24-70 lenses (which one?)

I'm loving my 85mm prime, but am still using my 18-55 kit lens. i think the next step for me is to get something to replace the kit lens and I think the 24-70 2.8 may be a good logical choice. However, I am wondering what the ideal choice would be.

Canon has their V1 24-70 2.8 which can be had for about $1200 or so used at the moment, but has introduced the V2 for over $2k. No way I'm paying $2k for the V2. I've also seen the Tamron with their VC for about the same as the Canon V1 used lens, but it would be brand new and with a warranty.

In reading reviews, the Canon V2 doesn't seem to be worth the $$ anyway since it does not have IS. However, the reviews are mixed between which is better, the Tamron, or the Canon V1. Apparently, the Canon is slightly better in the 20mm range, but the tamron is better at the 70mm range.

Does anyone have any first hand experience on comparing these lenses? I would normally just purchase Canon and keep everything the same brand, but given two almost identical choices, with one being stabilized and somewhat cheaper, I know which will get my $$$.

looks like you've made your mind up on a 24-70 of some flavour or other...

but pause a while. you do realise that 24 on a crop isn't very wide, right? while 70 on a crop isn't very long either...

I would suggest you're better served by looking at the 17-5x/2.8 lenses from various manufacturers

Well I understand it isn't very wide. However, I am judging by the range I am using now with my kit lens. Very rarely do I use it wide open. There are also plenty of times I'd like to go a bit beyond the 55mm I get with the kit lens without changing to the 85 I have. Also, one of my goals in the next few years is to go with a used FF camera. (I know the difference is sometimes minimal and that I could take a step or two closer or further, but sometimes that also isn't possible)

have you considered the 24-105L? its got nice range

gratchie wrote in post #14639007
have you considered the 24-105L? its got nice range

If you a) don't need the wide end, and b) don't need f/2.8 (you didn't really say), IMO the 24-105L would be a much better choice. You get IS, extra reach, and save about $400. Put that towards a fast prime like the 85 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 and call it a day.

why not a 15-85 and a flash? by all reports, the optics on the 15-85 is superb

i'm not convinced IS is useful on a 24-70 lens anyway. Look thru your shots, are most around 70mm (Tamron)? or 20mm(Canon)?

sol95 wrote in post #14639019
why not a 15-85 and a flash? by all reports, the optics on the 15-85 is superb

I think he's looking forward to buying a FF at some point so he'd like to invest on a EF mount instead

I like and use the Canon 24-70 (V1) on both crop cameras and full frame.

To me it's a very useful range of focal lengths on crop, though I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea. I complement mine with an ultrawide (Tokina 12-24/4... though IMO the Canon EF-S 10-22 would be fine, too).

I don't need image stabilization on this lens. IMO it's just not nearly as important as it is on longer teles, based upon ten + years using various IS lenses. Sure, if it had it and it didn't add to the cost, I'd take it. But for me stabilization just is not a priority item or key feature on lenses under 100mm focal length.

I haven't tried the Tamron, so can't really compare. It might be a fine lens. My main concern would be focus speed, which is near instantaneous on the Canon. Tamron lenses traditionally have not been very quick focusing, but some of their lenses are now coming with "USD" focus drive, which sounds to be similar to Canon USM. It appears this Tamron uses this new drive system.

The Canon is slightly longer, while the Tamron is a little larger diameter (uses an 82mm filter, vs a 77mm on the Canon V1). The Canon is the heaviest of the bunch.

You should be aware that Sigma also offers a 24-70/2.8 that uses their HSM focus drive and has other high specifications, but like the Canon lacks any stabilization. It sells for roughly $825. It's another lens I haven't used and can't compare.

All these lense are close focusing, too. The Canon in particular can do x0.29 magnification (nearly one third life size, at 70mm). It;s the closest focusing of the Canon "standard" zooms and works well with macro extension tubes, too, to focus even closer. I don't believe the Tamron or Sigma are as close focusing.

As of now, I have no plans to upgrade to the new and much, much more expensive Canon 24-70 Mark II. I opted not to buy the 24-105 when I was shopping for this lens. I felt f2.8 was more important and already had 70-200/2.8 IS covering the long end of that zoom anyway, and then some. I also was coming from 28-135 IS at the time, and felt the 24-105 IS was just a somewhat better built and sealed upgrade to that much less expensive lens (which I've since repurchased as a backup/loaner/hiking lens). At the focal lengths and apertures they share, there really isn't significant difference in image quality among these three Canon: 24-70, 24-105 and 28-135. So it's more other features that make one or the other preferable to buyers.

Using any of these lenses on a smaller body like T3i/600D, might seem a little nose heavy. The Canon 24-70 is nicknamed "the Brick" for good reason. It's lens hood is particularly large (but it makes sense when you see how the lens extends when it's zoomed).

gratchie wrote in post #14639071
I think he's looking forward to buying a FF at some point so he'd like to invest on a EF mount instead

This is true. I do not wish to buy the same or similar lens twice, even if I can sell the used one. I would prefer to just use what I purchased and not have to worry about how much I get back when selling if I can just get an appropriate lens in the first place. I'd like to upgrade at some point, but have pretty much decided that the 70-200 II will come first.

amfoto1 wrote in post #14639093
I like and use the Canon 24-70 (V1) on both crop cameras and full frame.

To me it's a very useful range of focal lengths on crop, though I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea. I complement mine with an ultrawide (Tokina 12-24/4... though IMO the Canon EF-S 10-22 would be fine, too).

I don't need image stabilization on this lens. IMO it's just not nearly as important as it is on longer teles, based upon ten + years using various IS lenses. Sure, if it had it and it didn't add to the cost, I'd take it. But for me stabilization just is not a priority item or key feature on lenses under 100mm focal length.

I haven't tried the Tamron, so can't really compare. It might be a fine lens. My main concern would be focus speed, which is near instantaneous on the Canon. Tamron lenses traditionally have not been very quick focusing, but some of their lenses are now coming with "USD" focus drive, which sounds to be similar to Canon USM. It appears this Tamron uses this new drive system.

In looking at the specs, I did see this "USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) powers a speedy AF drive together with continuous manual focus control (Full-Time Manual/FTM)" In reading the few reviews so far, it seems that it is still a bit slower than the canon, but not by much. My kit lens takes a year to focus when I compare it to my 85mm, but if the new lens is any faster than the kit lens, I'll be ok with that. As far as size, i don't have an arsenal of filters or hoods, so I really don't care about size, or weight for that matter. as long as it fits the camera, and will fit in a pack, that is all I am concerned with.

rick_reno wrote in post #14639022
i'm not convinced IS is useful on a 24-70 lens anyway. Look thru your shots, are most around 70mm (Tamron)? or 20mm(Canon)?

In seeing what I have taken so far, the vast majority are from 35 on up. I was originally going to just purchase a 50mm 1.4 but realized when walking around with people, sometimes you have no movement available and you have to let the camera try and do the work that your feet cannot.

One other question I hadn't thought of... Will the 1.4 extender work with non Canon lenses, or do you need a zoom ring specific to the lens you are purchasing? This may make the difference to me between buying the V1 Canon and the Tamron.

I am not sure if you need the f/2.8 speed for the type of work you do, but if not, I would carefully consider the 24-105, which is lighter than the 24-70 with a bit more reach.