Which 24-70 2.8?

Ok..

Which shall I get? Canon L? Tamron? Sigma? Other?

There is a big price difference between the canon and the rest..

I really need help to choose...

Please give valid reasons why you would pick each one??

Thanks all

Canon L..
Valid reason = its better !!

Rushmore wrote in post #16747592
Ok..

Which shall I get? Canon L? Tamron? Sigma? Other?

There is a big price difference between the canon and the rest..

I really need help to choose...

Please give valid reasons why you would pick each one??

Thanks all

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16747688
Canon L..
Valid reason = its better !!

But is it £1000 better?! I've seen amazing images from pros who use the Sigma and Tamron versions..

Have you considered canon's first version of the 24-70?? still a fine lens. I'm with you though, is the Ver2 worth a 1000$ more ??

$800.00 to $1000.00 dollars is a lot of money!

IQ is arguably better across the entire frame, AF speed is better, AF consistency is better, quality control/lens durability is probably better, image stabilization is non-existent which is a big negative.

Rushmore wrote in post #16747835
But is it £1000 better?! .

Yes.

Everything about the Canon is the goods.

Rushmore wrote in post #16747592
Ok..

Which shall I get? Canon L? Tamron? Sigma? Other?

There is a big price difference between the canon and the rest..

I really need help to choose...

Please give valid reasons why you would pick each one??

Thanks all

Heya,

What are your needs?

The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is a great lens. It rivals the Canon for half the cost. Just like the 70-200 F2.8 VC rivals the Canon as well, for half the cost. There's a lot of threads on here with guys who have had both and ended up selling their Canon lenses for the Tamron equivalent when they realized they do the same thing, literally, but cost way less and wanted the price/performance option to have money towards something else. Saving a few hundred is one thing, but saving $1200+ is a totally different game, and is the difference between buying another lens (or two!), or even another camera body, or lots of really good lighting (essential tools!), etc.

If you read the reviews, they both perform very well. Most of them place the Canons on the winning side, but only by a hair. Usually revolves around the autofocus being slightly faster on the Canons. But they don't really talk about it in relation to standard USM or equivalent on non-premium top-tier lenses (at least that I've read) and it's not like the Tamron has poor autofocus, it's very good, they just review it to be slightly less "perfect" compared to the twice-the-cost Canons. So don't read into that too much, unless you're doing this for an absolute living and must have every 1% possible in your technical favor.

I'd go Tamron for the value. Is the negligible difference worth $1000+, or would you rather have essentially the same thing and cash left over for yet another lens or more lighting or money towards another body?

Very best,

Here is a fairly interesting youtube review of the Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma 24-70mm's

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag

Rushmore wrote in post #16747835
But is it £1000 better?!

In my opinion: NO
I have seen a lot of reviews showing, that the 24-70 II is optically better, then the old one.
All these have been done in the LAB.

Once you get into the field, and start using your lens the difference will be very small.
And mostly you are viewing your images not in 100% crop anyway.

Yes it is sharper, but that's it.
Other then that, the Mk 2 is in no way better then the Mk1.
If it would have IS, I would say the prize is ok, without IS, it is greatly overprized, and has a design inferior to the original Mk1.

If you ask me, either get a good Canon Mk1 used, or the Tamron.

I managed to get a very sharp copy of the 24-70 2.8, and I am very happy with it.
In the field, I am not able to tell the difference between the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS II at 70mm 2.8.

Yes I did get a very good copy, but still

tamron would be my pick, best bang for the buck by a wide wide margin. Next would be the 24-70L v1. Good enough IQ. Not going to spend 2K for a standard zoom.... that's just ridiculous.

TS, you'de be much better off buying a 5D2/6D for what you shoot. I see you already have a 70-200 F2.8 and that lens is a bit tight on crop, but on FF, it can be your goto portrait lens.

Charlie wrote in post #16748328
... Good enough IQ. Not going to spend 2K for a standard zoom.... that's just ridiculous.

Interesting.

Charlie wrote in post #16748328
TS, you'de be much better off buying a 5D2/6D for what you shoot. I see you already have a 70-200 F2.8 and that lens is a bit tight on crop, but on FF, it can be your goto portrait lens.

This I totally agree on, the 70-200 on FF above 100mm is just great for portraits.
I mostly use it around 125-150mm for portraits, and the images are great.

I hadn't even looked at camera body... So now let me ask, why 24-70 and not 17-55? There are lots of good crop-specific 17-50 and 17-55 options, which approximates the range of a 24-70 on full frame, but are all smaller, lighter, and less expensive than their full-frame equivalents...

Ive seen so many reviews and honestly, id go with the tamron.

Tamron's lens, like others have said, would be my first pick.