Not liking my 24-105L anymore

So Im no liking my 24-105 lens.. everytime I use it less and less, to be honest I cant even remember last time I used it. It just seems that quality wise its not on par with my Tamron 70-200 and 135L, heck I even prefer shooting wide shots with my fuji x100s. I shoot a lot of wedding and environmental portraits and was looking at the Tamron 24-70 VC and the Sigma 35 1.4. My question is have any of you have made the change from 24-105 to the Tamron? Is it worth the change?

i cant answer your question, but i am also feeling the same and looking to go from the 24-105 to possibly the 24-70 mkii so would be interested in peoples thoughts on the tamron

by the way i have the sigma 35.14 and its glued to the front of my camera 95% of the time, would just like a quality zoom for the times i cant move around so freely

I got bored of my 24-105 and sold it. F4 was just too slow for how I like to shoot.

I dont have the Canon 24-70 ii but I do have the tamron vc along with the 135L and 70-200L is ii. Out of these 3 lenses the 135 is just awesome, extremely sharp. However when reviewing my photos I was extremely impressed by the Tamron and commented on how sharp it was until I looked at the 135L pics and realized its even sharper. I would probably say my copy of the Canon 70-200L ii and the Tamron 24-70vc are roughly the same in sharpness. For me I dont see any need to upgrade to the more expensive Canon version as the Tamron is so close in pic quality along with having VC along with allowing me to add the 135L to my collection for the same price as the Canon 24-70 etc etc. Of course you have the tamron 70-200 vc which from what I hear is also great. I would assume the tamron 24-70 vc would be on par to the Tamron 70-200. So if thats sharp enough for you then I say get rid of the 24-105. I know its a highly recommended lens but it seems to me thats only because of the price.

PS: Somehow I read your post and thought you were asking about the Canon v2 along with the Tamron. Oh well, my response is already typed out.

How awesome would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

jbsg02 wrote in post #17057528
How awesome would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

Better you should ask how heavy would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

Dave Jenkins wrote in post #17057530
Better you should ask how heavy would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

Oh come on men dont spoil the fun but youre right.

elitejp wrote in post #17057522
I dont have the Canon 24-70 ii but I do have the tamron vc along with the 135L and 70-200L is ii. Out of these 3 lenses the 135 is just awesome, extremely sharp. However when reviewing my photos I was extremely impressed by the Tamron and commented on how sharp it was until I looked at the 135L pics and realized its even sharper. I would probably say my copy of the Canon 70-200L ii and the Tamron 24-70vc are roughly the same in sharpness. For me I dont see any need to upgrade to the more expensive Canon version as the Tamron is so close in pic quality along with having VC along with allowing me to add the 135L to my collection for the same price as the Canon 24-70 etc etc. Of course you have the tamron 70-200 vc which from what I hear is also great. I would assume the tamron 24-70 vc would be on par to the Tamron 70-200. So if thats sharp enough for you then I say get rid of the 24-105. I know its a highly recommended lens but it seems to me thats only because of the price.

PS: Somehow I read your post and thought you were asking about the Canon v2 along with the Tamron. Oh well, my response is already typed out.

If the Tamron 24-70 has similar sharpness to my 70-200 VC its a must buy.

how is the tamron compared to the canon ?

I use my 24-105 for studio shots and it works pretty well. But I use my primes when I need to shoot wide open. Been using sigma 35 and 85 a lot lately

yamatama wrote in post #17057566
If the Tamron 24-70 has similar sharpness to my 70-200 VC its a must buy.

I think the issue with that is getting a good copy of it, I bought one last month and returned it immediately because nothing was sharp, possibly a front focus issue.

Dave Jenkins wrote in post #17057530
Better you should ask how heavy would a 24-105 f2.8 with IS be?

Couldn't be worse than the 70-200 2.8 right?

jbsg02 wrote in post #17057591
I think the issue with that is getting a good copy of it, I bought one last month and returned it immediately because nothing was sharp, possibly a front focus issue.

I got an early Tamron 24-70 VC on which the AF drive died (after sounding like a jackhammer). Got my money back for the Canon 24-70II which I love (although I can see the VC being useful for those who shoot still images in low light).

I rented the Tanron 24-70 f2.8 VC for a week of dance rehearsals and recitals. Was disappointed. Maybe I had a bad copy. This comment taken from digital picture summarizes well my experience:

"The Tamron autofocuses more slowly than the Sigma and much more slowly than the Canon. While it performs reasonably well in One Shot AF mode (used on the 5D Mark III), the Tamron's AI Servo performance is very poor with a high percentage of OOF (Out of Focus) shots. I highly recommend avoiding this lens for capturing action."

Thats the only thing keeping me away from the tamron, Ive read so many comments about bad copies and faulty AF.. I went thought all that with my 70-200 and I was lucky enough to receive a great copy.. though the good reviews on the 70-200 are more consistent than the 24-70.