Tamron VS Canon lens choice - standard zooms

Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 Di VC USD SP
VS
Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM Lens

Either in addition to a Acratech GV2 Head (with release plates)


So that's my little shopping list at present and clearly its got a problem at the top. I was considering the Canon 24-70mm MII however its price coupled with my general interest and use eventually convinced me that its just too much for what I need in a lens (and that if I get serious in this price point I can always sink that money, in the future, into a prime with a wider max aperture).

So I'm stuck in these two choices. The Tamron offers a wider max aperture, but reduced focal length range - whilst the Canon offers reduced aperture over increase focal length range.

My general interests are, at present; macro, wildlife, equine photography and I'm thinking that whilst it hasn't got the range, the Tamron would be superior for lower light conditions and that the aperture trumps the 35mm difference between the two.

However what do others thing about this approach - is it a sane choice or are there others I could consider - or should I burn every penny I have on the Canon MII (yes yes I'm one of those people that likes to own really good s tuff when I can afford it).

What do you have now?

Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6,

Gear list is there (also in my signature)

For that range now I've currently got an 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 400D - I don't use it much.

If you aren't going full frame soon, I'd choose the 15-85 or the 17-55 f/2.8. I have them both. I started out with the 15-85 and still prefer it outdoors. Both are readily available used at decent prices. The 15-85 prices have plummeted recently... under $500 and the 17-55 isn't much more.

17-55 is a great lens, almost always on my 40D, the Tammy is great too, it's my main lens on the 5D3. I would have bought the Canon if it had IS, but it doesn't. No issues with the Tammy, no regrets.

I'd make it more of a wider vs not so wide decision, and pick one of those. My first two where the 17-55 and 70-200 f4, never missed the gap. You have an ultra wide, personally I'd be happy with 8-16, 17-55, 70-200, not sure I'd keep the 70 macro unless there's a particular use for you in that lens

Overread wrote in post #17396350
Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6,

Gear list is there (also in my signature)

For that range now I've currently got an 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 400D - I don't use it much.

You've got a nice kit that covers the entire focal range, and even macro. For that reason, I would be less concerned about the extra reach that the 24-105 offers and opt for the larger aperture and better image quality. I can vouch for the Tamron 24-70VC and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. There are times when I wonder if I would have benefitted from the better AF accuracy of the 24-70mkii, but it's not something I feel limited by.

The 24-105 was a nice all-purpose lens that was OK for most applications but GREAT at none. I used to take that lens everywhere, most notably outside during the worst blizzard we've had in New England in maybe the last 100yrs. I was out for over an hour straight and had no issues with weather sealing whatsoever (There are a couple pictures on my Flickr to prove it). Unfortunately, the f/4 was very limiting to me, both technically and creatively, and that fact is likely to be exaggerated on a crop sensor. That was the only reason I sold the lens and purchased the Tamron 24-70.

I think you should be considering 3 things: a) the restriction of not being able to go wider than 24mm on a 1.6x crop body, (it might turn out to be frustrating while indoors), b) the f/4 aperture, and c) the overlap with your current lens lineup. With that said, my vote would go for the Canon 17-55...it truly is an L-lens without the red ring.

Edit: the 15-85 was also a great lens (the one I sold for the 17-55), but more or less with the same limitations applied as the 24-105.

The 15-85mm sounds interesting, but its a f/3.5-5.6. It's got the range and the EF-S I don't mind, but variable aperture is something I'm trying to avoid - nothing worse than being in a dim spot and having the aperture change on you and I find f2.8 a most practical aperture to use and I'm loathed to go smaller than it at max.

17-55mm I'm not sure what to think about. It's wider, but its longer end is much shorter. I guess I find myself drawn to the long end more than the short (esp since I already feel I'm "losing" reach from 70 to 105mm).

but the 15-85 is only one stop slower than the 24-105 at the long end, that is what you want to compare it to not the 17-55.

On a crop camera, you can't beat the 15-85 for zoom range versatility. I wouldn't agonize too much between the two choices the OP presents. The real choice on apsc is 17-55 or 15-85. The choices are expensive and offer little ROI. The debate between f/2.8 vs f/4 is silly when you need f/1.4. For the cost of the 24-70 VC you can get a 28 1.8, 35 2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. More aperture, less money, smaller & lighter camera/lens combo. I don't own a mid-range zoom for full frame. So far, I'm not missing anything.

For me, F2.8 is too slow on a crop camera for low light. I'd get a fast prime for that, like the 35F2 IS. For outdoors, the 24-105 has a great range. If you want a lens that will also work for architecture, you might be better off with the 17-55IS. If you are thinking of going full-frame, stay away from crop lenses.
An advantage of SLRs is that you can pick the lens for the job. I don't think of F2.8 as fast, since you can get lenses that are F1.4, F1.8 or F2 for inside work. If you need a zoom for inside and you need "fast" then go for the 17-55IS.

The OP is looking for a standard zoom, so f/2.8 is the best he's going to do and is the "fastest" zoom available. (somebody will likely come in and prove me wrong ) Of course f/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 are better than f/2.8 or f/4, but that is an entirely different topic.

I suppose this comes down to what the OP values more, better subject isolation and letting in twice as much light, or having the 70-105mm focal range.

artyH wrote in post #17397633
For me, F2.8 is too slow on a crop camera for low light. I'd get a fast prime for that, like the 35F2 IS. For outdoors, the 24-105 has a great range. If you want a lens that will also work for architecture, you might be better off with the 17-55IS. If you are thinking of going full-frame, stay away from crop lenses.
An advantage of SLRs is that you can pick the lens for the job. I don't think of F2.8 as fast, since you can get lenses that are F1.4, F1.8 or F2 for inside work. If you need a zoom for inside and you need "fast" then go for the 17-55IS.

Respectfully disagree with just about all of this. You are right, f/2.8 is not fast. It doesn't need the apsc qualifier; it isn't fast on any other format either.

For apsc, the 15-85 covers a more useful range than the 24-105. The 15-24 it DOES have is way more useful than the 86-105 is DOESN'T have.

The 17-55 offers nothing for indoor architecture shots. The 15-85 goes wider, which is useful for such shots. If you are on a tripod shooting at f/8-f/16 to get DOF, how does the f/2.8 of the 17-55 help?

Thinking of going full-frame, so ignore efs lenses is not sound advice. You HAVE an apsc camera now? Buy for that. Whatever apsc stuff you have when you add full frame will be just as useful. I added a 6D over a year ago. I still have my quite excellent 60D, 15-85 and 60 macro. They are still as excellent as they were before I bought the 6D. I did sell my 10-22 when I saw how much better the 17-40 is on full frame.

The last sentence is contradictory. If you need a wide lens for inside work, then get the fast 17-55? Really? It is neither wide, nor fast. The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is fast, but not wide. The Tokina 11-16 is wide, but not fast. Back to my original point about the 17-55 for indoor work; f/2.8 is irrelevant when you are shooting at f/8-f/16 for DOF. What you need here is WIDE. Aperture does not matter; you won't be shooting wide open anyway. Find an appropriate focal length lens for what you do indoors. Don't worry about the maximum aperture.

DutchinCLE wrote in post #17396682
but the 15-85 is only one stop slower than the 24-105 at the long end, that is what you want to compare it to not the 17-55.

They all get compared against each other as I'll only be getting the one lens.

artyH wrote in post #17397633
For me, F2.8 is too slow on a crop camera for low light. I'd get a fast prime for that, like the 35F2 IS. For outdoors, the 24-105 has a great range. If you want a lens that will also work for architecture, you might be better off with the 17-55IS. If you are thinking of going full-frame, stay away from crop lenses.
An advantage of SLRs is that you can pick the lens for the job. I don't think of F2.8 as fast, since you can get lenses that are F1.4, F1.8 or F2 for inside work. If you need a zoom for inside and you need "fast" then go for the 17-55IS.

Aye but I'd need another 3 cameras to mount all those primes on at once. Yes they offer much more light gathering capacity, but they are also more specialist. Certainly good lenses and worth having, but only if one will use them. At present I just don't feel the need for a prime to cover this use - if I did get a prime I'd probably go with something like a 50mm f2.4 for general use - but for me its not something I need at present.


Note sure if I'll be doing any indoor architecture shots, never something I've ever really done. Asides if I were chances are I can use a tripod and focusing rails and make use of stitching software (since buildings don't move much if at all) if I didn't have a lens wide enough.

I'm still somewhat on the fence, but I've a feeling that the 15/18 - 24mm difference is just something I've really not done much with. I've just done more long than short end stuff in my shooting so I feel like I'm warming to going for the longer reach and f2.8 and then see how it goes.

It's a shame the 15-85mm isn't f2.8

Overread wrote in post #17397764
They all get compared against each other as I'll only be getting the one lens.

It's a shame the 15-85mm isn't f2.8

Would you really be interested in a 3-pound, $2,000 plus midrange zoom for apsc? My 15-85 is shot mostly at f/8-f/11.

mannetti21 wrote in post #17397727
The OP is looking for a standard zoom, so f/2.8 is the best he's going to do and is the "fastest" zoom available. (somebody will likely come in and prove me wrong ) .

Seeing how he's on a crop camera, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is faster.