What is the best 24-70mm?

idkdc wrote in post #17952317
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.

I wasn't going to bring it up, but build quality was one of my concerns with the Tamron too (based on some experience). Sample variation with any lens is an issue - though I believe Canon's recent lenses (24-70II, 100-400II, 16-36 f/4 IS, 35L II) have been very good in terms of their internal build quality and design (blogs from Cicala again).

I don't particularly find the 24-70II "boring", but I do think that, like a reliable car, you can end up taking it for granted; because it doesn't have any "interesting" foibles, and just gets the job done.

I hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but I have 2 pro photographer friends who have experienced multiple failures (as in broken, not 'unable to AF') of the Tamron AF during shoots. One guy was on his third copy, and I couldn't get him to explain why he kept buying them. In all seriousness, though, I have an ancient 24-70 mk I and in spite of its known design defects, it just keeps chugging on, taking great shots. I shoot sports at least twice weekly with mine, and I can't complain about the results. I will buy a 24-70 mk II when this one fails or becomes unrepairable, because I know Canon has improved the optics and the mechanical construction - and it should be readily available for under US$1500 very soon. That's not much more than I paid for my used mk I.

sploo wrote in post #17952332
I wasn't going to bring it up, but build quality was one of my concerns with the Tamron too (based on some experience). Sample variation with any lens is an issue - though I believe Canon's recent lenses (24-70II, 100-400II, 16-36 f/4 IS, 35L II) have been very good in terms of their internal build quality and design (blogs from Cicala again).

I don't particularly find the 24-70II "boring", but I do think that, like a reliable car, you can end up taking it for granted; because it doesn't have any "interesting" foibles, and just gets the job done.

I call it "boring" because it's not super-sexy (isn't f/1.2 and it doesn't have supertelephoto reach or IS). But it is lightning fast at focus lock, and I get surprising amounts of bokeh with it at 70mm at f/2.8 and at minimum focusing distance (surprisingly good). The 2.8/L II is practically the best all-rounder, walk-around focal length lens out there. Canon's been excelling at QC and build quality lately - see the 35LII and its latest supertelephoto-style construction (another Roger Cicala article).

The Tamron feels like a chode in ergonomics (no room even for small fingers between hand grip and lens body) and sample variation is much worse, at least than Canon's newest stuff. I think they're the exact opposite of Canon on internal build quality and warranty repair (at least turnaround time).

GregDunn wrote in post #17952347
I hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but I have 2 pro photographer friends who have experienced multiple failures (as in broken, not 'unable to AF') of the Tamron AF during shoots. One guy was on his third copy, and I couldn't get him to explain why he kept buying them. In all seriousness, though, I have an ancient 24-70 mk I and in spite of its known design defects, it just keeps chugging on, taking great shots. I shoot sports at least twice weekly with mine, and I can't complain about the results. I will buy a 24-70 mk II when this one fails or becomes unrepairable, because I know Canon has improved the optics and the mechanical construction - and it should be readily available for under US$1500 very soon. That's not much more than I paid for my used mk I.

You get better sample variation and long term construction with the mk II. I've had several copies of the older 28/24-70's and they weren't super great, but I think that had to do with alignment drift with past usage and abuse (newspaper copies). If you take care of your mk i and get it realigned as needed, I imagine it will still last quite a while.

idkdc wrote in post #17952409
I call it "boring" because it's not super-sexy (isn't f/1.2 and it doesn't have supertelephoto reach or IS).

You're not the first person to refer to it as "boring" - so I get the point you're making . A nice super fast prime is desirable, but yea, it's a workhorse that just gets the job done. Personally I love it - though as already discussed on this thread; it's not the right tool for every job in the 24-70mm focal length range.

LV Moose wrote in post #17951916
What's the best car?

The one that's reliable!

johnf3f wrote in post #17952447
The one that's reliable!

Ah, the 2.8 litre Canon 2470II. You can have it in any colour, so long as it's black*

* and a little bit of red

That gave me quite a giggle sploo! Nice one!

Torsion bars not included

And the better for it????????

LV Moose wrote in post #17951916
What's the best car?

It's not a car! It's an F150.

Lyndön wrote in post #17952232
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 have the Tamron. I have the Sigma. I have the Tokina. There is no doubt they are all very good. It must be pretty easy to make a good 24-70mm !

I have zero interest in video. I am a stills shooter and will always be a stills shooter. You may have to blow everything up to 100% pixel level to see the difference but the fact remains the Canon is the best.

If I were to go for second place it would be the Tamron for sure. To further stir this pot, the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II is the best in its category too. And the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 is also in second place. It would be my choice after the Canon.

Lyndön wrote in post #17952232
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".

In reality, VC/IS for video is a joke.

idkdc wrote in post #17953246
In reality, VC/IS for video is a joke.

Compared to what though? I know pretty much zero about shooting video, but the few times I've shot a short clip with a DSLR (handheld) I did find IS helped cancel out a bit of wobble. An external mic is usually required to not pick up the IS noise in the recording though.

If you're meaning that IS is a joke compared to some sort of proper stabilising rig (or video tripod) then sure - "proper" kit will always be way better.

sploo wrote in post #17953283
Compared to what though? I know pretty much zero about shooting video, but the few times I've shot a short clip with a DSLR (handheld) I did find IS helped cancel out a bit of wobble. An external mic is usually required to not pick up the IS noise in the recording though.

If you're meaning that IS is a joke compared to some sort of proper stabilising rig (or video tripod) then sure - "proper" kit will always be way better.

precisely.

try handholding @ 70mm without noticeable jitter, especially once fatigue hits. Sure, a tripod is nice, but if you're at an amusement park or the fair, you probably wont have one on you.