Which 24-70mm should I go for ??

dnme

I'm at that stage where I'd like to invest in a decent walk around lens. Mostly landscapes but I'll shoot anything really. I'm using a Canon 70D. After some research, I have narrowed it down to two lenses

1. Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM
2. Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC USD

Sharpness is a priority for me, I just like stuff to be as sharp as possible. I had the Canon 24-105 for a while but was never impressed with it. Found it a bit soft and lacking in contrast and colour. I'd be interested if anyone has any experience of the above and can offer any advice. These things are dam expensive and whichever way I go, it'll be more or less saying goodbye to €1000 so the more info I can arm myself with the better.

flyingsnail

I don’t know how the three stack up in terms of image quality but for that price range you could also pick up a second hand Canon 24-70 F2.8 L, unless you really want the VC/IS.

pixbyjohn

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L would be my choice too

inkedpt

The Tamron have excellent sharpness in the center frame but it does become soft towards the corners, nothing to serious thou. Also vignetting is visible and there is some level of distortion at 24mm. That said, this behavior might not be an issue on a aps-c.
The VC works as a treat.

dnme

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L would be my choice too

I just cant afford Canon f2.8's. Even the older one you refer to here is still 1200-1400 quid.

flyingsnail

dnme wrote: »

I just cant afford Canon f2.8's. Even the older one you refer to here is still 1200-1400 quid.

a few here from about 925 to 1100 depending on condition
http://www.wexphotographic.com/used-canon-fit-canon/b3236-m37

dnme

flyingsnail wrote: »

a few here from about 925 to 1100 depending on condition
http://www.wexphotographic.com/used-canon-fit-canon/b3236-m37

I want to stick to new if at all possible. Had a bad experience with a s/h lens before.

dnme

1. Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM
2. Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC USD

Which one (buying new) ?

twowheelsonly

dnme wrote: »

I want to stick to new if at all possible. Had a bad experience with a s/h lens before.

Don't know Canon lenses but for what it's worth..

Don't let one bad experience with a lens put you off, these things happen from time to time but thankfully it's rare enough.
Just out of interest, was the bad one at the middle or lower end of the market?
At the top end second hand gear tends to be top notch. These are expensive pieces of equipment and tend to be looked after. My own main set of gear and lenses is all top of the market stuff and every single bit of it is second hand and in excellent nick. (Nikon D3s, 3 x f2.8 lenses, 2 x flashes)

I had a look at those lens you quoted and neither of those are particularly cheap either, but for the sake of 2/3/400 euro I'd be looking for a 2nd hand Canon 2.8 one. Chances are you'll never have to think about replacing it then. Cameras come and go but decent lenses last a life-time.

P.S. Of those two lenses, just looking at a comparison, it seems to be a toss of a coin. The Tamron has the extra stop which could be good for low light or action but the Canon appears to me to be a 'sturdier' lens. I personally only ever had one Tamron lens and I hated everything about it!! (Was a cheaper one though - and felt every bit of it!)

Gehad_JoyRider

Ok.
For the past 2 and half years I used the sigma, 24 to 70 F2.8, exdg, I've used it for sport and landscape. and some stock work.
I just bought the 24 to 70 F.4 IS USM, I didn't like it at first. Its like any new tool I suppose takes time to get used to it.

But from what Ive seen so far and work I've put it through. I'm very happy with it. In terms of booth detail and all round focus accuracy. Its light the macro mode is very precise. Focusing on a German pointer hacking it across a feild on AI servo with a 5 mk2 it missed maybe 3 out of a burst of 9 Which I felt was more down to the mark 2 then the lens its self. Over all focusing speed is great I cant really fault it.

Fringing there's very little almost unnoticeable, Detail in general . My grounds for the F.4 was that it was a little more affordable then the 2.8 But I think canon have put a lot of work in to it the pin hole cousin and lens distortion are manageable and over all I think its a great lens for the money.

My father uses a 24 usm mk2 and its a sharp lens I think this is some what as good.

The below picture is just an example its not a stock picture its me going out and testing my lens, I believe they all have personalities they all work differently and above all you need to get to no them in order to process my work.

dnme

Sorely tempted to go for the Canon 24-70 f4. I can pick it up for about £1k on Amazon but £650-£750 on ebay as a split kit lens from UK retailers. If I went for the kit version, is this identical to the retail version? Would it be eligible for the cash-back offer? would it carry the same warranty?

Farmlife

I've used a 24-105 for the past 2 years, but got a lend of the Canon 24-70 2.8 II for a trip and fell in love with the colour tones and sharpness, more so than my 70-200 2.8. So much so I bought a new one when I got back. I'd defo hold off for it, Canon are doing a cashback offer of €250 when you buy it this month

dnme

Farmlife wrote: »

I've used a 24-105 for the past 2 years, but got a lend of the Canon 24-70 2.8 II for a trip and fell in love with the colour tones and sharpness, more so than my 70-200 2.8. So much so I bought a new one when I got back. I'd defo hold off for it, Canon are doing a cashback offer of €250 when you buy it this month

I think I'll go with the f4. Just cant justify so much money for a hobby. But wondering about the above

Sorely tempted to go for the Canon 24-70 f4. I can pick it up for about £1k on Amazon but £650-£750 on ebay as a split kit lens from UK retailers. If I went for the kit version, is this identical to the retail version? Would it be eligible for the cash-back offer? would it carry the same warranty?

MarkN

I got a Canon 24-70 2.8 II from one of the 'other' sites. Worth shopping around. Amazing lens.

Gehad_JoyRider

dnme wrote: »

Sorely tempted to go for the Canon 24-70 f4. I can pick it up for about £1k on Amazon but £650-£750 on ebay as a split kit lens from UK retailers. If I went for the kit version, is this identical to the retail version? Would it be eligible for the cash-back offer? would it carry the same warranty?

I got mine for a £1100 in flash camera. As a lens in a box, so its really entirely up to you:)

dnme

So go with f4 and get IS or pay for f2.8 and get no IS ??
Why didn't they add IS to that f2.8? It's so expensive, hard to understand that.

Gehad_JoyRider

dnme wrote: »

So go with f4 and get IS or pay for f2.8 and get no IS ??
Why didn't they add IS to that f2.8? It's so expensive, hard to understand that.

The F4 has macro mode so you can shoot macros with out the need of a tripod

dnme

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

I got mine for a £1100 in flash camera. As a lens in a box, so its really entirely up to you:)

Did you get the f4 or f2.8 II ? Can I ask what you mean by "As a lens in a box" ? Many thanks

Effects

dnme wrote: »

Why didn't they add IS to that f2.8?

Image quality, size, weight, cost.

Gehad_JoyRider

dnme wrote: »

Did you get the f4 or f2.8 II ? Can I ask what you mean by "As a lens in a box" ? Many thanks

Ive the F. 4

Alltherage

A lens in a box would be a white box, the lens would have been imported as a kit lens in the box with a body and then sold separately.

dnme

Effects wrote: »

Image quality, size, weight, cost.

Image quality ? How would IS affect this ?
Size - I'm sure folk could live with it being slightly bigger
Weight - It is already quite heavy so adding another 200g no biggie
Cost ??????????? It already costs the moon! Its ridiculously expensive

Gehad_JoyRider

Effects wrote: »

Image quality, size, weight, cost.

Image quality an Is means nothing the F.4 is light, Cost you can put IS into a 18 to 55 its not an expensive option, the weighing factor its not needed. IS is on the F.4 for flexability as some times you need those extra stops and like I already said macro mode, who the hell wants to be carrying a tripod for to take a picture of a butter cup?

RickyWed

Between these two there is no discussion really if you can afford the Canon go for Canon, way better than Tamron(Tamron is good on budget no offence to anyone but Canon is Canon).