battle of 24-70. tamron vc Vs Canon L II

I have what I consider to be a very good copy of tamron 24-70 VC, and just received my first copy of canon 24-70II. did some field test and brick wall test, as well as some sharpness test using the Focal software.

My findings, based on testing the lenses at 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70mm

1.Sharpness. wide open

Center of the frame is very similar at all focal lengths except for 70, where the canon has a clear advantage at f 2.8. at close focus distance, focal detected a slight advantage to canon at all focal lengths but with the wall about 20 feet away, even at 200% the difference is marginal, except at f 70

corners: Canon is definitely sharper here at 2.8 at all focal lengths, they are close in the central 2/3, but canon clearly pulls ahead in the corners.

2. Sharpness stopped down:

Center, they stay very similar. at 70, tamron about catches up at f4, and beyond that I dont see a difference.

Corners: Here is the surprising part. at 24, canon is sharper. Tamron narrows the gap the more you stop down, and I would call it very good at f8, but even at f11, canon has a slight edge. At 35, by f5.6 they are fairly similar

however, on the longer end, 50, and 70, tamron is clearly sharper at f5.6 and beyond in the corners. canon starts good, but reaches very good levels. Tamron starts ok, but reaches excellent level. definitely visible difference.

2. Distortion. Tamron has more of it at 24. beyond that I did not find it problematic.

I was surprised that the sharpness comparison is a mixed bag. Canon has clear advantage at 70 2.8 in center, and also wide open in the corners. It has a clear disadvantage stopped down in the corners on the long end (though slight advantage at 24mm) so much so, that I would say tamron turns in a more even performance for landscape shooting when it comes to sharpness.

Tamron also has a very effective VC. Canon does not.

Now, by far the biggest advantage of canon is autofocus speed and consistency. taking images of my kids running around in good or borderline light, with 5d3, the canon naiils focus 90% of time. In marginal light, with moving objects, the tamron is near hopeless. even in good light, it does maybe 60-70 in focus. Even with stationary objects, in good light, tamron occasionally produces oof, or just soft images. Not sure if its the VC, or what.

I am now torn between these two lenses. I dont mind the price tag of canon, and I can even live with lack of VC. I am just honestly disapponted with its stop down performance in the corners at 50 and 70. would be interested to hear from others with experience with this lenses.

Look at this review.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag

thanks. Interestingly in his test, he found in slight edge at 70 5.6 to canon. that certainly is not my experience. could be copy variation. but looking at photozone tests, it mirrors my results for 70.

Kevin, you own a lot of lenses. How do you feel it compares to the 24LII?

I have not done a side by side Tommy. the 24L II for me is primarily a lens to be shot under 2.8, and most interested in central 2/3 sharpness, as I wont have anything in the corner with that lens I would care about. I have shot with that test stopped down, and its excellent. I think they will be very similar in performance in the overlapping aperture.
I have to hand it to the 24-70 II. the center of image frame is bitingly sharp, through out the zoom range. I am just a little disappointed with corner performance stopped down, at 50 and esp 70. the VC on the tamron is also so nice for non moving objects, as well as video.
all things said, if the tamron focused like canon did, I would pick it over the canon, not even counting the price difference.

Thanks for the test and response. I think eventually I will end up with the 24-70II.

Thanks for taking the time to do this testing. For the $999 I spent on my lens I think it performs very well however it's the weakest lens in my bag as far as sharpness. I would love the MK2 but at the same time I've done alot of 70mm 1/10 shots on static stuff that the canon would give me a hard time to do.

As far as corners... ya once you use the 70-200s it's hard to like the corners on any of the 24-70 lenses

kevindar wrote in post #16417747
I have not done a side by side Tommy. the 24L II for me is primarily a lens to be shot under 2.8, and most interested in central 2/3 sharpness, as I wont have anything in the corner with that lens I would care about. I have shot with that test stopped down, and its excellent. I think they will be very similar in performance in the overlapping aperture.
I have to hand it to the 24-70 II. the center of image frame is bitingly sharp, through out the zoom range. I am just a little disappointed with corner performance stopped down, at 50 and esp 70. the VC on the tamron is also so nice for non moving objects, as well as video.
all things said, if the tamron focused like canon did, I would pick it over the canon, not even counting the price difference.

yeah, if. never happen. the 24-70L II on the 5d3 is easily the best focusing combination I have ever used.

Talley wrote in post #16418558
Thanks for taking the time to do this testing. For the $999 I spent on my lens I think it performs very well however it's the weakest lens in my bag as far as sharpness. I would love the MK2 but at the same time I've done alot of 70mm 1/10 shots on static stuff that the canon would give me a hard time to do.

As far as corners... ya once you use the 70-200s it's hard to like the corners on any of the 24-70 lenses

what real world application does this have or is this just a way to find fault with a non-IS lens? the lens doesn't have IS. we know that when we buy it. that's like criticizing an f4 lens for "only being f4".

A 24-70 is on my list, used the 24-70 II, but not the Tammy.. Had considered it though, because of the VC.. Thanks for taking the time to compare both of them Kevin.. Always enjoy your excellent images you post.

I agree with Ed, the 24-70 II on the 5DIII is a great combination..

I now know which one I will buy.

Your experience on tamron's AF is consistent with mine. My focus success ratio is about 66% when the subject is moving/walking slowly under low light (iso1600 or higher). Even my old trusty 24105 has a better focus ratio. The only reason for me to keep this lens is VC for video work.

The 24-70 II provides so many keepers; the lens is simply incredible. Not only is it incredibly sharp at f/2.8, but the focus is spot on. There will be times in Servo on my 6D when I didn't think I hit focus, and then when I view the image, lo and behold, focus is spot on. The lens is incredible, both in terms of IQ and AF.

Ed, unfortunately you are right about AF. Not going to happen. I think I could even live with the speed, if the consistency was good, but even for stationary objects, it misfires a good portion of times (usually the first shot in the sequence). The VC is very nice for video. very useful. and nice for night time walk around, or church and museum shots, where a tripod is not available.
Honestly, just a little disappointed with the corner performance of canon at 50 and 70. I think my 24-105 does better at 50 in the corners stopped down.
And thanks for the kind words Bianchi.
I shot a sequence of 7 images here, and all are talk sharp. with the tamron, I would get 3-5. and not would be as sharp as this at 70 2.8. this is hand held, 1/160 second.
I think given this lens would primarily be used for taking family/kids pictures, I will keep it over the tamron.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

ed rader wrote in post #16418601
what real world application does this have or is this just a way to find fault with a non-IS lens? the lens doesn't have IS. we know that when we buy it. that's like criticizing an f4 lens for "only being f4".

I wasn't comparing or criticizing at all. Read my post again. I said my 24-70 is my least sharp lens I own and that I would love to have the MK2 lens. I mentioned that the VC has helped me take some low light static shots of things that interest me. It fits me and also when I want to take some video the VC helps also. I wasn't saying that in a comparing way I was saying that because of the reason why I stick with the Tamron. Price is a major concern for me. My two zooms cost me $2200 which is the price of one canon mk2 70-200. I simply see no need to spend another 2k to have both canon versions.

I will say this though. When I'm ready to upgrade it will be the 24-70 mk2 and keep the tamron 70-200.

Talley wrote in post #16419571
I wasn't comparing or criticizing at all. Read my post again. I said my 24-70 is my least sharp lens I own and that I would love to have the MK2 lens. I mentioned that the VC has helped me take some low light static shots of things that interest me. It fits me and also when I want to take some video the VC helps also. I wasn't saying that in a comparing way I was saying that because of the reason why I stick with the Tamron. Price is a major concern for me. My two zooms cost me $2200 which is the price of one canon mk2 70-200. I simply see no need to spend another 2k to have both canon versions.

I will say this though. When I'm ready to upgrade it will be the 24-70 mk2 and keep the tamron 70-200.

check out the 70-300L too. it's not perfect and I had my doubts about it at first but after two tripps to Yellowstone and several climbs up the bay bridge I love it.

ed