Replacement lens for Tamron 24-70 VC

Hey guys,

I currently own the Tamron 24-70 with VC. I bought it brand new about 3 months ago. It seems to have a lot of problems with AF, even in well-lit areas. On my 5D3, I only use cross-type focus points. At times, I set the focus point directly on the eye of a subject, and the lens completely focuses on the background bushes about 10 feet behind subject. Again, this is decently lit areas, not strongly backlit or anything. I will be sending in my lens to have it re-calibrated. Hopefully it gets back better.

I use this lens primarily for walk-around and group shots at parties. Just wondering if you guys would recommend another lens to replace the Tamron lens? I may want to sell it as the image quality isn't all that anyway. I may be leaning towards just prime lenses.

I'm thinking a 35L would be good enough for walk-around. Anything requiring more zoom and i'll use either my 70-200L or 85mm. I used to own a Canon 28mm f1.8 but sold it. Don't think I'd buy it again.

Any other recommendations?

35L sounds good.

I personally have no problem using a prime for walking around, and a general focal length such as 35 or 50mm is perfect imo.

kin2son wrote in post #16145263
35L sounds good.

I personally have no problem using a prime for walking around, and a general focal length such as 35 or 50mm is perfect imo.

thanks for the input! I'm thinking a 35L is perfect too. distortion isn't so bad compared to the 28mm f1.8.

fashionrider wrote in post #16145244
Hey guys,

I currently own the Tamron 24-70 with VC. I bought it brand new about 3 months ago. It seems to have a lot of problems with AF, even in well-lit areas. On my 5D3, I only use cross-type focus points. At times, I set the focus point directly on the eye of a subject, and the lens completely focuses on the background bushes about 10 feet behind subject. Again, this is decently lit areas, not strongly backlit or anything. I will be sending in my lens to have it re-calibrated. Hopefully it gets back better.

I use this lens primarily for walk-around and group shots at parties. Just wondering if you guys would recommend another lens to replace the Tamron lens? I may want to sell it as the image quality isn't all that anyway. I may be leaning towards just prime lenses.

I'm thinking a 35L would be good enough for walk-around. Anything requiring more zoom and i'll use either my 70-200L or 85mm. I used to own a Canon 28mm f1.8 but sold it. Don't think I'd buy it again.

Any other recommendations?

24-70L II

fashionrider wrote in post #16145267
thanks for the input! I'm thinking a 35L is perfect too. distortion isn't so bad compared to the 28mm f1.8.

I owned the 35L for two weeks.

ed rader wrote in post #16145420
24-70L II

I'd second this if you can afford it -- I tried both 35L and 24-70L II, and I was just not impressed with the sharpness of the 35L. The 24-70L II on the other hand was pretty damn sharp, and I'm leaning towards this one to replace my 24-70L I.

ed rader wrote in post #16145420
24-70L II

ed rader wrote in post #16145422
I owned the 35L for two weeks.

24-70 has been getting good reviews, but it's so expensive! and I like the 1.4 aperture on the 35's. I"ve been reading tons on the Sigma 35. Seems like a winner so far.

fashionrider wrote in post #16145244
Hey guys,

I currently own the Tamron 24-70 with VC. I bought it brand new about 3 months ago. It seems to have a lot of problems with AF, even in well-lit areas. On my 5D3, I only use cross-type focus points. At times, I set the focus point directly on the eye of a subject, and the lens completely focuses on the background bushes about 10 feet behind subject. Again, this is decently lit areas, not strongly backlit or anything. I will be sending in my lens to have it re-calibrated. Hopefully it gets back better.

I use this lens primarily for walk-around and group shots at parties. Just wondering if you guys would recommend another lens to replace the Tamron lens? I may want to sell it as the image quality isn't all that anyway. I may be leaning towards just prime lenses.

I'm thinking a 35L would be good enough for walk-around. Anything requiring more zoom and i'll use either my 70-200L or 85mm. I used to own a Canon 28mm f1.8 but sold it. Don't think I'd buy it again.

Any other recommendations?

24-70 II, amazing and it has the new high precision AF engine, I've had 100 shots in a row, under indoor lighting, in focus at f2.8 (although this ultra precision mode requires a 5D3 or 1DX to take advantage of it should be added, but you have a 5D3 so it's all good)

fashionrider wrote in post #16145458
24-70 has been getting good reviews, but it's so expensive! and I like the 1.4 aperture on the 35's. I"ve been reading tons on the Sigma 35. Seems like a winner so far.

The sigma 35 1.4 is getting great reviews. I'd start with a 24-70 II myself though as it is more versatile, but it depends how you shoot. For me the 35 1.4 sigma would be something to add in addition later on if I could.

I would go for a 24-105 (really versatile and sharp), with a 35L for low light situations.

ed rader wrote in post #16145420
24-70L II

^^ + 10

I havent seen anyone mention it yet but , have you thought about sending it in for service first before you give up on it ?? It's a fine lens !!

he said he was sending it in. I recommend waiting to see how the recalibration is. However, I have found that I am in love with the 35mm focal length on FF. Canon 35L or Sigma 35, probably cant go wrong either way. Now that I have my S35 dialed in via the dock, its so much more pleasing to use.

Another vote for the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
I had two copies fo the Tamron and both were faulty, and whiel i really struggled to get eyes sharp i never had a real issue with AF, it was the VC systme that broke down.

I got the 24-70, thinking i would miss VC/IS but ive realised i dont, and i find the Canon focuses faster and with a higher hit rate (although not much in it).

The outer AF points are also more accurate compared to my copies of the Tamron.

I love my 35L. Definitely a great walk around lens in that it can shoot up close for better subject isolation or a bit wide just by stepping back a little. Thing is, everybody says the new Sigma 35mm is better --- especially if you buy the adapter thingy to program it.

As for the Tamron: personally I didn't notice AF issues with it on my 5D3. Have you tried to isolate/resolve your problems? Re-do your micro-AF? Contacted Tamron? I found the Tamron image quality to be on par or maybe even slightly better than the Canon 24-70L mk I.

I do like my 24-70L mk II a lot. But, I do miss the IS, although it might take examining a bunch of shots to see where using IS would have helped (i.e., correcting for user error/fatigue).

FWIW, I consider the 24-70L mk II to be about $500 better than the Tamron --- given its better optical performance and Canon AF compatibility and ignoring IS/VC. So I only consider it to be a $500 price gouge by Canon. This rationalization made pulling the trigger a bit easier to do.