Midrange zoom to pair with Canon 5D

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>I am looking for a midrange zoom 24-70 , to fill in the gap between my wide angle lens and 70-200 2.8. The camera body that i currently own is 5D Mark III. What are my options ? I am not averse to Non Canon lenses . I do possess a few Sigma lenses and have been pretty satisfied with the results. Many thanks.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, the Canon EF 24-70 L lenses - f/4 and f/2.8.<br>

I have, use, and like the EF 24-105mm L lens. It's an even handier range than the 24-70, but not as fast as the 24-70 f/2.8. <br>

There is a cheaper, newer EF 24-105mm <em>non</em>-L STM version which you might consider, depending on how much video you do.</p>

<p>I, too, have had good luck with Tamron and Sigma lenses, but have none in this focal length range.</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Assuming you want to stick with something fast (you don't specify), the field is pretty full nowadays. </p>

<p>The best bang for your buck is probably the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC USD. Great IQ (surpassing the 24-70/2.8L (original)), VC (the only fast one w/ image stabilization), FTM capable USD... only $1300</p>

<p>There's the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG HSM - probably run you ~$800, but gets a bit soft shy of f4 (ie @ f2.8/3.2/3.5 is diminishingly softer than the others - beyond that though it's very good)</p>

<p>The best of course is the 24-70/2.8L II - and at $2300 it darn well better take great pictures from WO, and get you coffee in the morning - it doesn't (get you coffee in the morning), nor does it have IS... Aside from stunningly stupid design oversight (in my personal opinion) though it's perhaps the sharpest zoom in existence.</p>

<p>If you are willing to go slow (f4) the field only gets wider...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>It is understood that you ask the broad question: "what options", but please answer -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>to fill in the gap between my wide angle lens and. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. What "wide angle lens"?<br /> 2. What 70 to200 F/2.8?<br /> 3. Is Lens Stabilization important?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>Many thanks for all the responses. I own a Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 AF II DG HSM and Canon 70-200 L US. I am mostly interested in lens quality and sharpness . Image stabilization is not a huge thing as I mostly will use a tripod. I reckon the older version Canon 24-70 2.8 is available as well and could offer cost savings without compromising image quality. I have never used a Tamron lens but Marcus seems to be impressed with it , so will consider that as well.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I was pretty impressed with it, especially given it's price. Now that it's been out awhile, it looks like you can get them new online for ~ $900 (who knew?). Considering that a used 24-70/2.8L will run you more (and usually doesn't come with a 6yr warranty), the logic isn't rocket science - especially when the Tamron's IQ met or exceeded that of the L (well mine anyway - and mine is in pretty good shape).</p>

<p>However, given that you've never used that brand before, you may want to try it before you purchase one. I might suggest you try renting a unit to see how it performs for you. Who knows, that gold ring may annoy the heck out of you (or something else ;) )!</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>There's also the Sigma 24-105 f4 which is worthy of consideration, although I think would probably go for the Canon 24-105mm if you are after this range.</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>The Canon 24-105 would be a f4 as well , right? What are the pros and cons of that lens apart from added zoom .Thanks for all the responses. At this point I am leaning towards Tamron based on what you guys are telling me and reviews elsewhere.</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>I use both the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC USD and the Canon 24-105/4 IS USM. The 24-105 is a good walk around lens, light and slightly longer reach for when F/2.8 isn't needed. I mostly wanted the 24-70/2.8 to shoot handheld and with indoor ambient lighting so the VC was a deciding factor for me. That and the price difference. While the Tamron isn't quite as sharp as the Canon 24-70 Mark II, it is very, very good. Which makes it really hard for a hobbyist like myself to justify the price difference between the Tamron and the Canon Mark II.</p>

<p>Samples:<br /> Tamron:<br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_christmas_2014">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_christmas_2014</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_layne_bday_6">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_layne_bday_6</a>:<br /> Canon:<br /> http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_hawaii_07_2014</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for answering.</p>

<p>I've used the Tamron lens that Marcus has mentioned. I own the 24 to 105/4L IS and the 24 to 70/2.8L (the original one) and I have used the 24 to 70/2.8L MkII also.</p>

<p>The reason that I did not buy the Tamron lens is because the zoom turret on the one I was using was not smooth throughout the zoom compass and that was important to me as I was mainly going to use the Lens for Video work. I only used one copy of the Tamron Lens. In all other aspects I found that Tamron Lens exceptional value for money and, it seems now, it is even less expensive, so I think that you would be wise to have a good look at one. Tamron Lenses' Focus Turrets are the opposite way to Canon Lenses, if that matters to you.</p>

<p>I think that you would be UNhappy with the EF24 to 105F/4 L USM, if you place a lot of emphasis on extremely high quality IQ and especially if you need to use the lens at F/4~F/5.6. I think that this is a wonderful lens for my purpose, which is my go everywhere lens for my 5D Series cameras. This was the last lens that I boght and I considered it my 'luxury item excessive to my needs'.</p>

<p>That is not to say the IQ of the 24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM is poor, it is very good, but the: EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L; the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L MkII and the Tamron 24 to 70 F/2.8 VC are all better (and all are a stop faster).</p>

<p>I have not used any Sigma Lenses for many years, so no comment there.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I know that you stated that you want options for a zoom lens, but I am always keen on exploring all options: in this regard, and because you want extreme image quality and also mention that you will mostly be using a tripod (implied that you have plenty of time to change lenses etc), you might consider a pair or even a triplet of Primes - 35 and 50 - or 28, 35 and 50.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>Many thanks William , Marcus and Mike for an insightful discussion. It appears that the Tamron lens deserves serious consideration as it seems to offer a good balance of cost and quality. Buying the Canon may offer a marginal advantage in quality. I did find a used EF 24-70 2.8 L in good condition for less than 1000 but with Tamron I will be getting a brand new lens for that price. I do like the idea of prime lens as they always appear to be distinctively sharper than the zoom lenses' and I have a 400 5.6 which I love, but I feel that the zoom may be better suited to this focal length range in my opinion. Besides my camera bag is literally bursting at the seems. Perhaps some day William .</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have had both the 24-105/4 L and the 24-70/2.8 L, and have to say that the image quality of the 24-70/2.8 L II exceeds that of those zooms by a considerable margin. It really does deliver the resolution and contrast of prime lenses. I realize it's expensive, but really can't praise it enough. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>I just re read my last post.</p>

<p>For clarity, I do NOT want to make the implication that the Tamron Lens has better image quality than the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 MkII.</p>

<p>I was however stating that the Tamron 24 to 70/2.8 is good value for money and also better IQ than the 24 to 105F/4 L IS.</p>

<p>Of the four zoom lenses which I mentioned that I've used, (I concur with Mark), the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L MkII has the best IQ</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[darrenruane]

<p>For my two cents its definitely worth the extra dough for the Canon EF24 to 70mm 2.8L lens, it is sharper, faster and smoother moving than the equivalent Sigma or Tamron. </p>

[sunny_from_the_sunshine_st]

<p>When you say Canon 24-70 is sharper , you mean the latest mkII Darren , right? Thanks William for clarification and Mark for your insight . I would definitely check out the Tamron as it would be hard for me as a non professional to justify the price differential .</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Checking with eBay, I see new Canon 24-105mm L lenses for sale for as low as $626. If cost is a main criterion, that price is hard to beat.</p>