# Canon 135mm or Tamron 24-70mm



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 14, 2014)

I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.

If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.

So I think you get the idea I would like a general purpose lens which is good in low light, f/2.8 is not bad, and one which is more suited to weddings than my 17-40mm. I have read a lot of reviews comparing the Tamron 24-70 to Canon’s and as I have said, the Canon is better than the Tamron but only just and I am very close to buying the Tamron. My dilemma is I love the look of the Canon 135mm f/2, the price is not that much different to the Tamron 24-70. So both are very good lenses but I am not sure which one is best for me right now. I am leaning towards a 24-70mm as it would sit in nicely between my 17-40 and my 70-200, also the fact it is more versatile than the 135mm.

I would appreciate your views on this, thanks!


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.
> 
> If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.
> 
> ...


Given your needs, the 24-70 would be the best choice. The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception). The 70-200 (2.8 or 4) IS is going to be better for events, too, as subject motion isn't usually a big deal so IS works well. The 24-70 is also much more versatile, as you say. The 135 is best for headshots and candid photos, and while it was my first L (for headshots), it's probably not a great lens to buy until you've got the basics covered.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 14, 2014)

The Tamron 24-70! It can double as 112 mm f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor too.


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 15, 2014)

I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 15, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II



Thank you mackguyver and mrsfotografie (I'll be using it on my 5D MKII)

Sanaraken, as I said the Canon 24-70 is great, but it's not £1000 better, its a stupid amount of money really when you compare it to the Tamron 24-70. Why do you say save when the Tamron is nearly as good as the Canon?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 15, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Sanaraken said:
> 
> 
> > I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II
> ...



One could even argue the Tamron is actually better in certain conditions, because it has IS and the Canon doesn't


----------



## bholliman (Jan 15, 2014)

I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 II and love it. That said, from everything I read the Tamron does look like a terrific lens and a excellent value. As you pointed out, its probably between the Canon 24-70 Mk1 and Mk2 in quality. You appear to be comfortable with using a third party lens, so I'd say go for it.

I am an amateur with no wedding photography experience, but from what I've read and know about focal lengths I think a 24-70 zoom would be more useful than a 135 overall.



mackguyver said:


> The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception).



Most of my shots with my 135L are head or head and sholder shots at 10-20 feet. I would think a 135 would be handy for weddings, but not as useful overall as a 24-70. The 135L can take some "wow" shots that are just not possible with any 24-70 2.8 however...


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 15, 2014)

That is true mrsfotografie 
What are the chances of Sigma bringing out a 24-70 f/2 in the next few months?


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 15, 2014)

bholliman said:


> I have a Canon 24-70 2.8 II and love it. That said, from everything I read the Tamron does look like a terrific lens and a excellent value. As you pointed out, its probably between the Canon 24-70 Mk1 and Mk2 in quality. You appear to be comfortable with using a third party lens, so I'd say go for it.
> 
> I am an amateur with no wedding photography experience, but from what I've read and know about focal lengths I think a 24-70 zoom would be more useful than a 135 overall.
> 
> ...



For the price of the 24-70 II I could get the Tamron 24-70mm AND the Canon 135mm  But I think the 24-70mm is the best thing for me at this time, as you say, its more useful.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 15, 2014)

Good decision. The Tamron 24-70 is a great lens when it comes to IQ and it's backed by a solid warranty. The VC was a welcome addition for the focal range.

I know there are wedding photographers who use primes instead of the zooms, but then they've got the general-shooting focal length covered by a fast 35mm or 50mm. The advantages of the primes are improved low light capability, lower size and weight, and sometimes better image quality. Those photographers however, have a solid understanding of how the focal length limitations and the venue will influence how they need to work during the course of the day. 

Anyway, it seems I've gone off on a tangent but I do believe you're making a sensible choice. The 135L is a great lens but is more specialized, you can always consider getting one further down the line when finances allow for it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 15, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> That is true mrsfotografie
> What are the chances of Sigma bringing out a 24-70 f/2 in the next few months?



Nil, but I'm sure they will come with a 24-70 f/2.8 A. Can't say if it will have OS though...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 15, 2014)

If you are earning money from wedding photography, get the Canon 24-70. If you only use the lens occasionally, the Tamron may do fine. There have been a lot of issues about build quality (lack of it) posted. For the price, its pretty good optically, but you want the highest reliability for paying jobs.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 15, 2014)

Your right StudentOfLight, that is something one day I hope to understand so not going for all primes right now makes sense.

Mt Spokane Photography, at this stage I am not earning a lot of money from photography, not enough to justify spending an extra £1000 on Canon's 24-70mm.
Would like to know where you are reading about these issues, I have read a lot about this lens and people are saying the opposite, the build quality is good, yes not as good as Canon's but still good enough.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 15, 2014)

I found this interesting, not a lot better it seems:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___884_0_886_483


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 15, 2014)

Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess. 

I have and love the 135. It works great for those environmental sneak up portraits during events. It has a great look and it's just my thing. What I always find odd is that people want faster, non-f/4 lenses for low light. Yes, you can do that too but for me it's primarily about control over DOF. 
For everything else there are speedlites etc.
Yes, I know there are those moments at a wedding where you can't use it. 

For the standard stuff during the reception your f/4 lenses are just fine I would argue. In fact their benefit is that they are lighter. And you probably shoot at 5.6 or 8 anyway. 

Fast primes serve a different purpose in my view. 

If you'll do more weddings you could also look at the 100L macro. Serves well for portraits, has IS if you like that and of course is a macro lens for ring shots and other details.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 16, 2014)

7enderbender said:


> Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess.
> 
> I have and love the 135. It works great for those environmental sneak up portraits during events. It has a great look and it's just my thing. What I always find odd is that people want faster, non-f/4 lenses for low light. Yes, you can do that too but for me it's primarily about control over DOF.
> For everything else there are speedlites etc.
> ...



That’s my problem; I don’t know where I am going with my photography. I am pushing for weddings but my next one is not for a while. I am interested in architecture and landscapes, which is why I will definitely be keeping my 17-40mm, for now anyway. 

Having faster lenses for weddings, from my experience, is needed especially in low light. Going all prime is something to consider, but with my experience I don’t think I should be doing that now.


----------



## Northstar (Jan 16, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.
> 
> If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.
> 
> ...



It sounds like you're looking for a fast and special lens to fit in between your 17-40 and 70-200... My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens. 

From what I've read, it's going to be a pretty special lens and probably will sell for less than $1000.

I obviously wouldn't wait a year for it, but it sure sounds like it might be available pretty soon.

Also, regarding the cost of the canon 24-70 vs the tamron 24-70....remember, high quality lenses from a leading brand like Canon are assets, not an expense. If taken care of they will only slightly depreciate over time, they'll work better and last longer, you'll enjoy the experience of using it more, shooting with the best lens gives you more "street cred" with potential clients and other pros, and the resale value will probably be $1000 or more in 10 years if you want to sell it.


----------



## Sanaraken (Jan 16, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Sanaraken said:
> 
> 
> > I would just save up and get the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. Its the best combo for a wedding photographer. Also maybe add the 100L macro. The last 3 years I've been buying cheaper lenses and selling it to upgrade. If only I should just have started with the 24-70mk1 and 70-200mk2. I could have save a lot more and got better shoots. I got both the 24-70mk2 and 70-200mk2. During the holidays having the double dip promotions. Now I'm set. Now saving up for the 300mm 2.8 II
> ...



I got the Canon 24-70 II for $1600 after rebate and cash back during the holiday. Its $500 better than the Tamron and also maintain its value. It would save you money in the long run. Most who owns the Tamron 24-70 end up getting the Canon version when it was on sale. If you want the Tamron go get it. Its your money. I would rather get the Canon 135 f2 than the Tamron 24-70.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 16, 2014)

Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time. 
I also have to disagree in part, but yes I guess the Canon would last longer.

Sanaraken, I live in the UK and the cheapest I can see the Canon 24-70 is at £1800, so I don't see how I can get it much cheaper.


----------



## surapon (Jan 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you are earning money from wedding photography, get the Canon 24-70. If you only use the lens occasionally, the Tamron may do fine. There have been a lot of issues about build quality (lack of it) posted. For the price, its pretty good optically, but you want the highest reliability for paying jobs.



+ 100 for me too, Mr. Mt Spokane is right on the target, Canon 24-70 mm L F/ 2.8 ( Both I & II) are great for the Wedding, Plus with Another Lens EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L ( MK I or II) on another Camera = Good for the Wedding Job-----YES, I see 80 % of my home town PRO. Wedding Photographers ( Including ME ) have Canon EF 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II in their 3 Rd. Camera too, That will be perfected Job, If you make a great Money in that Wedding Job.
Good Luck.
PS, BTW = Canon EF 100 MM F/ 2.8 L. IS USM is great for shoot the Macro Photos of the Ring, Wedding Cake and the Bride's Shoes, Plus Great for Long range Portrait Bride's Photos too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Given your needs, the 24-70 would be the best choice. The 135 is a great lens, but is quite long for most event shooting unless you're a good 30+ feet from the subject (i.e. back of the church, across the room, or behind the first couple of rows of tables at a reception). The 70-200 (2.8 or 4) IS is going to be better for events, too, as subject motion isn't usually a big deal so IS works well. The 24-70 is also much more versatile, as you say. The 135 is best for headshots and candid photos, and while it was my first L (for headshots), it's probably not a great lens to buy until you've got the basics covered.



+1 with mackguyver on the 24-70 lens. Looking at OP gear, the 24-70 fits well.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 16, 2014)

Once again, not an easy decision to make…


----------



## gshocked (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi,

Both are great lenses. I love using the 135mm lens, it's very (very) sharp but not as versatile. I've found it too close at weddings if you were to use it as a primary lens. It may be a great option if you have a second shooter or second body to capture closers shots or just to change your shot types.

The Tamron is getting great reviews, although if you can rent it first. Or better yet, go to a camera store or a few and try it out. If you are desperate and need a lens now then go for the Tamron. If you can wait it out and therefore save some more money the get the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II. I personally did this and haven't regretted it. I thinks that's the thing at the end of the day. You don't want to end up with the Tamron, only wishing you should've got the Canon.

I also agree with some of the posts that the Canon lens will be worth more in the long run than the Tamron. The comes the build quality. The Canon lens is a tank, it very solid. The IQ is top notch and the focus speed is amazing. Don't get me wrong the Tamron is worthy lens and surely can put pressure on Canon to lower their price but after using both side by side for a few days, I kept going back to the Canon.

Have a look at this review:
http://youtu.be/wcsnsJUKhAg

Just a few things to consider.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jan 17, 2014)

Northstar said:


> My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.



+1 great idea!


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 17, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time.
> I also have to disagree in part, but yes I guess the Canon would last longer.
> 
> Sanaraken, I live in the UK and the cheapest I can see the Canon 24-70 is at £1800, so I don't see how I can get it much cheaper.



Hdew Cameras have it for £1399 at the moment. Not everyone's cup of tea but two L-series lens purchases and a 70d later and I have no complaints. The only proviso of course if you follow this suggestion is that it's mandatory that you lend it to me at the weekend .


----------



## rs (Jan 17, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time.
> I also have to disagree in part, but yes I guess the Canon would last longer.
> 
> Sanaraken, I live in the UK and the cheapest I can see the Canon 24-70 is at £1800, so I don't see how I can get it much cheaper.



The current cashback offer which doesn't cover this lens is due to end in the UK on 26/01/2014. As many of the big camera manufacturers are trying to get/keep sales numbers high, you'll more than likely see another cashback offer start soon after, which may include this lens.

I bought it last time around while there was £235 cashback. After cashback and price matching, it cost me £1514 from John Lewis, including a two year warranty.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2014)

Get the tamron. I did try the Canon mk.2 version and it's stupendously sharp, but not a 1000$ more sharp. You could almost buy the tammy and the 135L for the price. I don't won't buy the Canon 24-70 until it has IS and even then, the tamron does such a good job. 

What is far more important than either of those two is speedlites. There are times where you need to make your light.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 17, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > My advice, wait for this new Sig 50mm 1.4 art lens.
> ...



Yes, I find 24-70 zooms kinda... boring 8)

I love my 24-105 for its versatility, that extra 35 mm really is worth the slower aperture. When I need a wider aperture I prefer to go to a prime instead of a 'compromise' 24-70 f/2.8. That's my take.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 17, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time.
> ...



Now at £1399 I am very tempted. I see that their stock is not from the UK. What if something goes wrong with it, will Canon still fix it under the warranty or does it not come with a warranty because it's not UK stock, compared to if I brought it from say Amazon?
Haha Maybe... 

I do like the look of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 17, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...



I did quite a lot of background searching on this and it seems that as long as you have a UK VAT receipt the warranty is honoured. I've had no reason to test that situation yet though myself but there are a fair number of posts on various fora saying it does work like that.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 17, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on what your main next goal is and what style you're approaching I guess.
> ...




Ok, kick me if you want but I'm going to say it anyway:

1. I personally don't believe that fast lenses are for low light - certainly not in this day and age given our 10000 bizillion ISO settings and modern flash technology. You know, _in my day, _ we had 400ASA film and a 1.4 lens - _and we liked it!_  - And I love my fast primes - but for shallow DOF not to deal with problematic light situations. {off the soap box}

2. I can totally get the not-sure-where-to-go-with-my-photography part. Same here. It's not a "real" job but still something I like on the side. And the little income here and there is really more for the satisfaction of it if that makes sense. Weddings? Yeah, they can pay really well comparatively speaking - I hear. Still doesn't interest me. Dealing with crazy mother of brides? Thanks. Been there done that back in the days as a DJ during college.
But if you decide to do so may I ask if you have proper liability insurance etc? If not spend your money maybe on that first before buying another lens...


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 17, 2014)

7enderbender said:


> 2. I can totally get the not-sure-where-to-go-with-my-photography part. Same here. It's not a "real" job but still something I like on the side. And the little income here and there is really more for the satisfaction of it if that makes sense. Weddings? Yeah, they can pay really well comparatively speaking - I hear. Still doesn't interest me. Dealing with crazy mother of brides? Thanks. Been there done that back in the days as a DJ during college.
> But if you decide to do so may I ask if you have proper liability insurance etc? If not spend your money maybe on that first before buying another lens...


LOL - no weddings for me, either, and I still don't know what kind of photographer I am, either. I own a kit that's ideal for event/wedding photography but have little interest in it. I love nature photography. I sell landscape & wildlife prints, but make most of my photo money shooting architecture & lifestyle stuff. I love shooting portraits, but never seem to find the time. I have lights but no studio, and the list goes on... Someday I'll figure it out. Until then, I'll just have fun trying to decide what I want to shoot


----------



## Zv (Jan 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > 2. I can totally get the not-sure-where-to-go-with-my-photography part. Same here. It's not a "real" job but still something I like on the side. And the little income here and there is really more for the satisfaction of it if that makes sense. Weddings? Yeah, they can pay really well comparatively speaking - I hear. Still doesn't interest me. Dealing with crazy mother of brides? Thanks. Been there done that back in the days as a DJ during college.
> ...



Me too, I dabbled in weddings but I don't see that as something I want to actively pursue. They are good practice though! The planning and execution is one thing but the thinking on your feet part and adapting to the changes part is fun too! Only prob is if you get it wrong it's your ass! 

To OP - You need something in the general 24-something range, not only just for weddings but almost every other thing. I would say the Tamron is the best solution for you. Fast and has IS. 

Like 7enderbender pointed out having Image Stabilization and a high ISO will take care of low light situations. The fast aperture is not that necessary anymore in my opinion too. My zooms are all f/4 and I prefer them to the 135L for "low light" because of IS. I can't shoot the 135 handheld at 1/60s without IS or tripod. Thus it limits it's usage to shallow dof effect only. And that is where it excels! 

I think it's good to build up a zoom trinity first then buy your primes.


----------



## rs (Jan 18, 2014)

rs said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar, I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 so I don't feel the need to replace that right now, the main prime I am interested in is the 135mm, but as people have been saying, a 24-70 may be better for me at this time.
> ...


SWPP show prices for this lens are £1549 with park cameras and £1530 with camera world.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 18, 2014)

I think for now I will avoid Hdew Cameras and others like them, especially when spending a lot of money like that.

7enderbender, I see what you are saying but I guess the main reason l would like fast primes is for, as you say, shallow DOF. 
I have shot a number of weddings over the past few years, but I feel it is best to do a bit of everything, weddings, landscapes...
Yes I have been looking into insurance.

Mackguyver, architecture is something I am very interested in. How do you make money out of this type of photography, if I may ask? 

Zv, I am still very tempted by the Tamron.
Tamron - Good price, VC, sharp in the centre
Focus and zoom rings different to Canon lenses, not sure if I like that 
Not as fast to focus compared to the Canon 
Not as sharp in the corners compared to the Canon

Canon - Sharp throughout, great build quality
Would probably last longer than Tamron and re-sell value will be higher
VERY expensive lens 

Rs, £1549 is getting better, I guess you need to join SWPP to be able to take advantage of these prices?


----------



## rs (Jan 18, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Rs, £1549 is getting better, I guess you need to join SWPP to be able to take advantage of these prices?



It's a camera show/photography convention in London, there are another couple of days left:

http://www.swpp.co.uk/convention/

Trade entry is £6 on the door (if you're a pro, I think a business card or equivalent might convince them on the door). 

Camera World were better still at £1530. I didn't grab a shot of that show price though.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 18, 2014)

rs said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Rs, £1549 is getting better, I guess you need to join SWPP to be able to take advantage of these prices?
> ...



I see, thanks. Did you get that list of prices by going to the the trade show?


----------



## rs (Jan 18, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...


Yes


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

rs said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Nice


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 20, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I think for now I will avoid Hdew Cameras and others like them, especially when spending a lot of money like that.



That's fine, it was a leap of faith for me and I'm yet to give it the ultimate test of getting a warranty repair, long may that continue. I only offered it because it's helped me get the kit that I really wanted at times.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 21, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think for now I will avoid Hdew Cameras and others like them, especially when spending a lot of money like that.
> ...



They seem good, but yes its the warranty repair part that I am not sure on. It is better to be safe than sorry when spening over £1400 on one lens, thats what I'm thinking anyway.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 21, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...



Well that probably just proves that you have more common sense than I do . I did do a lot of background on them though and it was near universally positive across many different sites, more so in fact that the vast majority of mainstream outlets so I went for it. I certainly wouldn't push it though as for example you never know if Canon's policy might change.


----------



## rs (Jan 21, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...


Buying from a UK retailer selling genuine UK stock does ensure that the product will have its warranty covered by Canon UK. L lenses carry a worldwide warranty, so that should mean a lens sourced from any country should still be covered in the UK. I'm not sure how or if a shop doing the import to circumvent Canon's pricing policy differs from you buying it yourself when you're travelling.

Having said that, you're not 100% safe anywhere - I've ordered gear from CameraBox (www.camerabox.co.uk), Jacobs (www.jacobs-photo.co.uk) and Jessops (www.jessops.com). Luckily I wasn't waiting for anything to be delivered when each of those stores went bankrupt, but there is the possibility that any retailer could go under at any time.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 21, 2014)

Fragilesi, but I am still tempted, as you say, they get positive reviews. If there is a problem with it on arrival then I can get them to replace it for me, right?

Rs, Where did you read that all L lenses carry a worldwide warranty?
If I was to buy, for example, the Canon 24-70mm L f/2.8 from a UK retailer selling genuine UK stock, am I right in saying the warrantywith Canon is only a year? So after that year if anything goes wrong I’ll have to sort out getting it fixed by someone other than Canon or I will have to pay Canon to fix it?


----------



## rs (Jan 21, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Rs, Where did you read that all L lenses carry a worldwide warranty?


I can't seem to find anything about the international warranty on L lenses, although I have found a few threads on it having ended in Australia, and presumably worldwide. Here's an example:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=942086



JPlendPhoto said:


> If I was to buy, for example, the Canon 24-70mm L f/2.8 from a UK retailer selling genuine UK stock, am I right in saying the warrantywith Canon is only a year? So after that year if anything goes wrong I’ll have to sort out getting it fixed by someone other than Canon or I will have to pay Canon to fix it?


Yes, just a one year warranty. After that, its entirely up to you what you do with a faulty product, although if its a lens of reasonable value such as a 24-70 II, I'd be tempted to give Canon a go first.

Based on that change of L series warranty, I'd be more tempted to stick with genuine UK stock.

It sounds like you didn't make it over to SWPP. If you're anywhere near Solihull, there's The Photography Show on at the start of March at the NEC - it looks like it will take over where Focus On Imaging left off, and there will no doubt be similar offers to what was available from SWPP. Again, tickets are free for pro photographers if you apply in advance.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 22, 2014)

rs said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Rs, Where did you read that all L lenses carry a worldwide warranty?
> ...



As long as nothing goes wrong in the first year, when buying from sites like Hdew Cameras, then you have got a good deal, saving hundreds of pounds, basically it seems we are paying a lot of money for just a UK warranty. 

I have been looking at The Photography Show, looks good, but not sure if I can get there this year.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 25, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I don’t want another f/4 lens; I want something faster like an f/2.8 or f/2. Yes I shoot some weddings and the last one I shot I used both my Canon 17-40mm f/4 and my Canon 70-200mm f/4, both good lenses but both are f/4 also the 17-40 is a wide angle lens.
> 
> If I had the money I would love to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II lens, but I also noticed in a previous topic someone mentioned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and from my research yes overall the Canon is a better, only just, than the Tamron, but not £1000 better! I am very impressed with what I am reading about Tamron. In terms of quality and performance I am reading that the Tamron fits in between the Canon 24-70 MK1 and the 24-70 MK2.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with others who suggest the 24-70. I am not a wedding photographer. However in the summer I shot some candids at a cousin's wedding with my 135 f/2 and my 6D. The lack of the ability to zoom, is going to matter a lot much of the time, it did for me. The 135's ability to throw a beautiful bokeh in foreground and background, are great...but only if you are in total control of framing. Its ability to shoot without flash, was the main reason I chose to bring it. Because I wasn't going to be using a flash, and the lighting was very, very dim. I even had to set the temperature at around 2600 K. 

However, since you are a wedding pro, and you have more than one camera body in use anyway (and hopefully more than one photographer), it might work out ok for you. It's hard to say. In posed and controlled situations, the 135 really has no equal.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2014)

Oh boy...another thread about a pair of random and mismatched lenses to choose between.

Ok...here's the general rule of thumb here:

1) You list them both because you want them both but can only afford one. 
2) Choosing a lens based on forum popularity will only descend into inane specification comparisons, which compare features and functions which will never effect your photography but feel very important at the time of purchase
3) Look for versatility at first and add specialty when you can afford it.
4) Don't feed the trolls
5) Don't feed the fan boys 
6) Don't provoke the Nikon spies
7) Remember that photography isn't a learning exercise, it's about taking photos...so many people keep buying lenses to learn and get board of a lens once they have tried it 4-5 times.
8) 99.9% of modern camera will out perform 99.9% of their users....bare that in mind when looking at lens test web sites with lots of sharpness charts
9) go with your gut feeling with kit...but beware of marketing spin at all times.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 25, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 3) Look for versatility at first and add specialty when you can afford it.



THAT, is some of the most sensible piece of advice ... +1


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 25, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ...so many people keep buying lenses to learn and get board of a lens once they have tried it 4-5 times.



I must admit I've done this :-[ , but mostly with old/cheap lenses that I thought were interesting to use 

Now I know the value of quality glass, I'm investing in that. Still it's interesting to have a range of stuff to choose from because it can boost creativity and forces one to think about what type of lens is needed for the job. Selecting my kit before going out on a shoot helps me 'focus'. I limit myself to what I can take in my Lowepro Mini Trekker AW.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

If I was in your shoes (i.e. not making a lot of money, from wedding photography as you say), I'd get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC ... it is not as sharp as the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, but definitely better than the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L (version 1).
I had the version 2 but was stolen, and I could not afford to buy another one, so I bought the Tamron 24-70 VC. Here are some Pros and Cons I think work in favor or against the Tamron 

*PROS:*
*1.* Around $1000 less then the Canon version (II) at 90% of its IQ and definitely better than Canon's version 1
*2.* VC (Image Stabilization) ... very useful when you want to photograph rings, shoes, cakes etc in low light
*3.* More versatile than the EF 135 f/2 L

*CONS:*
*1.* Some copies of the 24-70 VC (including mine) drain the camera battery when the IS is turned on (even when the camera is turned off) ... but mine was one of the earliest copies ... I am told that the newer ones do not have this problem ... also Tamron does fix it for free if your copy exhibits this problem.
*2.* It is heavier than any of your current lenses (if that is an issue for you)
*3.* It takes 82mm filters & good quality filters cost around $100 (but Canon version also shares the same filter size)

My take on buying lenses is: if you need a particular focal length but you cannot afford the highest quality lens, buy what you can now and sell it when you do have money to get the expensive one and consider the interim as rental for the lens bought ... the demand for used f/2.8 zoom lenses is relatively high (regardless of brand) ... I sold over 2 dozen lenses in the past 5 years ... that because I have severe G.A.S ;D


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 25, 2014)

Thank you all again for your comments 

GMCPhotographics and Rienzphotoz, because of your comments I am still strongly considering the Tamron 24-70. So thank you!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you all again for your comments
> 
> GMCPhotographics and Rienzphotoz, because of your comments I am still strongly considering the Tamron 24-70. So thank you!


You are welcome ... I suggest, you check out this review by Dustin Abbot (one of the CR members)
http://dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

You may also want to check this thread started by Dustin
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.0 

All the best for your decision and shopping.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 25, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you all again for your comments
> ...



I will have a read of them again later, thanks, I read them a while ago.
From many reviews I have read, they say positive things about the Tamron, generally, but Dustin Abbot is one who has high praise for this lens. I would be interested to know if he still likes using it or if he regrets not getting the Canon 24-70mm.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you all again for your comments
> 
> GMCPhotographics and Rienzphotoz, because of your comments I am still strongly considering the Tamron 24-70. So thank you!



Hey, your welcome and show me your photos when your done!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 25, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > JPlendPhoto said:
> ...


About 5 days ago on his Tamron 150-600 VC review thread, this is what Dustin said:
_"My Tamron 24-70 VC has been my most used lens over the past year and I have taken it into multiple countries and all kinds of different environments without a moment's hesitation from it. I'm feeling pretty good about that!"_
Send him a PM, I'm sure he'd be happy to help ... he is a very helpful chap.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> If I was in your shoes (i.e. not making a lot of money, from wedding photography as you say), I'd get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC ... it is not as sharp as the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, but definitely better than the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L (version 1).
> I had the version 2 but was stolen, and I could not afford to buy another one, so I bought the Tamron 24-70 VC. Here are some Pros and Cons I think work in favor or against the Tamron
> 
> *PROS:*
> ...



+1 great advice!


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Get the tamron. I did try the Canon mk.2 version and it's stupendously sharp, but not a 1000$ more sharp. You could almost buy the tammy and the 135L for the price. I don't won't buy the Canon 24-70 until it has IS and even then, the tamron does such a good job.
> 
> What is far more important than either of those two is speedlites. There are times where you need to make your light.



+1


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 27, 2014)

I am now considering when do I get the Tamron, I have the money for it now, and I definitely want it for when I go on holiday to Italy in May, then there is a wedding I am shooting a few months later. In the UK the cheapest I see it at is around £800, should I wait and see if the price drops in the next few months?


----------



## Hannes (Jan 27, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I am now considering when do I get the Tamron, I have the money for it now, and I definitely want it for when I go on holiday to Italy in May, then there is a wedding I am shooting a few months later. In the UK the cheapest I see it at is around £800, should I wait and see if the price drops in the next few months?



if you are happy with refurbished wex quite often have them and they go for a bit over £600


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Jan 27, 2014)

Hannes said:


> JPlendPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I am now considering when do I get the Tamron, I have the money for it now, and I definitely want it for when I go on holiday to Italy in May, then there is a wedding I am shooting a few months later. In the UK the cheapest I see it at is around £800, should I wait and see if the price drops in the next few months?
> ...



In this case, I would rather buy it new.


----------

