What is the best 24-70mm?

ebiggs wrote in post #17950633
Now for the correct answer, the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II has no peer. It is the best lens in this range ever made. It doesn't matter how others want to spin it. This is the best. Rodger C. is right on this one.

sploo wrote in post #17950672
...unless you really would benefit from IS in your style of shooting (it's horses for courses, despite the 24-70II being exceptional)

Yes. People who insist on touting the II as being "the best" don't seem to comprehend the fact it's only the best as far as stabilization isn't important to you. It's the best non-stabilized 24-70.

IMHO:

- Price performance leader for an f/2.8 24-70mm is the Tamron VC

- IQ Price leader is the Canon f/4L IS (but f/2.8 is out)

- Best IQ, price is out, IS is out, the Canon f/2.8 MkII. (For some of course, Best IQ is the most cost effective as well.)

Sigma and Tokina really don't play in the numbers here IMHO, as for about the same cost outlay you can get better options.


For many this zoom range is a bread and butter lens, mounted on one body at all times. For me it never was. At one pint I had the "best" the old MkI canon which really had no real competition for a long time in a Canon mount, but it was not as good as any mentioned above, nor did I really need to have the best. (P.S. for controlling lens flare, the older MkI still is the BEST, better even that the MkII)
Anyway, with my limited use of the 24-70mm range, I decided I liked f/2.8, and "IS" so i went Tamron (used, for about $800.00)

Still a nice step up from the Canon L MkI

two lenses that I've waited years for are 24-70L II and 100-400L II. they are both the best made by anyone. period.

I'll agree with CDS on this one. I recently went through this purchase decision, and ended up with the Tamron 24-70 VC and it is excellent. The VC is very good, the IQ is a vast improvement from my copy of the Canon EF 24-70 Mk I it replaced, and the USD is nearly as quick and just as silent as Canon's USM. I doubt I'll ever notice a real world difference in focus speed during use.

For me, I wanted f2.8. That means the f4's were all out of contention. I already have a 24-105L IS that came with my 5DIII, which will probably be sold now that I know the Tamron is so good.

I wanted IS for low light shooting such as weddings and birthday parties, where I don't necessarily need super fast shutter speeds. That was the main drawback I saw with the 24-70 II.

The kicker for me was that Tamron doubled it's rebate recently to $200, and CPW had a street price $100 off at the same time. So I was out the door, brand new with 6 year warranty for $999.

Price wasn't necessarily a big factor, since I would have most likely bought the 24-70 II as a refurb from Canon whenever it got back in stock, since I had the 24-105 to hold me over until then. In the end though, the benefit of having VC, a longer warranty, very close IQ vs the 24-70L II, similar AF performance, and saving money on top of that meant that the Tamron was the best choice for my bag in the end.

sploo wrote in post #17950672
...unless you really would benefit from IS in your style of shooting (it's horses for courses, despite the 24-70II being exceptional)

I will gladly forgo IS to own and use the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II. This boils down to two groups. People that own and use it and people that don't. The ones that don't, don't know what they are missing or how good this lens is.

ebiggs wrote in post #17951858
I will gladly forgo IS to own and use the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II. This boils down to two groups. People that own and use it and people that don't. The ones that don't, don't know what they are missing or how good this lens is.

I don't think anyone here is denying that the 24-70 II is the best, optically. The single reason I don't own it, is because without IS it would be pretty much unusable for me. I have a Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART that is a beautiful lens, maybe the sharpest I've ever see. I've had it since they first became available, and have used it without a tripod maybe three times.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17950747
IMHO:

- Price performance leader for an f/2.8 24-70mm is the Tamron VC

- IQ Price leader is the Canon f/4L IS (but f/2.8 is out)

- Best IQ, price is out, IS is out, the Canon f/2.8 MkII. (For some of course, Best IQ is the most cost effective as well.)

Sigma and Tokina really don't play in the numbers here IMHO, as for about the same cost outlay you can get better options.

Best is best. Conditions is conditions. Conditions aside it is the best not the best only if ............

And round and round we go. Not having IS is not a condition, it's an attribute of the lens, and it's what makes the 24-70II not the best for some people and some uses.

What's the best car?

ebiggs wrote in post #17951858
I will gladly forgo IS to own and use the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II. This boils down to two groups. People that own and use it and people that don't. The ones that don't, don't know what they are missing or how good this lens is.

There's an easy way to get the data you need (assuming you use something like Lightroom) - look at the overall metadata from your images and work out how often you shoot at a focal length/shutter speed combination where IS would have been important.

I went from a 7D + 15-85 (IS) to a 5D3 + 24-70II, and the choice of the lens came down to looking at my Lightroom catalog.

LV Moose wrote in post #17951879
I don't think anyone here is denying that the 24-70 II is the best, optically. The single reason I don't own it, is because without IS it would be pretty much unusable for me. I have a Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART that is a beautiful lens, maybe the sharpest I've ever see. I've had it since they first became available, and have used it without a tripod maybe three times.

+1 on the 35A. Case in point though: I don't own it, but I've rented it. It was invaluable on an ultra low light shoot (bonfire/fireworks) where I was wide open at ISO 12800 on the 5D3, trying to hold a shutter speed that would allow me to get decent shots of people. IS wouldn't have helped, and I was at a (realistic) quality limit in terms of ISO on the body. Equally - I've just picked up a 16-35 f/4 IS (it was on offer); specifically for the IS (so I can do low light / no tripod allowed indoor castles and stately homes). All horses for courses. No one lens is best.

sploo wrote in post #17952185
+1 on the 35A. Case in point though: I don't own it, but I've rented it. It was invaluable on an ultra low light shoot (bonfire/fireworks) where I was wide open at ISO 12800 on the 5D3, trying to hold a shutter speed that would allow me to get decent shots of people. IS wouldn't have helped, and I was at a (realistic) quality limit in terms of ISO on the body. Equally - I've just picked up a 16-35 f/4 IS (it was on offer); specifically for the IS (so I can do low light / no tripod allowed indoor castles and stately homes). All horses for courses. No one lens is best.

I also recently purchased the 16-35 f/4 IS, and used it a couple weeks ago in a scenario you mentioned (bonfire). There being a group of people, using the 35 ART wide open wouldn't have worked because I needed more DoF, and the slow SS due to a smaller aperture would've made for blurry pictures because of no stabilization. The Canon 24-70 II would have suffered under the same circumstances, where as the Tamron 24-70 VC would have worked.

LV Moose wrote in post #17952210
I also recently purchased the 16-35 f/4 IS, and used it a couple weeks ago in a scenario you mentioned (bonfire). There being a group of people, using the 35 ART wide open wouldn't have worked because I needed more DoF, and the slow SS due to a smaller aperture would've made for blurry pictures because of no stabilization. The Canon 24-70 II would have suffered under the same circumstances, where as the Tamron 24-70 VC would have worked.

Yea, (needing more) DOF is the killer when it comes to the advantages of a fast lens. With the shoot I did using the 35A I had to stick to single subjects, or groups that were nicely in line with the plane of the sensor. If I need IS on a lens <50mm (i.e. shutter speed much under 1/50s) then I tend to need a pretty stationary subject; kids don't tend to hang around for a 1/20s shutter speed

ebiggs wrote in post #17951858
I will gladly forgo IS to own and use the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II. This boils down to two groups. People that own and use it and people that don't. The ones that don't, don't know what they are missing or how good this lens is.

I wonder how many 24-70 II owners have ever used or really researched the Tamron to see just how good and close to the Canon it is. I'm not saying it beats or matches the Canon optically, but it's very close under the same conditions. Just as the Tamron is superior for other things such as low light shooting, video, and other situations where the VC becomes a very useful tool to have. "Best" is relative, of course, because different people have different needs. Canon glass used to be far superior to third party glass in most cases, but Tamron and Sigma have stepped up their game significantly in recent years, and that's no longer the case for many of their recent offerings.

The thing that many of us who have the Tamron have decided is:

A) there simply is not a big enough difference in IQ between the lenses to make a difference, to us, under ideal conditions.

B) there "is" a big difference in IQ when shooting handheld in low light (slow or non-moving subjects), due to the fact that VC lets us get that same great image quality in a much larger variety of situations. If you have to shoot your 24-70 II at 2-3 stops higher ISO vs the Tammy to achieve a sharp image, then you lose any IQ advantage it had to begin with. *The VC in this Tamron is excellent and rivals anything I've used from Canon, which includes the new 70-200 II*

C) if you shoot video, VC is a great feature. I'm sure this conversation may have gone a completely different direction if it had been asked as "best 24-70 for video".

So the best tool for shooting stills of test charts is clearly the Canon. The best tool for shooting stills (and video) across a wide variety of situations is maybe not the Canon.

Lyndön wrote in post #17952232
I wonder how many 24-70 II owners have ever used or really researched the Tamron ...

Very good post. I did personally do quite a bit of research (including using both lenses), but your point about quality vs shutter speed is very true - if you're struggling to hold a good shutter speed (such that there's some movement blur) then that's going to totally negate any optical advantage the lens had.

Your comment about video is a good one too. Ironically, since finding how good the video AF is on the 80D I was thinking that a possible upgraded 5D should have the same (Dual Pixel AF), and therefore the possibility of using the IS on the 16-35 for video was another factor in me purchasing that lens (I've got to self-justify my GAS somehow, anyway ).

Like I said though: the easy way to work out what works best for "you" is to look at your portfolio of shots. If most of your slower shutter speeds are tripod shots (where you'd use a tripod regardless), and otherwise you're above the 1/focal length rule of thumb, then IS (at that focal length) is probably not critical. Factoring in "am I going to use it for video?" is a good additional thought though.

Lyndön wrote in post #17952232
I wonder how many 24-70 II owners have ever used or really researched the Tamron...

I wonder how many Tamron 24-70mm VC owners have ever used (for extended periods of time) the Canon II lens.

I used the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC for two years at a major studio, I ordered it for them based on raving reviews. What a giant hassle. That warranty is meaningless with a 7 month turnaround time on repairs (could have been a parts supply issue at the time, front element popped right off, was held in by glue, Roger Cicala covered this issue in depth). Still couldn't focus worth a damn in low-light when we got it back. Unless you try multiple copies, don't even bother. What's sharpness and IS matter if the image isn't in focus or you have to manually focus?

Also, it wasn't that sharp (had to stop down to f/8). Maybe we got a really bad copy. Try multiple copies instead of trusting reviews on it.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wedding/photojournalis​t's professional tool. It is the most boring, most reliable lens in my toolkit now. If you want a lens that you will use around the clock every day for 10 years, get the Canon II. If you want a lens to bring out for vacations and manually focus at night with, get the Tamron.