# 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?



## JumboShrimp (Feb 1, 2014)

I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?


----------



## candyman (Feb 1, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?



Did you check out the review thread about the Tamron that was done by Dustin?

I bought the Tamron after I used / compared it with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II. The last one was a tad better in the corners and a tad faster AF but not significant for me to justify an additional 1000 euro. If money is no option and you need the best of best, then you may go for the Canon. I am very satisfied with the Tamron (which is also better than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8). And, I like the stabilization while using it in low light situations


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 1, 2014)

In the end, neither.

I owned the Canon 24-70/2.8L but I must say its focal length range bored me, then I bought the 24-105 F/4L for travel and fell in love with it. It was sharper than my 24-70 and the colors seemed better too. Add to that the extended range which really makes it a versatile zoom. Sure it has some distortion at the wide end but that is easily fixed in post for the critical shots. The 24-105L is now my general zoom outside of travel too. And as for the 24-70, I sold that in favor of a Sigma 35 F/1.4A which gives me much better image quality, two stops more for low light work and a lot more creative leverage. So I prefer the combination of a fast prime and a zoom with a smaller apeture, but wider range. Somehow this fits my shooting style best!


----------



## Northstar (Feb 1, 2014)

Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.

I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long term...buy better quality/brand.. (It took me a good decade or so to learn this). 

A year or two from now you won't even know where the $ is that you saved by going the cheaper route, and you'll wish you had just bought the canon to begin with.

I agree with mrsfoto...the 24-105 is a great lens if you don't need the extra stop of light...but it's IQ is less compared to the 24-70 2.8ii.


----------



## syder (Feb 1, 2014)

After using both I bought the Tamron.

If you do video then the IS makes it a more versatile lens. The Canon mk ii is sharper though. They're both noticably sharper and have less distortion than the 24-105 as well as being faster. 

Does the sharpness of the mk ii justify the extra cost? Maybe, if you don't do video and like the focal range for stills. Personally I prefer the feel of a wider or longer lens for stills most of the time (16-35 and 70-200 just seem to give me more interesting images) but I find that 24-70 is my go to lens for non-fiction video so the Tamron ended up being a fairly obvious choice.


----------



## Mauritz (Feb 1, 2014)

I read several reviews and compared both lenses on http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I chose the Tamron and have no regrets alt all. The IS easily outweighs the slightly lesser sharpness for me, certainly when taking into account the huge price difference. The build quality is impressive, AF works fine for me (I do not shoot action), also in low light. The sharpness is impressive: at f/5.6, the Tamron rivals my (non-L) primes.
You do not get red ring bragging rights, but I for one couldn't care less.


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2014)

I have owned the 24-70 2.8 Mk1, Canon 24-105 f/4 and the Tamron 24-70 VC. I would have loved the Mk2 but was changing lenses out when it first appeared and there were no price breaks like there are today. The Mk2 is a no brainer today at the price point it's being offered or at refurb prices. The Tammy just isn't sharp enough for larger prints and hunts in AF Servo too much for my liking. I ended up with a Sigma 24-105 which imho much better than the Canon offering in sharpness, corner and center and also in CA control and distortion. I have a feeling I'll pickup a Canon 24-70 someday tp truly compliment my 70-200 2.8 ISii but for now my money is better saved towards new 400 variants being professed in the rumor mills.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2014)

Canon - better IQ, faster AF, IS/VC not useful for the majority of what I shoot in that focal range.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 1, 2014)

Canon. AF is fast enough for sports (indoor basketball). Most of my pics have people in them, so IS is of little value. I do wish that these were designed to go to 85 rather than 70, which i find just a little too short.


----------



## callmeasyoulike (Feb 1, 2014)

I had the 24-105 an sold it or the Tamron 24-70 after using both lenses for a while. I´m totally happy with the VC, which was very useful in alot of situations. I thought abot the 24-70 II, but I don`t want to miss VC. I have no problems with the AF. I found, the Tamron works very well with the 5D Mark III, even better than with the Mark II. But it`s also very good with the Mark II. I did some weddings with this combo and was very happy with the results. For even more sharpness I use the 35 1,4 and the 85 1,8


----------



## iaind (Feb 1, 2014)

Canon for me


----------



## VanWeddings (Feb 1, 2014)

got the tamron because VC was a huge bonus for video. no brainer really. sharpness for stills was excellent as well.

only complaint is that both zoom and focus rings turn in the opposite direction.


----------



## curtisnull (Feb 1, 2014)

Canon. I don't use off-brand lenses.


----------



## tmfilmpro (Feb 1, 2014)

Tested the Tamron 3 weeks ago and the Canon one week ago. Tamron images were nothing special, ok sharp, but with pretty bad corners - mediocre sample??? Canon images were so incredibly sharp with great colour I knew there is no turning back and going for less. Combined with the 100IS Macro I can cover 95% of my needs without worries. In fact, with the Canon 24-70II for the first time I had quite a bit of moiré in the 6D images. I didn´t even know the 6D could be so sharp... Plus, after having used a Olympus 14-35/2 for years, I always wanted a standard zoom in the same league. Compared to this legendary lens, the Canon seems to be very very reasonably priced at the moment.

In Europe the Tamron is 800.-, the Canon is 1650.- (after 250.- cashback). I´m sure I´d have burnt around 250.- the moment I bought the Tamron - with the Canon there´d be very little loss in reselling, especially as the cashback has ended. 

A friend of mine once said - about buying his bread and butter broadcast lens - there is the one bad moment when I pay, but there is a smile on my face every day after that.


----------



## ihendy (Feb 1, 2014)

Canon after trying a couple Tamron copies.

I wanted to love the Tamron. I read Dustin's review and decided to give it a try. The sharpness was great in the centre. AF was decent and VC was a definate bonus for video. First copy had focus issues on my 5d mmii. Swapped for a second copy. Three weeks in the VC started acting up. Started to jump when it locked in. It was very noticeable in the view finder and then the image lost some sharpness compared to when I shot with the VC off. Returned it for the Canon. It turned out to be a setting on my camera which I found out by resetting the camera to factory default settings. Once I changed the settings the lens worked perfectly, which means the first copy was probably fine too. Both samples had very little sample variation in sharpness unlike the Tamron. The lens has worked flawless for me every since. Image quality is prime quality and AF very fast.

I really miss the VC. I found I used it more than I thought I would, even in still shooting (mainly at night or indoors for static subjects). I also missed the extra thousand dollars the Tamron saved me, but I prefer the L lens over all. As I own mainly L lenses I prefer having a constant look. I prefer the cooler look from my L lenses to the warmer yellow cast from the Tamron. When I look back on my pictures a shot with both lenses, I find I prefer the L pics more. It's hard to explain, but that have a bit more pop.


----------



## Vossie (Feb 1, 2014)

I chose the Canon; hardly considered the Tamron after comparing on-line reviews (before that the 24-105 used to be my walkaround lens). No regrets; sharpness is so mch better that the 24-105.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 1, 2014)

Vossie said:


> I chose the Canon; hardly considered the Tamron after comparing on-line reviews (before that the 24-105 used to be my walkaround lens). No regrets; sharpness is so mch better that the 24-105.



Time and time I read this about the 24-105 being a lille softer, I think my 24-105 must be an exceptionally good copy. Its sharpness even compares favorably to my 100 mm macro. Not quite as good, but very sharp nonetheless. Last week I used it for some landscape shots in the snow and again I am very pleased.


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Feb 1, 2014)

CANON The Best, Why settle for anything less?


----------



## silvestography (Feb 1, 2014)

I went with the Tamron merely because I didn't have $2k+ to spend on a camera lens. I wasn't doing any paid work when I bought it so for me, it was a question of best value. 

Having said that, just about every dollar I've made taking pictures has involved that lens, and given I do some video work and don't have my own stabilization rig, the VC is a major asset.


----------



## Danielle (Feb 1, 2014)

I chose the Tamron after testing one in the shop and going away for a few weeks for a think. That $1000 extra for the canon wasn't happening. My tamron did however show a VC issue, otherwise the lens is damn sharp. Tamron fixed it up and I've had a good sharp reliable copy since. So I can vouch for Tamron service too. I'm happy with it, I can't compare to the canon mkii as I never tested it (points to the cost I personally think is nuts for such a lens). I use Zeiss otherwise, this lens filled the gap with an autofocus lens and I'm NOT disappointed with my choice one bit. 

I do like the rendering, I find it beautiful especially for portrait oriented work. Soft almost muted colour, yes maybe lower contrast than the L's I've used but I like it anyway. Each to their own.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Feb 1, 2014)

I used to have the original 24-70L, sold it and pretty much got the Tamron for no cost. Much sharper and image stabilization without having to shell out any more cash. New canon might be sharper than what I have but I think the tamron was good value for the money for me.
I also replaced my canon 100-400L with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (and 2X teleconverter), and likely will replace the canon 50 1.4 with the new sigma (already have the sigma 35 f1.4). I hadn't really look at it but I seem to have been replacing a lot of my canon lenses lately.

Next question would be weather to get the new sigma 24-105 to replace the canon 24-105L?


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2014)

stochasticmotions said:


> I used to have the original 24-70L, sold it and pretty much got the Tamron for no cost. Much sharper and image stabilization without having to shell out any more cash. New canon might be sharper than what I have but I think the tamron was good value for the money for me.
> I also replaced my canon 100-400L with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (and 2X teleconverter), and likely will replace the canon 50 1.4 with the new sigma (already have the sigma 35 f1.4). I hadn't really look at it but I seem to have been replacing a lot of my canon lenses lately.
> 
> Next question would be weather to get the new sigma 24-105 to replace the canon 24-105L?



I went the S24-105 route and couldn't be happier


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 1, 2014)

Aren't these two completely different beasts?


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 1, 2014)

When Canon first announced the 24-70mm 2.8L II, just like everyone else I was surprised by the lack of IS which gave me pause... Even though I loved my workhorse 24-105, I knew I was going to get a mid-range zoom eventually, so after a month of staring at the MTF charts I pre-ordered the new Canon. I expected that the Canon lens was going to very good, but not this good... It really was been a game-changer for me. I shoot primarily landscapes and my tripod is usually pretty close by so I really don't miss not having IS. The only downside to the Canon for me has been that its IQ is _so good_ that I'm now less likely to use one of my TS-E lenses...


----------



## JumboShrimp (Feb 1, 2014)

Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.


----------



## Sanaraken (Feb 1, 2014)

Never look at the Tamron. I just went straight with Canon. As I never buy any third party lenses. For the price its well worth it. Buy it right the first time and it will save you money in the long run.


----------



## candyman (Feb 1, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.




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


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 1, 2014)

I bought the 24-70II because I got a really good deal but was still quite circumspect, and thought I might give it a try but will probably settle in favor of the 24-105 (which I had bought around the same time).
Then I had taken the 24-70II to my anniversary dinner in a very dimly lit restaurant which rotates, with city lights all around, and the pictures my wife and the waitress (and myself) took came out so sharp, with amazing IQ and bokeh, that there was no returning that lens after that! 
In general, I like to have the best lens I can afford in a certain FL range, and this was the best lens, period.


----------



## mwh1964 (Feb 2, 2014)

Canon 24-70L 2 all the way. Still got the 24-105 sitting there on the shelve looking a bit angry with me though.


----------



## Cariboucoach (Feb 2, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Can someone please direct me to Dustin Abbott's thread about the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ? (Looking, but no success.) Thanks.



Try here

http://dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


----------



## ddl (Feb 2, 2014)

Started off with the Tamron - liked the VC but hated the slower focus. And then the VC died.

Took it back and got the Canon which has become one of my favorite 5D3 lens.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 2, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?



I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos. 

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:







24-70mm Tamron:






24-105mm Canon






Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron. 

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

<image used by Radiating without permission, removed by mod at copyright holder's request> 

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.


----------



## cliffwang (Feb 2, 2014)

That really depends on what kind photos you take. Do you need slightly better corner sharpness and faster AF or do you need the VC/IS feature.
Canon 24-70 MK2 has slightly better corner sharpness and faster AF. Tamron has incredible VC and cheaper price.
If you think better IQ/AF is worth for the extra 1000 dollars, go with Canon. If you need slow shutter speed, go with Tamron. I need a general purpose walk-through lens, so I pick Tamron.


----------



## JohnQ (Feb 2, 2014)

Having shot with both, I would lean towards the Canon. The f/2.8 24-70 II is my go-to lens for almost everything. I have used it extensively on the 5D III as well as the 7D and it performs beautifully on both. Sharpness is amazing from corner to corner and throughout the entire focal range. Auto focus is FAST in all lighting situations. I have used this lens in all types of weather and subjected it to hot and cold temperature extremes. It holds up. 

I even used it for a video project at work that was shown to several hundred people on a large wall-sized projection screen with absolutely no disappointment. The same project required me to go into a humid, sometimes dusty factory environment and again, the lens delivered.

The absence of image stabilization has never been a problem down to 1/25 sec. With this lens mounted to the 5D III you can basically shoot handheld in the dark.

I used the Tamron for only a couple of days. I rented a D800 to see what all the hype is about (very impressed!) and needed some Nikon compatible glass to go with it. The first one I received had a sticky aperture blade, so I sent it back. The second one was very nice and worked just as it should. The build quality was very solid. The image quality was vibrant and razor sharp. No complaints.

By no means would I not buy the Tamron version. My experience simply tells me what to expect from the Canon longer term. They're both great lenses. My other reason for going with the Canon is Canon Service. I have used them on several occasions and have been completely satisfied with the quality of the work they do.

Canon 27-70 photos: http://soyscapes.com/archives/tag/ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm
Tamron 24-70 photos and D800 review: http://soyscapes.com/nikon-d800-review


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
> ...


Hi, thanks for your elaborate answer. I don't know enough and can't see well enough to really understand the difference between the three comparing photos. I've lookes and looked and don't get it.

That also goes for the dog photo. To me it looked great. I couldn't pick up on the grey areas that you mentioned.

As you can read out from my reply I am an amateur and do way to little photography compared to what I would lile to do. I am also at best mediocre when it comes to post editing. Maybe I am making a fool of myself not seeing what's bad, would you mind to explain a little further? I am trying to learn here to increase my ability to capture and pick out photos that are great.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
> ...


What complete and utter rubbish. The dog photo has no contrast because it has been taken out, the dog has black fur, nose, nostrils, eye lids and pupils, yet not one pixel is close to 0.0.0.

You can get all the contrast in the grass you want if you don't take it out in the first place. Just a quick adjust on the crappy jpeg gets you this.


----------



## ihendy (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
> ...



wow - complete opposite from what I saw. Shot them both for about a month. Had to push the Tamron in post to get the same contrast and pop vs with the canon right out of the camera. Tamron was a good lens...Canon was clearly better in my experience. Wish I would have had your success as I wanted to love the Tamron so bad. Really wanted a VC third party lens to crush Canon's over priced offering.

ps onion bokeh on spectral highlights pretty pronounced on tamron. Canon was not as bad. But Bokeh way to subjective to in my opionion to get into it over.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> ...
> Images from this lens look flat.
> 
> The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.
> ...



I think you may have found an explanation why I don't like the Canon 24-70's. They're boring, and I think I know why - they're probably not intended as creative lenses but instead are reliable news photographer's tools. The lens that gets the shot 'safely' right every time because it is sharp and has a large aperture. I agree that from what I've seen the Tamron gives the best 'creative' photos and for that it would be my 24-70 of choice. But then as you said (and I agree) the 24-105 has a lot of 'pop' too and this, to me is important. I gladly add the extended zoom range at cost of a stop of light.


----------



## Vossie (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
> ...



To my eye the bokeh in these 3 pictures looks best in the 24-105, followed by the canon 24-70 and the tamron last. Very strange patterns in the highlights. I cannot compare the tamron 24-70, but I do own both other lenses; all I can say is that the contrast and color in the canon 24-70 are way more attractive compared to the 24-105. The images just have more "pop". I cannot share your conclusion that the 24-70 ii is a bad lens. I believe it is a great lens.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 2, 2014)

I don't agree with radiating. The 24-70ii is an amazing lens that outperforms its peers in every criteria regarding image quality. The tamron is also an outstanding lens and you will likely be extremely happy with either choice. 

I find it difficult to take someone seriously who states that editing images from a specific lens makes him/her want to vomit. 

After careful review of both lenses I chose the canon. I felt it was worth the additional cost and loss of is/vr for the better iq. I shoot almost always on a tripod so stabilization does not matter to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2014)

Radiating said:


> The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible.
> 
> Notice the mushiness?



What I notice most is the particularly crappy OOF highlights on the Tamron 24-70. The comparison you posted is making the argument against you. 



Radiating said:


> The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.



Yes, in the wrong hands it certainly can make bad photos. That's not the fault of the lens, but rather the person holding the camera. It seems that, unfortunately, you couldn't manage to use the lens to its full potential. 



Radiating said:


> Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.



Since the Canon 24-70 II costs far more than the Tamron, anyone who chose the Canon could obviously have afforded the Tamron, and made that choice regardless of price. 

The Tamron seems to be a good lens, and if you require a 24-70/2.8 with image stabilization, or require a 24-70/2.8 but can't afford the Canon MkII, the Tamron is a great choice.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?
> ...



wow...i can't tell if you work for nikon or tamron....probably tamron. sure, the tamron is a nice lens, but to say the canon is "bad"...you make your bias so obvious.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 3, 2014)

My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:






Right image is from the 24-70mm f/2.8 II L, left image is for comparison to illustrate the problem.

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II L has nearly half as much pop than a comparable lens in the out of focus areas, when the in focus areas are set to an identical level of contrast. That last part is important because out of camera images will show different initial levels of contrast, but every image editor has contrast adjustment so it's easy to adjust the in focus areas. Notice how each number retains a similar level of detail, so we're not experiencing more blur we're experiencing substantial glowiness and lack of pop in the out of focus areas in the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II. This makes images look bland or forces you to crunch the subject, and the fact that this effect creeps up so incredibly quickly with the first number in the background already showing glow, means even areas that are slightly out of focus will basically lose half their contrast. It's a very significant effect.

Note for the math impaired: we subtract the black level from the white level to calculate contrast in the above diagram.

Another example of the bokeh glow that I threw together in two seconds, of the reduced pop on the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, again adjusted so that the contrast of the in focus area matches:






Note, both of these are @70mm f/2.8

Again these are both at f/2.8 and we are not changing the amount of background blur, if you look at the 10 and 8 they both have the same level of detail, but the Canon adds a "halo" around transitions between contrasting areas, which should not be there. (It may be worth mentioning that in comparisons I noticed slightly less of this effect between ultra wide and wide focal lengths - ie the Canon showed slightly less problems between 24-29mm)

As for those people who are saying that the Tamron's out of focus HIGHLIGHT circles are bad, yes they are worse, but in practice this means very little. Unlike telephoto lenses normal lenses render OOF highlights much smaller, so we need magnification to even see their details usually (such as the previous post's examples). Only OOF highlights that aren't blown out will show any texture so really we are talking about something that is rarely seen. To even see OOF highlight texture issues on the Tamron I had to focus all the way down to macro distance and take pictures of chandeliers and then adjust the exposure so the OOF highlight wasn't blown out and wasn't too dim (which is a very narrow range, and changes drastically if you move the camera slightly), and even then I had to zoom in to see the details, they weren't visible in that test at screen resolution. When I was testing the issue it took a lot of work to make it appear and it's just not that common in the real world. I can't even remember taking a photo with the issue in the last 3 months. That's a much more specific problem than the issue with the Canon, which is basically everywhere, and the Canon has some significant onion bokeh too

You can chose to ignore this issue or you may even like it, but I notice it in most photos I see from the Canon f/2.8 II. It's a very unusual issue not found in many other lenses. (Also it isn't as bad between 24-29mm for the record) It's up to you, but I have a very strong preference and I think seeing unusual amounts of grey and strong glow in the background makes things look very washed out.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 3, 2014)

I chose the tammy because I found a great deal for on on CL. 800$ basically unused and I usually end up shooting @ 5.6 or smaller. The MK2 24-70 was better but not enough to matter when VC is far more useful to drag the shutter.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 3, 2014)

I chose the Canon but somewhat regret not getting the Tamron instead. I believe the Canon does produces better images, and from what I have seen from 95% of comparisons, it does.

However, IQ aside, my biggest gripe with the Canon is the quality control for this particular lens. I am on my fourth copy and it's still far from perfect. My first copy had a decentered element; my second copy clicked while zooming; my third copy clicked and I wasn't happy with its image quality; and now my fourth copy has a slight clicking sound as well.

I have given up trying to get one without any flaws because I don't believe they exist. 


Another issue I have with Canon is their increasingly poor customer service. I spoke with a lady on the phone from Canon Canada after I sent my first copy of the 24-70 in for repair because of the decentered element and had it returned completely the same, and she basically told me I was wasting her time and Canon's technicians' time, claiming that I could never possibly test a lens as accurately as their technicians could. 

My experience told me that Canon's customer service cannot be trusted. Now, to the misfortune of my local camera store, I now thoroughly test any lens immediately after purchase to make sure its within spec and I am 100% satisfied; if I am not happy it simply goes back and I get them to give me another copy, and I repeat this until I am happy. I feel dirty doing this because its not the store's fault that I'm obliterating their inventory, but it's really my only recourse to protect myself when dealing with a company like Canon now.

Tamron offers a substantially better warranty, is half the cost, and has a much faster turn-around time for repairs. I know Tamron has had their on quality control issues with their 24-70, but I really wonder if I would really have had to go through four different copies of their lens to be happy.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 3, 2014)

Neither... I kept my 24-105, and bought a 24 f/1.4. I am keeping my zoom for travel/ease, and getting primes for quality!  Though I can see that once i get all my primes (just a couple more) I will be facing the same dilemma!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 3, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Neither... I kept my 24-105, and bought a 24 f/1.4. I am keeping my zoom for travel/ease, and getting primes for quality!  Though I can see that once i get all my primes (just a couple more) I will be facing the same dilemma!



+1 But I can't see myself getting a 24-70 unless my needs drastically change which I expect they won't.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some people really hate glow. Diffractive optics can produce this type of effect as well, one reason I would not consider the 70-300DO for instance: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## tmfilmpro (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is one of the weirdest arguments I´ve ever come across. I totally disagree and think you have made a grave mistake in your concept. Why should high contrast in unsharp areas be a quality sign? Quite the contrary. A lens with good bokeh should exactly do what you describe and show in this image: To soften shapes quickly and blend them with uniform brightness distribution. Sure this will lower contrast. This is exactly what helps in focus objects "pop". I see in your image a much quicker transition into softness in the Canon which is good and which for me is one thing Canon generally does well - high MTF in the sharpness plane AND a soft bokeh. The Tamron clearly has worse bokeh, or maybe it has a smaller effective aperture than the Canon with more depth of field.


----------



## tmfilmpro (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://matthewduclos.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cinema-eos-lenses.pdf

and here is a paper by Larry Thorpe on the design of Canon´s high end cinema lenses, on page 5 there is some interesting stuff which is in line with my argument above.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 3, 2014)

The polarization in this topic to me clearly shows that there is a big difference in people's personal preference when it comes to subjective lens qualities that determine the way a lens 'draws'. Sometimes a lens that is technically imperfect makes better pictures, something that is personal and difficult to quantify. Maybe the 24-70 II is too perfect, too clinical?


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 3, 2014)

If both lenses were exactly the same price, chances are you'd go with the Canon.

You don't need my opinion on the product's performance as there's some pretty comprehensive reviews on the lens with one caveat I'll mention later.

I went for the Canon. Why? Well, do L series lenses ever actually lose out in terms of re-sale value? The MKi's are selling here in South Africa for basically the same price they were purchased new.

Onto the review caveat...we do not know how future Canon firmware / peripheral releases impacts on 3rd party lenses. I'm in a 2000+ strong photography community and the belief about 3rd party zoom lenses is that they do not perform as well as 3rd party primes.

The Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkii is probably the best lens released between 2012 & 2013. My opinion, the Tamron is more a financial consideration with the IS being the singular plus it holds over the Canon.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> The polarization in this topic to me clearly shows that there is a big difference in people's personal preference when it comes to subjective lens qualities that determine the way a lens 'draws'. Sometimes a lens that is technically imperfect makes better pictures, something that is personal and difficult to quantify. Maybe the 24-70 II is too perfect, too clinical?



Rent both and see which one suits you best? crappy advice i know, but I find it helps to see what you think of the lenses IN YOUR OWN HANDS!  Rent both for a weekend, and do your own impressions.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Notice the mushiness?
> 
> I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.
> 
> Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up.



This is all subjective, of course (despite your attempt to prove that it's a "fact" in a later post), but what immediately struck me in the three comparative images you provided was how horrible the bokeh was on the white things (whatever they are) on the Tamron image, inappropriately contrasty and harsh. I'm not wild about any of the three images, but I dislike the 24-105's the least; based on the evidence you provide, I wouldn't use any of them if I wanted attractive background blur at 50mm. (Luckily, I don't find 24-70mm lenses very appealing, regardless of price, so I don't have to decide....)


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> My last post was not an opinion. It is a fact that is easily demonstrated in back to back comparisons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast. 

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That is pretentious twaddle. I'd challenge pretty much anybody to tell the difference between the 24-70 f2.8 @f4 and the 24-105 @f4 when using images like this.


----------



## slclick (Feb 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...




I'll need a brick wall comparison, STAT!


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 3, 2014)

@ OP - keep in mind that the zoom rotation on Tamron is opposite direction Vs Canon zoom lenses.

Get the Canon if budget is NOT an issue


----------



## Radiating (Feb 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.
> 
> You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. *That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur*. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.
> 
> To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.



A few years ago I worked making content and creating characters for video games. I'm responsible for implementing the first bokeh effects into a best selling video game. I'm personally responsible for creating some of the most iconic CG images of the last decade, and in doing so I consulted a few people on bokeh which consisted of dozens of optics experts that researched for universities. I'm certainly glad you set the record straight. For years, I've been foolish enough to believe that Ivy League professors were legitimate and knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible. The Canon adds glow to objects that are out of focus. This is a very simple concept to understand and is not debatable.

You can decide if you like this glow or if you do not like this glow personally. However I can tell you that it is an unusual feature. Basically all of the common pro Canon, Nikon or third party lenses do not exhibit this behavior.

Hope that helps.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 3, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > The polarization in this topic to me clearly shows that there is a big difference in people's personal preference when it comes to subjective lens qualities that determine the way a lens 'draws'. Sometimes a lens that is technically imperfect makes better pictures, something that is personal and difficult to quantify. Maybe the 24-70 II is too perfect, too clinical?
> ...



That's sound advice, but not applicable for me - I prefer my current setup of 24-105L and a set of primes


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.
> ...



I admit the word "faster" was too easy to misinterpret, I should have used smoother.

As for your bio, I am unimpressed, as you would be were I to tell you I was the first Westerner to walk the entire length of the Great Wall Of China on my hands and that I also hold four Guinness world records.

But back on topic, anybody with your reputed skills and reputation should be able to understand the lunacy/futility/pointlessness of "proving" lack of contrast in an image that one, they didn't even take, and two, had all the black taken out! 

Read the actual words I wrote, I have not said your opinion is without merit, I have said your "proof" is without merit. As I already said, your point could be easily made were you to post an unedited copy of your Bridget's "proof" dog image. Alternatively you can lose even more credibility by throwing out all kinds of subject changing irrelevancies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Notice how each number retains a similar level of detail, so we're not experiencing more blur
> 
> Again these are both at f/2.8 and we are not changing the amount of background blur, if you look at the 10 and 8 they both have the same level of detail,



It's quite obvious that the Canon lens is delivering *more* OOF blur at an equivalent aperture. In the TDP images you posted (which also demonstrate how badly the Tamron handles OOF specular highlights), the size of the blur discs is noticeably larger in the Canon images compared to the Tamron images. In your own ruler shot 'comparisons' the '60' on the right (Canon) is more OOF than the '40' on the left (Tamron), and likewise on the LensAlign ruler. Once again, your 'evidence' actually argues against your conclusions. 




tmfilmpro said:


> This is one of the weirdest arguments I´ve ever come across. I totally disagree and think you have made a grave mistake in your concept. Why should high contrast in unsharp areas be a quality sign? Quite the contrary. A lens with good bokeh should exactly do what you describe and show in this image: To soften shapes quickly and blend them with uniform brightness distribution. Sure this will lower contrast. This is exactly what helps in focus objects "pop". I see in your image a much quicker transition into softness in the Canon which is good and which for me is one thing Canon generally does well - high MTF in the sharpness plane AND a soft bokeh. The Tamron clearly has worse bokeh, or maybe it has a smaller effective aperture than the Canon with more depth of field.



+1

The Canon 24-70 II has better bokeh, across the board. That means better rendition of the OOF specular highlights (where the Tamron 24-70 is rather a mess) as well as a smooth but rapid transition from crisp focus to significantly defocused, where the defocused areas have low detail and low contrast.

Granted, "good bokeh" is subjective…but the general idea is that good bokeh focuses the viewer's attention on the subject. A viewer's eye/brain are drawn to tonal contrast in the periphery of a photo just like the eye/brain are drawn to movement detected by peripheral vision in a live scene - drawing the eye away from the subject is a distraction. Good bokeh makes distractions in the background less distracting by blurring them more *and lowering their contrast*.




Radiating said:


> There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible.



Specifications lie. If the Canon and Tamron lenses are _set to_ the same focal aperture and focal length, but give blur discs of different diameters for an identical subject, then cleary we're *not* comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. (Note that while blur disc diameter can be affected by spherical aberration, and made larger by over- or under-correction thereof, the difference in diameters taken together with the difference in OOF blur from the ruler shots, indicate a difference in the actual DoF.) The iris diaphragm diameter of the Canon 24-70 II is larger than that of the Tamron 24-70 for a given set of matched settings - that may be due to differences in rounding of the actual focal lengths and/or rounding of the actual iris diaphragm diameters. The larger physical aperture of the Canon lens means a thinner DoF at equivalent settings, meaning more OOF blur from the Canon lens at a given distance away from the in-focus region.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 4, 2014)

In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...



Good point 

And I forgot to borrow some of Neuros sarcasm tags, sorry.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > In one of his blogs Roger Cicala writes "I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are". I can see the merit of this practice looking at the way this thread is going...
> ...



By the way, I appreciate you (and some others like Neuro, Jrista) trying to drill some reason and sense of balance into these debaters. At the end of the day (thread?) that effort itself might not succeed, but people like me get to know a lot about photography in the bargain.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I had consciously stopped posting simple "+1" posts but in this case it is unavoidable ... 

+1


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 4, 2014)

J.R. said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


+1


----------



## gshocked (Feb 24, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.
> 
> I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long term...buy better quality/brand.. (It took me a good decade or so to learn this).
> 
> ...



Hi,

I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

I had Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... which was stolen shortly after buying it ... so I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (coz I could not afford another $2200 at that tmie so I got the Tamron for less then half the price of Canon II version, as I need that focal length & aperture at that time). 

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.

Anyway, that was the old story ... the new story is that about an hour ago I sold my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (and the Canon EOS-M, EF-M 22 f/2, EF-S 18-55, EF-M adapter + Sunpack RD 2000 flash) ... now the wallet is heavier with enough money to buy the L II and some 8)

However, I am now rethinking about which lens to get ... the options running in my head are:
*OPTION 1*
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + EF 300mm f/4 L IS + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS
(This is so I can use the 2 small primes with 5D MK III as well as the Sony a7)

*OPTION 2*
EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II + Tamron 150-600 VC

*OPTION 3*
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Tamron 150-600 VC + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS + Sony a6000 

*OPTION 4*
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS + EF 35mm f/2 IS + Panasonic GH4 + Panasonic 100-300 (200-600mm equivalent FOV) f/4.5-5.6 MOIS
(I like the idea of trying different systems and the compact size of such a long FOV with the Panasonic 4/3 system).

Decisions, decisions, decisions :-\ :-\ :-\ ... will know in about 10 days.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 25, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> Never look at the Tamron. I just went straight with Canon. As I never buy any third party lenses. For the price its well worth it. Buy it right the first time and it will save you money in the long run.



+1


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 25, 2014)

Radiating said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.
> ...



I believe you'll find that people will be more willing to hear your arguments if you state them from a more neutral point of view. Your initial post, though very thorough, was worded in a way that made you come across crass. It seems it put some readers on the defensive. 

I personally disagree with you. From my experience, the Canon produces images that I like... at the very least, the IQ did not make me feel like vomiting!

I appreciate the experience all of the CanonRumors forum members bring to this forum and I do a lot of reading on here. That said, you shouldn't have to boast about your accomplishments or who your sources are to verify that your argument is valid. The argument itself should have its own validity. Again, not a very good move on your part to prove your point.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 25, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.
> ...



I liked my 24-105 but I need the f2.8 for my use....and I find the 24-70ii a little sharper. I do miss the 71-105 though..


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

Northstar said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


Wishful thinking of course, but wouldn't it be awesome if Canon did make a 24-105 f/2.8 L IS? ... with such a lens + 100-400 L II IS & a 16-35 f/2.8 L II, most photographers would be set for pretty much any situation ... what is that old saying about "when pigs fly"! ;D


----------



## candyman (Feb 25, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I had Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... which was stolen shortly after buying it ... so I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (coz I could not afford another $2200 at that tmie so I got the Tamron for less then half the price of Canon II version, as I need that focal length & aperture at that time).
> 
> In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.
> 
> ...



You suffer from GAS 
Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600


----------



## drjlo (Feb 25, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.



I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur. I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way. Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality? The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS :-\


----------



## Northstar (Feb 26, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.
> ...



What was your shutter speed? You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed. ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 26, 2014)

Northstar said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Agreed. 

A properly exposed image at ISO 3200 is excellent with the 5DIII. For events like this I would not even hesitate to push to ISO 6400. You coul dhave doubled your shutter speed 3 times.

Also, IS will help to eliminate hand shake, but if you were getting blurry photos from hand shake, your shutter speed was probably so slow that it did not fully freeze subject motion... of course IS would not help you at all in this case.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 26, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.
> ...


Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move (even though they may look like they aren't) ... for hand held shots, VC/IS is very helpful when the subject is still (not moving) or when you have big huge lenses, as the IS/VC will help stabilize the viewfinder to get the focus right on the bird's eye etc ... without stabilization it gets quite crazy when hand holding non-IS/VC lenses, I still remember trying to focus on a bird's eye with the non-OS Sigma 50-500 lens at at 500 on my Canon 400D camera ... like others have already pointed out that blurry shots are most likely due to insufficient shutter speed.
Cheers.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 26, 2014)

candyman said:


> You suffer from GAS
> Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
> I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600


Oh yes, absolutely ... I am currently experiencing severe G.A.S ... especially since I've sold some of my gear, my wallet is rich with about US$3000 8) :-[



candyman said:


> Did you sell the Sigma 150 - 500 OS?
> I would opt for 24-70 II and the Tamron 150-600


Yes, I sold it, ... I am thinking of getting the 150-600 VC, coz I really like how well it autofocuses and its image quality ... but I'm still in 2 minds about its build quality ... so, I am forcing myself to hold on for a few days before I pull the trigger. :-\


----------



## candyman (Feb 26, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > You suffer from GAS
> ...




Well, I wonder if everyone here suffers form G.A.S. : 
I am going to buy the Canon 6D tomorrow 8) 
The first item on my current list....and sure....the list changes all the time....never empty ;D


----------



## Snodge (Feb 26, 2014)

I bought the Tamron, it was out before the Canon v2 and I needed something for my 5d3. I had a Tamron lens without VC for my 60D and liked it, so I had no problems going for the Tamron again. It also meant that I can put the difference in price towards another lens


----------



## drjlo (Feb 26, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move



At say 50 mm focal length, with adults "trying" to pose and not move, what minimum shutter speed would be typically required for subject motion?

Looking over my shots, I actually got some very sharp photos at around 65 mm at 1/30th. 
Some of the moderately blurred photos were for example 61 mm at 1/16 th ! Didn't even realize how slow shutter speed was due to trying to run after people. So in these situations, IS/VC would not have helped anyway?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 26, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move
> ...


Shot from a tripod (or with IS) 1/30s is probably the minimum for posed portraits, but 1/60s is pretty safe and 1/100s or fast can pretty much assure you of sharp photos.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 27, 2014)

candyman said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure, its just you and me 


candyman said:


> I am going to buy the Canon 6D tomorrow 8)


Awesome ... may it serve you well 


candyman said:


> ...the list changes all the time....never empty ;D


;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 27, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move
> ...


I shoot a lot of group shots of our rig crew, so I generally try to keep it between 1/60sec to 1/80sec (even if it is a dimly lit area ... I raise the ISO if needed) ... I did shoot group shots at 1/10sec to 1/30sec as well, although I get lucky sometimes, not all the people are sharp in the image, there will always be a few whose head movement makes them come out not as sharp as the others ... maybe those are the ones "happy on some exotic substance" ;D


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move



...or you work creatively with people's movement. Here the Tamrons great VC allows playing around spontaneously, with Canon's 24-70/2.8 you'd need for such a shot a tripod, see this test example in my little gallery (I shot this image on my first eve walkaround with my Tamron):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2148378/tamron-24-70-vc-test-handheld-shot-with-1-5-s

That said, I am really disappointed with the Tamron's AF reliability both on my 5D3 and 7D (I tried two copies, both with careful MA, both with the same results). I get significantly less in-focus hits wide open e.g. @ 70 mm as with my EF 70-200/2.8 II. Turning off VC when shooting action improves AF performance of the Tamron a bit. This is the only but quite serious flaw of this lens IMO. IQ and manual quality are very good, in particular given its competitive price.


----------



## PVS (Feb 27, 2014)

Tried all 3 of them, Tam24-70, 24-70L mk1& mk2. Would have gotten the mk1 but couldn't find new one in stock. My main concern was the build quality and resale value so I went with mk2. All 3 lenses are great but I didn't like tammys oof render plus build quality is far behind any L.


----------



## candyman (Feb 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to buy the Canon 6D tomorrow 8)
> ...




Thanks. I just got it. I am going to take it on our family mini-cruise to Newcastle in the UK and leave the 5D MKII @home. I look forward to use it!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

I based my decision solely on the DxOMark score, and Canon kicked Tamron's butt by a huge point


----------



## Northstar (Feb 27, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron's VC or Canon IS will not help with people photography in dimly lit indoor situations ... coz people move
> ...




It would help at those slow shutter speeds, but it doesn't help if people are moving...only if YOU are moving. 

regarding your question about at 50mm focal length....I would say shoot at 1/100 for sharp shots without IS...if that requires you to bump up ISO to 3200 or 6400, so be it. The noise is easily removed in post processing, or if shooting JPEG, the 5d3 does an awesome job at noise reduction if you turn it on in the camera settings.


----------

