My Tamron 24-70 VR vs Canon 24-105 IS test results

<p>Do you agree Tamron 24-70 VR has less vignetting than Canon 24-105 IS when both are shot at F4?<br>

<br /> Here are my test results for comparision - <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1040126">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1040126</a><br>

<br /> I am not sure why, but the Tamron at F4 was brighter than Canon when set at the same setting. When I set Canon dead center meter and then swithed to Tamron it read about 1/2 stop over exposed. I didn't adjust any setting between shots which gave the Canon a slight edge in terms of color saturation.<br /> I think in some situations the Canon may be a little sharper, but had more vignetting in all situations.<br /> Focusing speed was fairly equal, Tamron is heavier and feels smoother than Canon although maybe a little on the stiff side. I could not tell a difference in IS vs VR both seem equal to me.<br /> Overall after comapring the two lenses I am happier with Tamron than I was when i first purchased.</p><div></div>

It certainly looks like the Tamron out performed the Canon lens,a person in our SMUG group

Only uses the Tamron 24-70 for her weddings and etc,and her photos look fantastic.

<p>The Canon lens is 5X, the Tamron is only 3X, and the more zoom creates more problems. According to your photos, I prefer the Canon</p>

<p>I think I should have set both to the correct metering to get a better color test. In these photos the Tamron looks a little washed out, but had I set the mettering to center on both it would have been a better comparison. However, I was specifically testing for vignetting which the Canon definetly has more pronounced vignetting.<br /> I agree, I would also prefer the Canon if it were a 24-105 F2.8 IS lens at the same price as the Tamron. Overall the lenses were so close it doesn't make much of a difference these pictures are 100% unedited. I could easily make them identical in Lightroom. I will create a camera profile which adds just a tad bit more saturation for the Tamron.</p><div></div>

<p>Canon looks best..</p>

<p>As somebody always points out here (this time it'll be me), the EF 24-105mm is much better at 105mm than is the Tamron.<br>

As John Tran says they are not completely comparable lenses, and have no doubt made their compromises according to the purposes of the various designers.</p>

<p>Thanks M.P for the review. I like the way the images from both cameras are exactly the same size, unlike some of the so-called reviews we see online all the time. With that said, I don't see much of a difference between the Canon and the Tamron except that maybe the Canon is a little more contrasty.<br>

This may be due to it underexposing by a small margin which might have to do with the size of the Canon lens. Not having much of a difference in this case is a "good thing" since the Canon already enjoys a good reputation.<br>

I was thinking of either ditching my Canon 24-70 f2.8 and getting the Tamron, and/or purchasing the 24-105 as a walk-around lens for my 5D but I haven't decided yet what I want to do.</p>

<p>Thanks Harry for your feedback. It was pretty hard getting both shots the same size without cropping. I found out today the Canon lens I used had a Hoya UV filter on it which may account for the reason it was just a little darker and more contrasty than the Tamron. <br>

When zoomed in 100% both are extremely sharp but there is a little haze from light reflections on Tamron exactly what Hoya UV filters correct.<br>

I have no need to compare to Canon 24-70 F2.8 because I'm not spending 1000+ on a lens which doesn't have IS. I will just get a Hoya UV and Circular polorizer and call this a done deal.</p>

<p>They are very comparable lenses as canon has not got another FF standard lens with IS to compere the Tamron too</p>

<p>I've owned the Canon 28-70 L, a couple 24-70 Ls, also a couple 24-105s (kit lenses with 5D & 5DII) and most recently, the Tammy 24-70 VC. Comparing files using all these lenses over the years, IMHO, the Tammy is the best of the lot and at least as good as my old 28-70.<br>

How much is the VC worth at these focal lengths ? I don't know, I don't think much about it during use. Will the Canon 24-70 II be better ? Don't know that yet either. One thing's for sure, it'll be a lot more money. But, if it's better in absolute terms it may be worth it to many people.</p>

<p>How come you had 2 of eveything?</p>

<p>Alan,<br>

I sold the 28-70 many years ago to get the extra WA, probably a mistake as I think it was the better lens overall, just not quite as wide. Went to FF and sold the first 24-70 because I bought a 5D w/ the 24-105 kit lens. Good walk around but never very happy with it. Sold it and got a second 24-70. recently got a 5DII again with 24-105 kit lens and immediately sold the lens and got the Tamron. I still have the second Canon 24-70 but will probably sell it when I get around to it.<br>

Because this is such a widely used FL, people, including myself, are very particular about the results. Like I said, at this point the Tamron has been the best of the lot AFA IQ goes, for me. Build quality is also excellent. I suppose the VC is nice but it's not very difficult getting enough SS for daylight shots, haven't used it in a very lowlight situation yet, usually use my 50 1.4 for that. Have to give it a try though.</p>

<p>I would definitely choose the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 over the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II but not over my 24-105L even if the 24-105L has more vignetting at f/4 simply because the 24-70 focal length lenses do not do 71-105mm. I have had 3 24-70 f/2.8 lens variants over the years but always hated having to switch off to the 70-200 so much. When Canon introduced the 24-105L I bought one and found the extra focal length and IS just what I needed and never once have I missed that 1 stop of light loss even back when I was using 5D classics nor have I found the vignetting that bad. With the 5DmII and 5DmIII the 24-105L is a fantastic performer even in low light. I have fast f/1.2 and f/1.4 primes if I need them so having a limited focal length f/2.8 zoom lens 1 stop faster than my 24-105L would still be an inconvenience for me even if it has IS (VR). Thanks for doing your test as I was under the impression, from reading other reviews on the Tamron 24-70, that it had terrible vignetting especially when compared to the Canon 24-70 but now that I know my 24-105L is worse it will make the decision to buy the Tamron over the new Canon mII just that much easier if I ever decide to add another lens.</p>

<p>I got the Tamron 24 -70 2.8. It's an okay lens but not up to the level of Canon L glass. I firmly believe that a lens should be a long term investment. This lens feels like a budget driven compromise It's pretty darn soft in most situations and the corners are just nasty on a FF cam. Get this lens if saving some money is a priority but if you value your images and gear then it's really worth saving for the L. I'm sure some people will accuse me of falling victim to Canons evil marketing but this is purely based on image quality and long term value of these lenses. <br>

PS: I sent the Tamron back to the store and got the L - sooooo worth the extra spend. Now if I shoot a soft image I know it's entirely my own fault. I could never be sure with the Tammy. </p>