Question Canon 24-70mm

Am thinking of buying the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. There's also a Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD made for Canon. I'm wondering whether anyone has any strong opinions one way or the other between these 2? Thank You.

I certainly do.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16691651
I certainly do.

Good to know that.

Bogino wrote in post #16691692
Good to know that.

Ok, poor attempt at humor. Apologies. I have the Tamron 28-75. I think the only upgrade I would consider is the 24-70 II. But it is way to expensive for me.

I have the original 24-70mm from Canon and will only upgrade to the mark II. And only when I have more money than I know what to do with. I skipped the Tamron - even when it went on sale for $799 here in Canada. Deadly accurate autofocus is what tickles my fancy.

I have the tamron 24-70 vc. I rented the Canon 24-70 mark II and I will admit the Canon version will focus better and faster. However, I have the Canon 70-200 for action shots, so the Tamron has been a great lens for me. Especially for indoor shots like this....

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tim665214/11940​280933/

As it relates specifically to Landscape photography is it fair to assume that the Canon 24-105 is the better option versus the Tamron 24-70?

First off, I own neither of these lenses. I will assume you are referring to the wide end both lenses. Both of them are reviewed to have quite a bit of distortion at 24mm. Sure, that is correctable in post, but why commit to losing IQ as soon as you release the shutter? Lots of alternatives exist.

If you are using a crop camera, the 10-22 and 15-85 will perform better than either of the two listed lens at 24mm (15mm on a crop). If you are using full-frame, you may wish to consider something a lot less expensive, such as the 17-40L or a 24mm (28mm?) prime. Both of the primes come in old non-IS versions and new versions with IS. All of them are less expensive than either lens you listed. And at typical landscape apertures of f/8 to f/16, neither of the zooms offer any speed or IQ advantage.

SqueekyBoy wrote in post #16762459
First off, I own neither of these lenses. I will assume you are referring to the wide end both lenses. Both of them are reviewed to have quite a bit of distortion at 24mm. Sure, that is correctable in post, but why commit to losing IQ as soon as you release the shutter? Lots of alternatives exist.

If you are using a crop camera, the 10-22 and 15-85 will perform better than either of the two listed lens at 24mm (15mm on a crop). If you are using full-frame, you may wish to consider something a lot less expensive, such as the 17-40L or a 24mm (28mm?) prime. Both of the primes come in old non-IS versions and new versions with IS. All of them are less expensive than either lens you listed. And at typical landscape apertures of f/8 to f/16, neither of the zooms offer any speed or IQ advantage.

I own the Canon 24-105 but my daughter has basically hijacked that lens. I am thinking of buying the Tamron 24-70mm. BOTH are/would be used as "all purpose" walk around lenses. As far as the "Landscape" question I mainly am interested in whether either of the two above mentioned lenses would be a better choice over the other as I don't want to buy a lens that is specifically used for landscape since that represents only a small part of my photography.

Bogino wrote in post #16762486
I own the Canon 24-105 but my daughter has basically hijacked that lens. I am thinking of buying the Tamron 24-70mm. BOTH are/would be used as "all purpose" walk around lenses. As far as the "Landscape" question I mainly am interested in whether either of the two above mentioned lenses would be a better choice over the other as I don't want to buy a lens that is specifically used for landscape since that represents only a small part of my photography.

OK, I understand a bit better what you are doing. I don't think you'd see much difference between the Tamron 24-70 VC and the EF 24-105 f/4L, especially at traditional landscape apertures of f/8 to f/16. Both have image stabilizers. Of the two, I go with the Tamron for access to f/2.8 if/when I need it. But you give up a bit of range to go that way. I think you'd be happy with either.

Or, buy your daughter a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and get your 24-105 back.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16691651
I certainly do.

So do i.

Plenty of threads about the Tamron vs Canon, and my thoughts and experiences with the Tamron have been posted quite a bit

Needles to say i ended up with the Canon MKII.

Bogino wrote in post #16762446
As it relates specifically to Landscape photography is it fair to assume that the Canon 24-105 is the better option versus the Tamron 24-70?

I've owned a 24-105L and it's a good walkabout lens but a comparison between it and a 24-70 is difficult, as it depends whether you want the longer reach of the Canon or the extra speed of the Tamron.

Also, especially if you use a crop body, in addition you may well need something wider than 24mm.

I haven't used the Tamron but I do have the Canon 24-70 f2.8 v1 - The only thing I hate is the size and weight but everything else is fine. Focus is instant like any other L glass.
The Tamron's VC might help you but I don't miss it on the Canon.

Bogino wrote in post #16762446
As it relates specifically to Landscape photography is it fair to assume that the Canon 24-105 is the better option versus the Tamron 24-70?

I haven't used the Tamron, but I do shoot landscape-style work. My experience in general when I shot Canon was this: Canon L lenses tend to give better colors and microcontrast compared to Tamron/Sigma/et al. To me, that's a significant factor in landscapes. The third-party lenses also tend (generalizing) to have more problems with "veiling flare" when shooting into the sun. It wasn't so much the ghosting, but I would experience a marked loss in contrast over the whole frame that could sometimes ruin images under those conditions.

For landscapes, I would favor the Canon unless you really need the extra stop for other types of photography.