Who has replaced 24-105 v.i and with what?

Hi folks,

I plan to replace the 24-105 v.1 with a newer lens with more resolution power. Since I use mainly primes in this range and a zoom would be in any case a "good to have" backup, I have excluded the investment for the 24-70 2.8 ii.

I am basically tossing up between the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC G2 and would be interested in your opinion.

Thank you
Francesco

I would personally avoid the 24-70 f4L; it has definite sharpness issues in the mid-range.

Is there a particular reason that you are not considering either of the Sigmas, the 24-105 f4A or the 24-70 f2.8A? In my experience, the 24-105 is simply excellent in the resolution/sharpness department.

I replaced my v1, with a v2. The new lens is really nice.

I replaced mine with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (1st Gen) and it’s been excellent. Just a hair behind the Canon 24-70 2.8 II in IQ, but more versatile for to the VC in my opinion. There’s that nitpick about onion bokeh in some situations, but overall it’s great and a steal for the price these days. The G2 wasn’t released when I bought mine, so it should be even better.

Apricane wrote in post #18568744
I would personally avoid the 24-70 f4L; it has definite sharpness issues in the mid-range.

Is there a particular reason that you are not considering either of the Sigmas, the 24-105 f4A or the 24-70 f2.8A? In my experience, the 24-105 is simply excellent in the resolution/sharpness department.

I was really interested in the new 24-70 2.8 Art but the reviews around took my enthusiasm down. Their 24-105 seems not that better than the Canon counterpart.

Lyndön wrote in post #18568796
I replaced mine with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (1st Gen) and it’s been excellent. Just a hair behind the Canon 24-70 2.8 II in IQ, but more versatile for to the VC in my opinion. There’s that nitpick about onion bokeh in some situations, but overall it’s great and a steal for the price these days. The G2 wasn’t released when I bought mine, so it should be even better.

What is the main difference between G1 and G2? I read that the optics are the same, and maybe only coating has been improved? How are the colours of the Tamron? A decade ago I had a 28-75 2.8 on a 10D and colours had a yellow cast that was quite awful...is still the same story?

I can't speak to the quality of the 24-70 Art, but the 24-105 Art is certainly much better than the Canon mkI, which I had had for some time before returning it. Don't know how it compares to the mkII.

replaced the 24-105V1 with the 24-70 F/2.8 V2

fplstudio wrote in post #18568714
Hi folks,

I plan to replace the 24-105 v.1 with a newer lens with more resolution power. Since I use mainly primes in this range and a zoom would be in any case a "good to have" backup, I have excluded the investment for the 24-70 2.8 ii.

I am basically tossing up between the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC G2 and would be interested in your opinion.

Thank you
Francesco

Francesco.
After purchasing my first full frame 5D Mark III, the 24-105 showed its ugly head at 24mm distortion. So I figured I would grab the 24-70, but which one. You know f/2.8 vs. f/4 IS. A year or so later for a trip to Rome upgraded my newly aired as well 17-40 f/4 L to the new 16-35 f/4 L IS. Improved color and sharpness through out.
IS allowed me to capture Hand Held crisp images at 1/10" in the Basilica's where tripods are not permitted.
So with another spontaneous trip back to Italy, this time Venice and Florence, I followed my "When in Rome" experience and went with the smaller, lighter 24-70 f/4 L IS. Improved wide angle distortion right off the bat. Color was in the ballpark with the 16-35 f/4 L IS and both of my 70-200's, the f/4 L IS and f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
Yes I have heard about less sharp at say 50mm, but the Wide and long, 24, 70 are sharper than my old 24-105. I like the quite a bit. Better than I thought.
I have used and rented a few times the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II. While it does produce great images, the lack of IS does concern me for reasons above. Of course many would love to see the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS......
I did check out the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well. While not as quick to achieve AF, the real stickler was the backwards zooming. Small thing for some, but why throw a different wrench into my workflow.

fplstudio wrote in post #18568714
Hi folks,

I plan to replace the 24-105 v.1 with a newer lens with more resolution power. Since I use mainly primes in this range and a zoom would be in any case a "good to have" backup, I have excluded the investment for the 24-70 2.8 ii.

I am basically tossing up between the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC G2 and would be interested in your opinion.

Thank you
Francesco

I replaced my 24-105L mki with the 24-70 f/2.8 mkii. I have all but replaced the 24-70 f/2.8 with the 24-70 f/4 IS. This lens suits me better and while it might not be as sharp at all focal lengths (ive not noticed this) it gets me some shots the f/2.8 couldn't.

Between the 24-105 and 24-70 f/2.8 i di have two copies of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC G1, but both had issues so i had to give up on that lens.

24-105 Mk1 to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 - one of the best moves I have made!

I know you excluded this lens, but I would re-consider if I were you. Just my 2p.

fplstudio wrote in post #18568818
What is the main difference between G1 and G2? I read that the optics are the same, and maybe only coating has been improved? How are the colours of the Tamron? A decade ago I had a 28-75 2.8 on a 10D and colours had a yellow cast that was quite awful...is still the same story?

I think Tamron ad Sigma have both stepped up their performance recently. There’s no comparison between their top lenses today and those of years past. I’ve been a Canon L snob for a long time, and the VC was the one that pulled me away. Other than an old macro lens I picked up cheap just to play around with, it’s my only non-Canon lens.

I haven’t noticed any color casts, and haven’t seen any reviews mention that either. From what I’ve read, the main differences are the G2 cosmetics, the ability to use Tamron’s dock for adjustments/firmware updates, slightly improved VC due to a dedicated processor just for that now, and the coatings. According to the-digital-picture.com (which has an excellent review and comparison to the other 24-70’s) the MTF charts are identical, so optical performance should be pretty much the same.

I replaced my 24-105 with nano-USM 18-135. Replaced the 6D with an 80D. Much more versatile, and faster-focusing, setup.

Bassat wrote in post #18572137
I replaced my 24-105 with nano-USM 18-135. Replaced the 6D with an 80D. Much more versatile, and faster-focusing, setup.

I love the 18-135 Nano. Its the main reason i keep a crop camera. Very good fro travelling light.

Lyndön wrote in post #18568796
I replaced mine with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (1st Gen) and it’s been excellent. Just a hair behind the Canon 24-70 2.8 II in IQ, but more versatile for to the VC in my opinion. There’s that nitpick about onion bokeh in some situations, but overall it’s great and a steal for the price these days. The G2 wasn’t released when I bought mine, so it should be even better.

Same here. Although if I'm only carrying one lens I still take the 24-105.

KellySmith wrote in post #18571999
I brought a used 50mm F2.8

.
Welcome to the forum, Kelly!

It's great to have you join us! . Always nice to have a new member - especially someone who is interested in wildlife!


.