Canon 24-70 vs Tamron 24-70

OK, I know this has been discussed before but I want to tell you my thoughts.
I went into a Calumet store in Philadelphia a couple weeks back and the Tamron was put on a 5D2.
It was OK I guess and I certainly could understand the excitement the about this lens having IS (VC for Tamron), at 2.8 and how so many would have liked Canon to have IS for this focal length.

From the little bit (very little) I played with the Tamron, I was not That impressed.
I then went here to Digital-Picture and looked at the two lenses side by side.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

So the thing that I think generated the excitement is that upon first glance, the center at 24 on the Tamron seems a bit sharper.
Maybe at some other lengths too.
But as you go towards the corners, the Canon (10 year old lens at that) seems much sharper.
At many focal lengths and aperatures.

So here is what I am having a hard time with.
2.8 with VC (IS) is nice.
The Tamron being not as sharp is or would be OK too if not for the price.
But to charge what Canon charges for it's lens and then to not be as sharp seems nuts to me.
I could understand $899 or so but to charge what the Canon "was" going for seems silly.
Take a look above at the different focal lengths.
The 10 year old Canon seems to be better across the board.
Am I wrong, or is anyone else seeing similar results?

I have the 24-105 and when you compare that to the Canon 24-70 it's as good and in some places looks a bit better. And vice versa.
But they are very close to each other.

Please feel free to comment on the Tamron and your thoughts.

Thanks

Wait another 3 months and the Tamron will be $899

I'll never pay rrp for a third party lens.

I'm not sure I would pay that even.
There seemed to be a lot of excitement about this lens and I would love to hear the thoughts.

From what I understand, the Canon is coming out with V2 and the $1300 model will be unavailable. In fact, from what I have seen, the new price has increased and used the Canon model is the cost of the Tamron. The newer Canon is a grand more now...

Also, what focal lengths did you try with your test shots? From what I have read, the Tamron is not as sharp at 24 but is better towards 70.

Since I would like to eventually purchase this lens, These types of tests/arguments interest me.

there is a word called "compromise." A friend of mine just got a Tamron also, and I have canon. We both tested the lens using same 5DMkII body, and concluded that canon is out performed Tamron at corners but center is a bit not as sharp as Tamron but not extremely noticeable and therefore it(canon) is not effecting the IQ, so he decided to return the lens and wait for mkII. At first, I thought just this lens but now you reported and it is consistent what we were finding.

Tammy works great for me. I just shoot without a doubt (the main quality I look for in my lenses). And since I don't shoot charts extreme corner sharpness doesn't bother me . IS on the other hand saves a ton of walk-around pictures.

If 24-70 II had IS I'd wait for it, but as it stands, I am not paying another 1000 to get marginal sharpness and lose IS. Oh and orginial 24-70 from Canon ain't that great, never really missed it after sale.

KarlGB77 wrote in post #14654631
I then went here to Digital-Picture and looked at the two lenses side by side.

The problem with the Tamron, and to a lesser extent with the Canon, seems to be to get a good copy. I don't think the Tamron on the-digital-picture.com is 100% ok because on the wide end, even stopped down it's rather blurry while sharp at 70mm. Another first review of a good site says the exact opposite:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

But one difference between the (now more expensive) Canon mk1 and Tamron seem to be clear: The Canon has better sharpness in mid-frame, the Tamron has vc.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14655429
Another first review of a good site says the exact opposite:

Speaking of reviews, here is another good in-depth review providing detailed charts at different zoom lengths: http://www.photozone.d​e …amron2470f28eos​ff?start=1

Imho the Tamron is a "lens of convenience" for walk-around and run&gun events. My though: given the price, what's better - a Canon 24-70ii or the Tamron 24-70 PLUS a Canon 35/1.4L for static group shots where overall sharpness really matters?

kin2son wrote in post #14654656
Wait another 3 months and the Tamron will be $899 I'll never pay rrp for a third party lens.

It's now under €1000 in Europe, the Nikon mount is €100 more expensive for whatever reason I'm not aware of.

If the Canon mk1 is phased out and only available used, I doubt that the Tamron price will go down much since the next alternative Canon mk2 is more than double the price and missing vc. But of course I may be wrong, time will tell.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14655456
Speaking of reviews, here is another good in-depth review providing detailed charts at different zoom lengths: http://www.photozone.d​e …amron2470f28eos​ff?start=1

Imho the Tamron is a "lens of convenience" for walk-around and run&gun events. My though: given the price, what's better - a Canon 24-70ii or the Tamron 24-70 PLUS a Canon 35/1.4L for static group shots where overall sharpness really matters?

Well, I must say that the final ratings they give the Tamron are markedly better than the Canon.

Tamron
http://www.photozone.d​e …amron2470f28eos​ff?start=2

Canon
http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=2

Lets see the verdict of the Canon 24-105
http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_24105_4_5d?start​=1

KarlGB77 wrote in post #14655599
Well, I must say that the final ratings they give the Tamron are markedly better than the Canon.

That's the problem with "final" scores and aggregated data generally: They have to weight the particular components according to their preferences, and these can be quite different from your needs. Example: How does the "onion" bokeh influence the final score? Does this tell you how often it'll make a bad impressions for the lighting situations you shoot in?

So even the (often found much cheaper) 24-105L might be better for many because they don't need the f2.8, want more zoom range and the Canon usm af & cps support. Esp. the cps support will matter to many people wanting a standard zoom for professional use, even if the sharpness is a little worse like on the Canon mk1.

I'm having a hard time deciding between these two and the Canon 24-105L. I am looking to replace my kit 18-135 lens. I'm wanting a good walk around lens. I'm surprised the Canon mark II 24-70 doesn't have IS and its over $2000.

crb wrote in post #14657395
I'm surprised the Canon mark II 24-70 doesn't have IS and its over $2000.

Why? If the mkII is really 'prime sharp' wide open across the whole range, it's going to fly off the shelf like hot cakes

kin2son wrote in post #14657513
Why? If the mkII is really 'prime sharp' wide open across the whole range, it's going to fly off the shelf like hot cakes

I guess if it was IS my decision would be made. I'm really torn.

crb wrote in post #14657395
I'm wanting a good walk around lens. I'm surprised the Canon mark II 24-70 doesn't have IS and its over $2000.

That's easy: Get the 24-105L with IS - you don't need a f2.8 lens for walk-around, just raise iso 1 stop if you have to. But IS will and the extended zoom range will come in handy! And if you want speed for low light movement, get an additional fast prime. The 24-70L are made for event/wedding/journali​sm low light shots, that's why they don't have image stabilization.

crb wrote in post #14657559
I guess if it was IS my decision would be made. I'm really torn.

Welcome to the club