Tamron 17-50 VS Canon 24-70 L

[ROCKMORE]

I'm doing some of my own lens tests in camera stores to see for myself what the differences are.
The first test is the Canon 24-70 2.8 L as a replacement to my Tamron 17-50 non VC for the new
5D when it's released. With Cinestyle 0,-4,-1, 0 the 2 lenses @ 24mm produced very similar results except some CA in one of shots. I was surprised at the result. The red CA was from the renowned Canon 24-70 2.8L. I'm not trying to discredit the Canon, just looking for a good place to invest. This shows the importance of testing lenses yourself before investing.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Additional clips

 

[Samuel H]

I've always said so: L zooms on APS-C are just bling, lots of lenses for crop cameras will deliver same or better image for a fraction of the price (tokina 11-16 f/2.8, tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS)

L zooms only make sense once you move to full frame

 

[c3hammer]

Very interesting test Rockmore!!!

Thanks for posting,

Pete

 

[traviswears]

L zooms only make sense once you move to full frame

Why's that?

 

[Samuel H]

on APS-C there are much cheaper options that deliver the same or better image quality

as you see here, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC looks better than the much more expensive canon 24-70 f/2.8L
it's also better than the 24-105 f/4L IS, the 17-40 f/4L or the 16-35 f/2.8L, and the price is A LOT lower

if you need IS, the canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS has it, and it is just as sharp or even better (it's priced up there with L glass, though)

and if you want to go even wider, the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is as good as it gets

the only L zooms that (to me) make sense for APS-C are the long ones: 70-200, etc
but there's a problem with those too: the non-IS versiona are a bit soft; the f/4L IS is a lot better but too slow for APS-C (where I want my portrait lenses to be at least f/2.8); the f/2.8L IS is way too expensive, if I had the money for that and could live with a bit less reach, I'd rather upgrade to full frame and stick to the f/4L IS

 

[TooTallTim]

Really surprised by those tests. Have used the 24-70 wide open on shoots before and found it exceptionally sharp, without pixel peeping. Ive not used the non-VC Tamron but would be massively surprised if it was better. Sure your 24-70 isnt duff?
And the 70-200 2.8 is worth every penny in my opinion, fantastic lens.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Sure your 24-70 isnt duff?
.

Well it was off the shelf at a Canon dealer so who knows for sure, but every copy of a Canon should be on par.
I just like doing hands on tests like this to see for myself what I might wind up with in my kit as apposed to relying on the internet opinions. I was also surprised how light the 24-70 2.8L felt. I read all the comments like "massive" lens. Just did nothing for me. Didn't feel like it would ever be the same if dropped on the sidewalk. (Not recommended of course)
The Canon 70-200 2.8 on the other hand feels like what it's supposed to, quality built. Now with the disappointing MK3, the 24-70 2.8 range won't be necessary anyway at this point. I already have a Canon 24 2.8 and 50 1.4 prime and at this point the Canon 85mm 1.8 is the top of my list. I anticipated the MK3 would replace the APS-s, but after almost 4 years waiting..... I will probably keep an APS-C like my 60D, or what ever becomes it's successor as a daily driver, and buy an MK2 as a FF for when it's needed.

With my great results on the Tamron 17-50 2.8 since I got it I'm tempted to get the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I honestly believe that many lenses are great these days. Just as long as I test them myself first.