Battle of the mid-zooms: Canon F2.8, F4 IS or Tamron F2.8 IS
Discussion
Here's a quandry chaps, and would appreciate your learned views if you've used any of the above lenses.
I have a Canon 60D at the moment, and think I'll have a 6D in the foreseeable future. I mainly now just shoot portraits of my family. I don't use a flash, and I shoot low light, so I am a bit of a prime lens snob. However, as a sideline I am going to use the lens for work shooting video on the 60D and mainly on a Black Magic Production Camera both of which have a crop factor of 1.6.
At the moment I have a 30mm and 50mm F1.4 primes, and will most likely also get the 85mm F1.8 prime. However, I don't own a zoom lens. These are what I've looked at:
Canon 24-105 F4 IS (£429 new on ebay): I started here as these are being sold cheaply new on ebay. However, I've discounted it after having used it - it's too slow for indoors and despite the L moniker it does seem to lag a little behind other lenses.
Canon 24-70 F4 IS (£800ish): Seemingly better IQ in tests, but much more cash. Still F4
Canon 24-70 F2.8 (£700 second hand): Best IQ yet, but no IS, so limited use for video.
Canon 24-70 F2.8 MKII (£1700 new) Best IQ of the lot, no IS though, and a different price league!
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 IS (£300): Cheap, fast compared to the F4s, reasonable IQ and has IS. Downside - won't work on the full frame 6D.
and my most current thought:
Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC (IS in a different name) at £700, new, with a 5 year warranty.
The image quality seems to be on a par with the cheaper Canons, but not as good as the £1700 new 24-70 MKII. But, of course it has IS which I've seen work superbly well for video.
I've never used Tamron though, and never really considered them before - anyone got any experiences of the above lenses?
I have a Canon 60D at the moment, and think I'll have a 6D in the foreseeable future. I mainly now just shoot portraits of my family. I don't use a flash, and I shoot low light, so I am a bit of a prime lens snob. However, as a sideline I am going to use the lens for work shooting video on the 60D and mainly on a Black Magic Production Camera both of which have a crop factor of 1.6.
At the moment I have a 30mm and 50mm F1.4 primes, and will most likely also get the 85mm F1.8 prime. However, I don't own a zoom lens. These are what I've looked at:
Canon 24-105 F4 IS (£429 new on ebay): I started here as these are being sold cheaply new on ebay. However, I've discounted it after having used it - it's too slow for indoors and despite the L moniker it does seem to lag a little behind other lenses.
Canon 24-70 F4 IS (£800ish): Seemingly better IQ in tests, but much more cash. Still F4
Canon 24-70 F2.8 (£700 second hand): Best IQ yet, but no IS, so limited use for video.
Canon 24-70 F2.8 MKII (£1700 new) Best IQ of the lot, no IS though, and a different price league!
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 IS (£300): Cheap, fast compared to the F4s, reasonable IQ and has IS. Downside - won't work on the full frame 6D.
and my most current thought:
Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC (IS in a different name) at £700, new, with a 5 year warranty.
The image quality seems to be on a par with the cheaper Canons, but not as good as the £1700 new 24-70 MKII. But, of course it has IS which I've seen work superbly well for video.
I've never used Tamron though, and never really considered them before - anyone got any experiences of the above lenses?
I've owned the Canon 24-105mm for the past couple of years and it's never let me down. Sharp, fast AF and very reliable to lock on, I've hardly ever missed a shot with it. I tried the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and didn't see much, if any, improvement in IQ. The only thing making me consider it at the time was that I'd sometimes like that extra stop of aperture but I've read that copies of the 24-70 2.8 can be hit or miss and, the fact that it lacks IS, sealed the deal for me, I kept the 24-105 and never regretted it.
F4 on the 6d is far superior to f2.8 on crop. More subject isolation and lower noise. Of course f2.8 on 6d is better.
The canon mk2 is by far the best optically as you have found. The mk1 is delicate and easily knocked out of true.
If you need is then go for the tamron. It's got a decent reputation, Bokeh isn't as good as the canons due to moulded elements and onion rings but only think the mk2 suffers from that also
The canon mk2 is by far the best optically as you have found. The mk1 is delicate and easily knocked out of true.
If you need is then go for the tamron. It's got a decent reputation, Bokeh isn't as good as the canons due to moulded elements and onion rings but only think the mk2 suffers from that also
RobDickinson said:
F4 on the 6d is far superior to f2.8 on crop. More subject isolation and lower noise. Of course f2.8 on 6d is better.
Cheers everyone, and especially for this, as this made me rethink things a little.It has always been my thought to spend cash on glass rather than bodies, however, it does seem as where I am now, I could spend £800 simply to get a zoom version of lenses I already own, or I could spent £800 upgrading from the 60D to 6D and get more value out of the lenses I already own.
I am thinking of going for the latter!
M4FFU said:
JustinP1 said:
or I could spent £800 upgrading from the 60D to 6D and get more value out of the lenses I already own.
Having recently gone from 7D to 6D, this. However, you mention a 30mm prime. I'm assuming the Sigma one? I think that is crop camera specific so won't work on the 6D. And watch out for your lenses to suddenly become a lot wider than you're used to!
The 30mm Sigma is my favourite lens... Is it definitely all versions? I don't have the newest one (the ART one I believe), it's about 2-3 years old.
M4FFU said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrgoIHPxmE
I correct myself: I think it will work, but to some degree. I think it's more the Canon specific EF-S stuff that might not.
Cheers for that, and the info, I had no idea.I correct myself: I think it will work, but to some degree. I think it's more the Canon specific EF-S stuff that might not.
You are right, it is 'usable' if you like your photos bordered by a black ring...!
I may just keep the 30mm for the Blackmagic camera as that works well on it.
That pushes me back towards getting a 24-70 zoom as well now...
That said, on the cropped 60D I never really wanted for anything wider than 30mm, which is effectively the same as the 50mm prime on the 6D.JustinP1 said:
Oh, cripes....
The 30mm Sigma is my favourite lens... Is it definitely all versions? I don't have the newest one (the ART one I believe), it's about 2-3 years old.
If you love the 30 on crop then a 50 on ff gives you the same look. A cheap 50/1.8 gives you about a stop more isolation than 1.4 on crop. Even the 40mm pancake will be great The 30mm Sigma is my favourite lens... Is it definitely all versions? I don't have the newest one (the ART one I believe), it's about 2-3 years old.
RobDickinson said:
JustinP1 said:
Oh, cripes....
The 30mm Sigma is my favourite lens... Is it definitely all versions? I don't have the newest one (the ART one I believe), it's about 2-3 years old.
If you love the 30 on crop then a 50 on ff gives you the same look. A cheap 50/1.8 gives you about a stop more isolation than 1.4 on crop. Even the 40mm pancake will be great The 30mm Sigma is my favourite lens... Is it definitely all versions? I don't have the newest one (the ART one I believe), it's about 2-3 years old.
I've got a 85mm f1.8 arriving today as well, so I think those will do me to start with.
M4FFU said:
And to add: I got the primes for my 7D as I didn't want to use the high iso's so needed 1.8. However, you'll find them quite useful on the 6D - to the point where I'd think a 2.8 zoom will do you just as well as the 1.8 primes on a crop.
Still. heh. 6D is a decision you will not regret.
I actually had the same thought last night about how my shooting would change with the 6D. At the moment, I've been stuck with primes as I dislike using flash, and my 3 year old daughter is always moving so candid portraits means 1/50 second and above shutter speed.Still. heh. 6D is a decision you will not regret.
The limiting factor was that pushing the ISO on the 60D made a shot possible, but not very nice.
I've seen side by side video footage shot at various ISO setting on the 60D and 6D and the difference is just astounding. The 6D produces good high ISO shots where at the same setting the 60D looks like you are looking at washed-out raster.
I'm thinking now that exactly as you've said that I will get better results in evening/indoor light with an f2.8 24-70 and the 6D than my old setup of an f1.4 prime on the 60D. It will certainly be more flexible as although my current setup gets some nice photos, it is rather limiting in terms of setting up the shot with a prime and not pushing the ISO too much.
In the past I've done a comparison of the 24-105, 24-70 with the same 50D body and the 24-70 was better.
I've just gone from 50D to 5DM3 and also got the 24-70 2.8 II (and a s/h 16-35 2.6II) mainly because I wanted the shallower depth of field of the f2.8 over f4 with IS. What has amazed me is how good the high ISO performance of the 5D (and presumably the 6D) is, phenomenal.
Just tried a quick experiment with the 50mm f1.8 on the 5D which looks pretty good as well (1/125, f1.8, ISO800, RAW conversion in DPP, natural light from window).
I've just gone from 50D to 5DM3 and also got the 24-70 2.8 II (and a s/h 16-35 2.6II) mainly because I wanted the shallower depth of field of the f2.8 over f4 with IS. What has amazed me is how good the high ISO performance of the 5D (and presumably the 6D) is, phenomenal.
Just tried a quick experiment with the 50mm f1.8 on the 5D which looks pretty good as well (1/125, f1.8, ISO800, RAW conversion in DPP, natural light from window).
jumare said:
In the past I've done a comparison of the 24-105, 24-70 with the same 50D body and the 24-70 was better.
I've just gone from 50D to 5DM3 and also got the 24-70 2.8 II (and a s/h 16-35 2.6II) mainly because I wanted the shallower depth of field of the f2.8 over f4 with IS. What has amazed me is how good the high ISO performance of the 5D (and presumably the 6D) is, phenomenal.
Just tried a quick experiment with the 50mm f1.8 on the 5D which looks pretty good as well (1/125, f1.8, ISO800, RAW conversion in DPP, natural light from window).
Is that the 5D with the 50mm prime in your right hand, and the 50D with the 24-70 in your left?I've just gone from 50D to 5DM3 and also got the 24-70 2.8 II (and a s/h 16-35 2.6II) mainly because I wanted the shallower depth of field of the f2.8 over f4 with IS. What has amazed me is how good the high ISO performance of the 5D (and presumably the 6D) is, phenomenal.
Just tried a quick experiment with the 50mm f1.8 on the 5D which looks pretty good as well (1/125, f1.8, ISO800, RAW conversion in DPP, natural light from window).
Was that taken with one of those tilt-shift lenses that makes everything look like a toy-land?
An update chaps - thanks for all your input everyone - I am now the proud owner of a Canon 6d and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.
As you guys had been so good with the recommendations, I thought I'd post back my first thoughts from the weekend shooting in the garden with my 3 year old daughter in case anyone else was considering the 6D and/or the Tamron:
Canon 6D:
Wow, though commonly the advice is invest in glass over bodies, this is a big step up from the 60D.
Even in daylight, where in theory the differences should be minimised, the amount of detail and the smoothness of the image was a big difference. Just for a test I even tried shooting indoors pushing the ISO right up to 10,000, and amazingly, the results are actually usable. Indeed where there is noise it looks quite natural, almost like film grain as oppose to horrible artefacts.
The only bugbear is that the WiFi function means I can share my photos with the internet and DLNA devices yada yada. I have an iPhone for that if I wanted it, but I don't. I just want to get my photos onto my laptop in RAW onto Aperture. But, despite having WiFi, you still have to connect to your laptop with a USB cable. I also spent an hour debugging why it would not connect via USB to find with the WiFi enabled, you can't connect via USB. A trick missed there methinks.
Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.
VC - Vibration control - great. A very strange feeling to look through the viewfinder and see the AF points wobble about on the subject, then when you half depress the shutter it instantly 'locks' to where you can even shake around, and unless you are silly, it locks on perfectly regardless of your shake.
Super for video too, you can shoot at 70mm without a rig, just the camera and lens in hand. A slight quirk in that usually when you would pan you accelerate the pan slowly. With VC on, a very slow pan will mean that it tries to lock onto the original point, until it realises that's not what you want and then 'jumps' into the pan. Not the worst, but a feature to consider.
Zoom Range
As other reviews have stated, the true range is about 24-65. Also, to go from 24-35 mm is about 15mm adjustment on the zoom ring despite the large difference to the 'zoom' of the shot. at the other end, you are turning a comparatively huge amount just to get from 50-Max (65ish). Something you get used to.
IQ
The USP of the lens over the Canon 24-70 f4 and the Canon 24-105 f4 is of course the maximum aperture of f2.8. So, for the first 100 shots or so, I just presumed that f2.8 was going to be the best for the portraits and action I was capturing. With primes this would probably be the max aperture I'd use.
Before I saw the outcome, I also did a comparison and did some more shooting with the Canon 85mm f1.8 prime, stopped down to f2.8 to make a fair comparison.
To give some background, DXOMark rate the IQ of the Tamron as the same overall score as the new Canon 24-70 MKII. So, I was expecting great things.
The outcome - nice. Ish. At f2.8 the subject certainly 'pops' out of the background, and the bokeh is more than acceptable. However, the subject is still a little bit soft. It almost gave a strange effect of a universally slightly soft subject against a beautifully blurred background - it looked a little like on some occasions that my daughter was a flat, printed life size cutout slightly out of focus, which was strange.
Maybe I'm picky. However, I probably have high expectations shooting exclusively with the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 primes previously. What I found was that the 85mm prime, despite the DXOMark score suggesting the outcome would be similar, it was still better. At f2.8 the subject wasn't flat at all, much more '3D' and the amount of detail resolved from the full frame 6D was quite staggering.
In post production, for the Tamron I had to increase the sharpness in the RAW processing to maximum to get near the sharpness of the prime achieved straight out of the camera.
So, yesterday I instead did a load of shots at f4 with the Tamron, and in short it was much better. Some really nice, detailed photos with none of the softness often seen at f2.8. Now the shots really are comparable to the Canon primes - which for a zoom is saying something.
Do I love it, will I keep it?
I have considered I may have a 'variable' copy of the lens due to the softness problem. If I decide to keep it, I will definitely ask for another. I bought from Jessops, luckily, considering the nightmare a poster had on another thread with a grey-import. Another plus is the 5 year warranty.
Another annoyance is whereby I understand in Lightroom the lens is recognised, in the 6D it does not recognise the profile of the lens, and Aperture thinks it is a Sigma 24-70. So, whilst the profile may be similar to the Sigma, it's not going to be identical, and the distortion and CA may not be optimised.
Vignetting - Wide open you can see it reasonably easily. Though, it may be that due to the above, it is not being corrected. The corners do look noticeably darker then the rest of the photo. That's being picky though, maybe, some like that effect.
Range - I'm using this on full frame, and whilst it would have suited by shooting style perfectly with a crop sensor, it always seemed a little short. For a lot of the photos I did, I was using it at 70mm. I'd also say that 95% of the photos I took were 50-70mm (or 65mm as it maxes out to).
Whilst there are the upsides, there is a nagging in me, and the perfectionist in me telling me that for just over half the price of the £800 Tamron, I can get the Sigma 85mm f1.4 prime second hand, which in IQ stakes rates better than the Canon 85 f1.2. It's actually on the DXOMark scores, the best lens for the 6D. I can even sell my Canon 85mm prime and it'll only cost me £200 difference.
The variables that are left is that if Aperture update the lens profiles, this may solve some of the sharpness and vignetting issues. My other thought is that my feelings towards the lens amy be downgraded as I may have a slightly 'out' copy, which seeing online is a possibility.
So, overall, a strong 7/10. Recommended, especially if the little bugs I had don't apply to your shooting methodology.
As you guys had been so good with the recommendations, I thought I'd post back my first thoughts from the weekend shooting in the garden with my 3 year old daughter in case anyone else was considering the 6D and/or the Tamron:
Canon 6D:
Wow, though commonly the advice is invest in glass over bodies, this is a big step up from the 60D.
Even in daylight, where in theory the differences should be minimised, the amount of detail and the smoothness of the image was a big difference. Just for a test I even tried shooting indoors pushing the ISO right up to 10,000, and amazingly, the results are actually usable. Indeed where there is noise it looks quite natural, almost like film grain as oppose to horrible artefacts.
The only bugbear is that the WiFi function means I can share my photos with the internet and DLNA devices yada yada. I have an iPhone for that if I wanted it, but I don't. I just want to get my photos onto my laptop in RAW onto Aperture. But, despite having WiFi, you still have to connect to your laptop with a USB cable. I also spent an hour debugging why it would not connect via USB to find with the WiFi enabled, you can't connect via USB. A trick missed there methinks.
Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.
VC - Vibration control - great. A very strange feeling to look through the viewfinder and see the AF points wobble about on the subject, then when you half depress the shutter it instantly 'locks' to where you can even shake around, and unless you are silly, it locks on perfectly regardless of your shake.
Super for video too, you can shoot at 70mm without a rig, just the camera and lens in hand. A slight quirk in that usually when you would pan you accelerate the pan slowly. With VC on, a very slow pan will mean that it tries to lock onto the original point, until it realises that's not what you want and then 'jumps' into the pan. Not the worst, but a feature to consider.
Zoom Range
As other reviews have stated, the true range is about 24-65. Also, to go from 24-35 mm is about 15mm adjustment on the zoom ring despite the large difference to the 'zoom' of the shot. at the other end, you are turning a comparatively huge amount just to get from 50-Max (65ish). Something you get used to.
IQ
The USP of the lens over the Canon 24-70 f4 and the Canon 24-105 f4 is of course the maximum aperture of f2.8. So, for the first 100 shots or so, I just presumed that f2.8 was going to be the best for the portraits and action I was capturing. With primes this would probably be the max aperture I'd use.
Before I saw the outcome, I also did a comparison and did some more shooting with the Canon 85mm f1.8 prime, stopped down to f2.8 to make a fair comparison.
To give some background, DXOMark rate the IQ of the Tamron as the same overall score as the new Canon 24-70 MKII. So, I was expecting great things.
The outcome - nice. Ish. At f2.8 the subject certainly 'pops' out of the background, and the bokeh is more than acceptable. However, the subject is still a little bit soft. It almost gave a strange effect of a universally slightly soft subject against a beautifully blurred background - it looked a little like on some occasions that my daughter was a flat, printed life size cutout slightly out of focus, which was strange.
Maybe I'm picky. However, I probably have high expectations shooting exclusively with the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 primes previously. What I found was that the 85mm prime, despite the DXOMark score suggesting the outcome would be similar, it was still better. At f2.8 the subject wasn't flat at all, much more '3D' and the amount of detail resolved from the full frame 6D was quite staggering.
In post production, for the Tamron I had to increase the sharpness in the RAW processing to maximum to get near the sharpness of the prime achieved straight out of the camera.
So, yesterday I instead did a load of shots at f4 with the Tamron, and in short it was much better. Some really nice, detailed photos with none of the softness often seen at f2.8. Now the shots really are comparable to the Canon primes - which for a zoom is saying something.
Do I love it, will I keep it?
I have considered I may have a 'variable' copy of the lens due to the softness problem. If I decide to keep it, I will definitely ask for another. I bought from Jessops, luckily, considering the nightmare a poster had on another thread with a grey-import. Another plus is the 5 year warranty.
Another annoyance is whereby I understand in Lightroom the lens is recognised, in the 6D it does not recognise the profile of the lens, and Aperture thinks it is a Sigma 24-70. So, whilst the profile may be similar to the Sigma, it's not going to be identical, and the distortion and CA may not be optimised.
Vignetting - Wide open you can see it reasonably easily. Though, it may be that due to the above, it is not being corrected. The corners do look noticeably darker then the rest of the photo. That's being picky though, maybe, some like that effect.
Range - I'm using this on full frame, and whilst it would have suited by shooting style perfectly with a crop sensor, it always seemed a little short. For a lot of the photos I did, I was using it at 70mm. I'd also say that 95% of the photos I took were 50-70mm (or 65mm as it maxes out to).
Whilst there are the upsides, there is a nagging in me, and the perfectionist in me telling me that for just over half the price of the £800 Tamron, I can get the Sigma 85mm f1.4 prime second hand, which in IQ stakes rates better than the Canon 85 f1.2. It's actually on the DXOMark scores, the best lens for the 6D. I can even sell my Canon 85mm prime and it'll only cost me £200 difference.
The variables that are left is that if Aperture update the lens profiles, this may solve some of the sharpness and vignetting issues. My other thought is that my feelings towards the lens amy be downgraded as I may have a slightly 'out' copy, which seeing online is a possibility.
So, overall, a strong 7/10. Recommended, especially if the little bugs I had don't apply to your shooting methodology.
RobDickinson said:
Make sure the 24-70 is hitting focus properly, can easily be misinterpreted as softness
You may be correct and the focus is slightly out throughout the range, and this is only noticeable wide open. It's not intermittent, it's on every shot.That was my first thought. Of course at f1.4 and f1.8 you get variable results as even a subject's nose and eyes are on different planes.
However, at f2.8 there should be enough at that width of sharp focus area to get a sharp photo.
Just took a few portraits indoors last night at stopped down to f4 it took some beautiful shots, even preferable to the other test shots I did with the Canon 85mm f1.8 at f4.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff