Tamron 24-70 VC vs Canon 24-70 2.8 mk1?

Hey guys, I'm looking to get a 24-70 again (sold the mk1 last time), but I can't (read: won't) afford the mk2 because of it's price now.

I wanna ask if anyone knows which is the better buy, assuming both are the same price, between the tamron 24-70 and the canon 24-70 2.8 mk1?

I'm also a video shooter so the VC might come in handy, but the focus and zoom rings turn opposite compared to what I'm used to.

Anyone?

Zexun

I tested both and I ended up with the Tamron. Sharper and the VC can be handy even in that focal range, and especially if you do some handheld video.

What about autofocus consistency and speed?

The AF was consistent on both, the canon being slightly faster but the tamron still being fairly fast.

I don't have either, but if I were to buy one, it would be the Tamron.

Had them both and sold both. But for your situation, I'd reccommmend the tamron, specially when you record video handheld. The focus speed on the tamron is def slower than the canon but not that terrible that would bother me. Can't beat the 6yrs warranty from them neither. Go for it!

The Tamron 24-70 is awesome, highly recommend it.

Here are my observations after using both Canon v1 and Tamron 24-70 VC.

Pros

VC is just amazing. Tested 1/5 @ 70mm with close to MFD and it works like a charm. Just amazing.
Tamron USD AF is just so super quiet and so is VC compared to Canon. You just don't know it's working.
Color and contrast are at par with 24-70. Maybe 24-70 is tad better, but that all can be manipulated in PP.
Build quality is very good. Not like the brick, but very good.
6 year warranty. Can't beat that.
$11Xx something price is very good.
Corners are similar to 24-70 v1 wide open. I think it's a wash and a pro more than a con. I think @5.6 it's better than Canon.
CA is a wash wide open. Again a pro for the price.


Cons

Focus is definitely slower than 24-70 v1. Might be very small difference, but there is and this will put off many people.
Vignetting is heavy @ f/2.8 compared to Canon. This was kinda expected, but more than I'd wished for. Can be easily corrected in PP.
Image jumps all over viewfinder, I guess this is a known issue.
If you want sharp corners wide open, please look at canon v2. Some people give a damn. I don't personally.
82mm filters are expensive.
Resale value will drop to $900ish at some point unlike 24-70 v1 which hold their value even now.
Screwed my metering couple of times. Might be anomaly or user error. But was weird why it did that.

Let me know any questions you might have. Good luck.

Well, after testing the Tamron 24 70, I can tell you that , for video matter (think that's what you're aiming at) there's no chance the Canon beats the Tamron. VC is UNBELEIVIBLY GOOD ! You can shoot handeld walking and still have very enjoyable shoots ! Tested it on beach the other day, feels like shooting an ad ! hehe,

Even the double price Canon 24 70V2 don't that that feiture, so silly ...

Since you do video, get the Tamron. If the Tamron had come out prior to my purchase of the MK i version of Canon, I would have picked up the Tamron. I shoot documentary style run and gun and having IS would be very valuable. Although I would probably consider a lighter IS prime lens instead for video since I've had wrist pain as of late.

ateet wrote in post #16141658
Here are my observations after using both Canon v1 and Tamron 24-70 VC.

FWIW, I rented both Tamron 24-70 VC and 24-70L mk I at the same time. My experience pretty matches ateet's. I really do think that the Canon holds its value better than the Tamron (especially if you got an emasculate looking copy with box).

If I had to chose between the Tamron and the 24-70L mk I, I would buy the Tamron and not worry about looking back.

In my case, I went with the 24-70L mk II because I happen to have the money at the time there was still stocking issues and the store I happen to be in had a copy in stock. I love the results I've gotten with the mk II, but, I also do miss the lack of IS/VC.

Got both. Each on a 5d3.
Cant bring myself to trade in the Canon to replace it with the Tamron because I love the virtually distortion free wide angle performance. 35mm-70mm performance is comparable.

But the IS on the Tamron is the app that tugs at me to swap to 2x tamrons
and the close up focus too.

Note neither is sharp wide open; f/4 is min aperture in my experience though f/5.6 is when it gets proper sharp.

AF is nearly comparable in speed and quiet.

If I were buying these lenses again I would take two Tamrons.
I have the Canon Mk1 because 4 years ago it was the best standard zoom you could get and I cant bring myself to take the ebay/paypal hit trading in for another Tamron.

Tamron is a lot sharper than Mk1 canon at the wide end. In tele, they are pretty close. But one has IS the other doesn't.

Ah well, couldn't pass up a good offer from a friend's 2 year old copy. Got back the 'ol Canon:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/headshotzx/9344​544670/

Headshotzx wrote in post #16145118
Ah well, couldn't pass up a good offer from a friend's 2 year old copy. Got back the 'ol Canon:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/headshotzx/9344​544670/
Back Again by headshotzx, on Flickr

Hey man, this isnt a bad thing, I miss my old Canon 24-70