago.






> However, you have to take into account what focal length you really need.



i don´t really need the 35mm more on the long end.
more important is image quality.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 31, 2013)

I would not pay for a wide aperture lens to use for landscape photography.

Very small apertures are used, and at f/16, diffraction is the limiting factor, lens sharpness is not a factor. Distortions and CA's also are reduced.

My first choice would be a Tilt-Shift lens, to allow more depth of field without stopping down to extreme small apertures. They can be had used in the same price range, but are manual focus. Pretty much any focal length will work, you don't need ultra wide. A 24mm TS would be excellent, but so would the 90mm TS-E 

As a alternative, a 17-40mm L is excellent when stopped down, and relatively inexpensive.

Invest in a good tripod and remote release, and don't spend a ton of money on the wrong product. 


http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm 
http://improvephotography.com/580/the-ideal-aperture-for-landscape-photography/


----------



## hamada (Mar 31, 2013)

> Pretty much any focal length will work, you don't need ultra wide.



how do you know? 8)
i love ultrawide but i don´t have the money yet to buy a EF 14mm. 
i love the 10-22mm on my 7D and will later sure buy a UWW lens.

but this is a hobby and my budget is limited... so a 6D kit for now.  



> Invest in a good tripod and remote release, and don't spend a ton of money on the wrong product.



i have a GITZO tripod and RRS ballhead already. 



> As a alternative, a 17-40mm L is excellent when stopped down, and relatively inexpensive.



mhm i thought the tamron or canon would maybe have better IQ at 24mm then the 17-40mm?
and i need something to cover the 24-70mm range when i buy into FF.

the wide f2.8 i get with the tamron would be a nice bonus when i shot indoors (churches as mentioned). but yes most of the time the lens would be used at f8 and above.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 31, 2013)

I used the 24-105L for years, but after owning the 24-70VC for a few months I sold the 24-105L. The Tamron is the better lens in almost every way. The Tamron stays on my 6D a good percentage of the time. For landscape, it has less distortion, is slightly wider (although listed the same), far less vignetting, better color rendering, and then it has a lot of advantages for wide aperture shots. I find the bokeh rendering great on the Tamron:




Resurrection by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Stopped down it is a great landscape lens. Nicely sharp!



As the Ice Forms by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 31, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> the 17-40mm is a nice lens when you can live with the extremly bad borders at 17mm.
> 
> i had two 17-40mm lenses here for testing but i was not impressed.
> my main use for it would be 17-20mm and that is where the lens performance is the weakest.
> ...



My copy of the 17-40L is my best for resolving distance, but I typically stop it down between f/8-f/11. A that aperture it is pretty much sharp throughout the frame. At this aperture it will outresolve the Tamron at distant details, but it is definitely a far less flexible tool than the Tamron. If you just want to do landscapes and nothing else, the other advantage to the 17-40L is the 77mm front element. 

That being said, it sounds like you can only get the 24-105L or the Tamron in the kit. Of the two, I would definitely go with the Tamron.


----------



## Eli (Apr 1, 2013)

Depends what aperture you shoot at also, if you're shooting landscape and architecture you'd probably be using at least f8 or f11, and between the two lenses, there's little difference in image quality at those apertures, even the 17-40 @ 24mm will have little to no noticable difference in image quality.

But you should also consider barrel distortion. The 24-105 @ 24mm has a massive amount of distortion, which isn't good for architecture, but also when I stacked a couple of filters it had terrible harsh vignetting from the filters, I assume due to the amount of distortion this lens shows, as I did the same on my 24 II and had no vignetting.
But the Tamron is only slightly better in this regard, and the 17-40 @ 24mm is probably the best out of the three at controlling distortion.

If I were you, I'd just get the 17-40, especially since you're going to get an ultra wide down the track. Unless you need the focal length between the 17-40 and your 70-200 then the 17-40 is a great performer for the price, since you're shooting at f8+ anyway. It can also do ultra wide, and is much much lighter and smaller than the two, and may come out a little cheaper even if it doesn't come in a kit.

But if you must decide between the two, I'd get the Tamron. It's a better all rounder lens if you're just mainly comparing image quality, and you may need 2.8 one day, and when you're not shooting at f8+ the Tamron will produce sharper images and have better colour reproduction.
But it also has a 82mm filter thread, so that may be a problem if you currently use filters or looking at getting filters in future. 82mm costs alot more, so factor that into your kit costs as well.

Though either way you'd be good, the 24-105 is a great lens as well, I've had no complaints about mine (other than when stacking filters, which I worked around anyway), and only sold it because I got the 24-70 ii.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I used the 24-105L for years, but after owning the 24-70VC for a few months I sold the 24-105L. The Tamron is the better lens in almost every way. The Tamron stays on my 6D a good percentage of the time. For landscape, it has less distortion, is slightly wider (although listed the same), far less vignetting, better color rendering, and then it has a lot of advantages for wide aperture shots. I find the bokeh rendering great on the Tamron:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dustin, thanks for posting these images and your opinion on the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. I've been contemplating this lens since I picked up my 5D3 a few months back. I've been going back and forth between this and of course the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L. 

Your images here take a little of my concern away. Can you tell me about the fit and finish on the lens and how it feels on your camera? Is the zoom ring smooth like an L lens? Stuff like that I'd be interested in knowing...

Thanks,
Ken


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 22, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I used the 24-105L for years, but after owning the 24-70VC for a few months I sold the 24-105L. The Tamron is the better lens in almost every way. The Tamron stays on my 6D a good percentage of the time. For landscape, it has less distortion, is slightly wider (although listed the same), far less vignetting, better color rendering, and then it has a lot of advantages for wide aperture shots. I find the bokeh rendering great on the Tamron:
> ...



Ken,

I'm not sure which lens we are using as a comparison point, but having used quite a few lenses, I can throw out some general comments.

Fit and finish is actually very good. The lens feels very dense in your hands and in no way cheap feeling. I have been using mine for 8 months for many purposes (including travel) in bags, holsters, and Cotton Carrier type harnesses, and I have had no issues with anything, including any kind of cosmetic marking. One positive note - unlike many older L lens' hoods, this hood does not mark easily AT ALL. The smooth finish on older hoods was notorious for easily marking. I have used the lens in a lot of adverse weather (rain, sleet, snow)without any ill effects. The lens has a zoom lock, but I have never had to use it because it exhibits no evidence of creep at all to this point. The rubberized surfaces on the zoom and focus rings has held up perfectly. I would say that my copy looks like new still without exaggeration.

The zoom ring is smooth but stiffer than some of the better zoom rings I have used on top Canon lenses. It doesn't hang at all, but has more resistance than some other lenses. The smoothest zoom lenses are the internally zooming ones, of course, but there is a bit more resistance than my 70-300L for example and slightly more than what I remember from the 24-105L also. I don't notice it in the field, but when directly comparing it I do. This may contribute to the complete lack of zoom creep. This would probably most be a factor if you were wanting to smoothly zoom during video operation. It can be done, but takes a bit of practice/adjustment to the resistance.

The VC is huge. Period. It is so beneficial. If you do shoot video at all, it amazing how rock steady you can shoot. I have actually handheld this .8 second shot:




Metro Arrival by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I have a pretty decent kit (see my signature), but this lens is my most used tool. It is just very flexible and produces consistently great images.


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


Thanks Dustin, that's exactly what I was looking for. You've made up my mind! I was going back and forth over this and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. 

I just sold my 24-105L and I liked it a lot but I never really loved it. I love all my other lenses. I wanted the 24-70mm 4/2.8L but never pulled the trigger, as I really like having IS. Especially with low light situations even with the 5d3 and it's capabilities. I'm 53 now and I do often see some oof from shaking a little bit on a few non IS lenses I've used or borrowed from friends, even on my 85mm... So I've wanted the IS. 

I'm glad Tamron came out with it, do to the price point, just had some trepidation where all I've owned mostly has been L glass, I just didn't know what to expect but wanted it to be a fantastic lens that I would not regret purchasing over the 24-70mm f/2.8L. 

I think you answered my questions, thanks again for your time!

All the best,
Ken


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 23, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



My pleasure


----------

