24-105 L or ???

I need a new walk-around lens and have been thinking of the 24-105 L. Popular Photography gives pretty good marks to the Tamron 18-200, which is much less expensive. I admit the greater range of the Tamron has some appeal. Is there any experience with that lens? Is there another option I should consider?

Thanks for all opinions and information.

sparker1 wrote in post #2134573
I need a new walk-around lens and have been thinking of the 24-105 L. Popular Photography gives pretty good marks to the Tamron 18-200, which is much less expensive. I admit the greater range of the Tamron has some appeal. Is there any experience with that lens? Is there another option I should consider?

Thanks for all opinions and information.

the 24-105L will fit i nicely with the lenses you have. i used the 24-105L for about 8 months as a walkaround and it was on my 20d at least 80% of the time.

ed vrader

Stan I believe you'd be very pleased with the results, I am with mine. One thing for sure if your no happy you won't have a problem selling it for a good price as most of the Full Frame guys love this lens.

ed rader wrote in post #2134615
the 24-105L will fit i nicely with the lenses you have. i used the 24-105L for about 8 months as a walkaround and it was on my 20d at least 80% of the time.

ed vrader

What did you change to?

Hey Stan, that's my name too. Well I had the Sigma 18-200 which was fairly similar to the Tamron 18-200. It was okay in bright light. Then I switched to the 24-105, it was a hard decesion between that or the 24-70 f/2.8. But I chose the 24-105, and glad I did. IQ improved, colors, sharpness, etc was much better IMO. As a walkaround lens some people might not think 24mm is wide enough, I think it is okay. If not I just take a few steps back.

My 2 cents: the 24-70 blows away the 24-105 because of the low light ability of the 2.8.

I've had both... the 24-105 got cut.

The 24-105 is an outstanding choice....I find it on one of my bodies most of the time.

eslaydog wrote in post #2134716
My 2 cents: the 24-70 blows away the 24-105 because of the low light ability of the 2.8.

I've had both... the 24-105 got cut.

All because of 1 stop gain? _ I had a Tamron f/2.8 and comparing it with my f/4 IS lens in low light usually required a 1 stop increase in ISO or be thankful of the IS that works down to 1/4 seconds handheld with ease.

i love my 24-105L...now my sigma 24-70mm dg macro is just colleting dust....

I have both the Tamron 18-200 and the Sigma 24-70 2.8, which is comparable to the Canon 24-70.
Yes, the 24-70 is faster, and delivers better IQ, but... it's heavier and it has a limited range compared to the Tamron. Therefore, if it is not night or indoor, and if I have to carry only one lens, that's the Tamron.
This thread below is on the Tamron:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213480
while the two are shots I took with the Tamron:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=228524
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=210521

Hi Stan, I use the 24-105 as my everyday lens and couldnt be happier. Based on your photos this summer from the Maritimes, Gaspe & New England, I cant think of a better lens for you....its got good range (lacks on the wide side but you've got that covered with the 10-22), fairly light weight and IS. It fits perfectly between your 10-22 & 100-400 as well!

I had to sell my EF-S lenses, so the 10-22 and 17-85 have been sold and the 24-105 bought. The 24-105 is a great all around lens, and as you want it for a walk around it's perfect. Remember that this is a jack of all trades, master of none......well some.

Losing 2 stops on a 2.8 is no biggie for me. If it gets too dark I'd use a flash or tripod or up the ISO, and f4 is good enough for softening the background.

I am looking for a UWA to replace the 10-22 and I'm looking at the 16-35, but that can wait.

FlyingPete wrote in post #2134639
What did you change to?

the 24-70L.

ed rader

tghaines wrote in post #2134814
I had to sell my EF-S lenses, so the 10-22 and 17-85 have been sold and the 24-105 bought. The 24-105 is a great all around lens, and as you want it for a walk around it's perfect. Remember that this is a jack of all trades, master of none......well some.

Losing 2 stops on a 2.8 is no biggie for me. If it gets too dark I'd use a flash or tripod or up the ISO, and f4 is good enough for softening the background.

I am looking for a UWA to replace the 10-22 and I'm looking at the 16-35, but that can wait.

do you mean one-stop? certainly the 24-105L is a better low light lens as it has a 2-stop advantage over the 24-70L.

and yeah yeah yeah before someone says it i know IS doesn't stop motion but when it's that dark neither does f2.8.

ed rader

I just ordered the 24-105... will be here tomorrow and I had the debate between the two as well... I just want more reach. And as far as the 2/8 vs 4 goes, I have a flash for that. And I am never anywhere that flash isnt allowed.