CANON 24-70mm f/2.8 vs TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stephen Joe Payne on February 14, 2012 at 7:22pm

I just wonder, that if you are renting, why not rent the Canon lens you seem most interested in?  I try to stay with Canon lenses for my camera, mostly for the E-TTL advantages.  Most of the less expensive lens providers obtain their knowledge of Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al lenses by reverse engineering.  That can get very good results and it can also get spotty results.  I've had good experiences with Tamron and other lens manufacturers; however, the more I learn from the writers I read makes me believe in the OEM for the lenses for each specific camera.  The end result though is, the lens you have and use is far better than not having a lens for the range of subjects and themes for which you buy the lens.  I was fortunate to get the money to buy my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, which is not inexpensive, but had I not been able to, at some point I would have opted for one of the other lenses so that I could at least make the shots I want.  I bought a Canon 85mm f/2.8 lens for portrait because it was a $400+/- lens while the 85mm f/1.2 was and is the lens I really wanted.  It sells for around $1,900+/- and so it is a bit in my future.  But I have made many photographs with the 85mm f2.8 that I do own and I would not have made those photographs had I not bought the $400 lens.  Smart thinking would suggest that instead of spending that $400 for the lens, had I saved that much and added to it, I would likely now have the more expensive lens.  I don't function that way very well, saving for the long term that is.  So I don't regret getting that lens, nor any other.  Get what you can; for one thing, you might always be able to sell that first lens later and buy the Canon; I prefer Canon but desperate men (and women) have desperate ways and I've certainly been desperate at times.  My wants and perceived needs will always exceed my income but when I lack income, the next best thing has always been the best thing.  I'm a long timer motorcycle rider and we have a saying; "The best bike is the one in your garage at the time."  You might want a Harley but you'll be happy riding a substitute until the right bike comes along.  And my best advice is to not take advice since we all make mistakes.  I think you will be happy with whatever choice you make as long as you don't second guess yourself after you make it.  Ah yes, I remember now.  The other lenses I have used with my Minolta camera were Tokina and they were just fine since I did not have the same lens by Minolta.  Best wishes to you with whatever you decide.

Stephen Joe "Red Boots" Payne

Permalink Reply by Janna Slaback on February 14, 2012 at 8:52pm

Thanks so much, Stephen! I should have added that I did rent the Canon 24-70mm for the wedding (the photo that I attached) and then I rented it again when I was going to Boston to take photos of my pregnant daughter. That's why I know I LOVE it and must have it ... however, I want to smart with my money and so that is why I have decided to RENT the Tamron. do some shoots with it and then decide if the quality of photos is comparable to the lens that is nearly twice as expensive.

 

It is so difficult to just use the lenses that I have and wait until I have the entire $1300 saved up because the lenses that I have clearly do not do the job that the better quality lenses produce. So there's the tension....I'm excited to try the Tamron. We'll see what happens.

 

Oh my how I would love to have that 70-200mm lens! That FOR SURE is on my wish list! Wouldn't it be awesome to have a money tree? BUT I am not so foolish as to believe that it's equally as much about the talent and skill of the photographer ... the photos are, after all, only as good as the one pushing the shutter ... however, those lenses sure do help make us produce more succesful photos, don't they!

 

Thanks so much for your input! I'll let you know how I like/love/don't like/don't love the photos that are produced with the Tamron. I can't wait!!

 

Warmly,

Janna

 

Permalink Reply by Uneeb Ullah Malik on February 15, 2012 at 9:05pm

Janna,

For the wedding photography in particular, I am comfortable with 10mm-22mm lens because of groups and confined spaces and it also costs around $800. 

For your question in particular, I used TAMRON and SIGMA, found SIGMA slightly better. But 24 -70 mm indeed is a great lens and unmatched when it comes to third party lens manufacturers.

Permalink Reply by Alex M. Souza on February 15, 2012 at 6:45am

Hello Janna,
I had an experience comparing Sigma lenses, Tamron and Canon. Currently I make every effort to use only Canon lenses for two reasons:
- The advantages of E-TTL as Stephen emphasized and
- The accuracy and speed of the autofocus system.

More: if I had to make this decision today I would opt for the new 24-70mm II.
Regards.

Permalink Reply by Reg Warboys on February 15, 2012 at 6:57am

Janna I use the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 the older version, no stabilizer, I love it maybe I have a good copy , its sharp, check out this image,     http://www.picturesocial.com/photo/mr-angry?context=user      many of my images are shot using the Tamron.

Permalink Reply by Jalexa Photography on February 16, 2012 at 4:03pm

I love my tamron 17-50, but I did not compare it to the canon l.

Permalink Reply by Alan Ang on February 21, 2012 at 5:41am

 

 If I am in your position, i would rather save my money to get the len I always wanted rather than buying something that I don't like at a cheaper price and then regret later. If you have set your target at the canon 24-70 why would you settle for a tamron?

You really can't compare the canon 24-70 with the tamron 17-50 as both are of different grade and range.

Hope you get what I mean.

Permalink Reply by Janna Slaback on February 22, 2012 at 6:50pm

Thanks everyone .... so I have been renting the Tamron and I don't know if it's just that lens, but I am so not a fan ... to save $900 you'd think that it would be pretty difficult to not force myself to love it, but I just don't. It's loud. It's slow. I'm going to save up for the Canon ....

 

Also .... my LCD (on my T3i)  isn't working now. It's the kind of LCD that flips out and the other day I wanted to take a picture of some small children from a very low perspective so I decided to use the flip out screen. The shutter clicks, but nothing shows up on the screen. If I just want to look through the LCD which I do about .5% of the time, it won't take the photo either .... anybody have any advice about this situation?  I'm thinking I'm gonna have to get Canon involved as I'm still in the first year of the warranty and I've pretty much decided to buy the 2 year extended warranty plan.

 

Thanks in advance. Just to make sure that this message gets seen by the forum, I'm posting this last part in a separate discussion.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Reg Warboys on February 23, 2012 at 4:03am

Janna before you give up on the Tamron have your camera seen to, maybe its not only the flip out screen thats at fault.

Could be you have a one.

The 24/70 is a great lens , so is my Tamron,      On your T3i the 24/70 is not so wide an angle as the 17/50.

Permalink Reply by Richard Crowe on February 24, 2012 at 8:11am

The 24-70L is a superlative lens with only a few drawbacks...

 

1.  It is quite heavy and balances better on my 7D than it did for me on a Rebel. However a Rebel with the battery grip balances quite nicely...

2. The short end of the lens is not quite wide enough (IMO) for general purpose and travel shooting when used on a 1.6x format camera.  However, the 24mm (38.4mm equivalent) is fine for wedding or event photography because I don't like to use wide lenses when shooting people due to distortion. I am adept at posing groups so that I don't need a UWA lens to cover the group...

3. It doesn't have IS which is quite a nice feature.  I am sorry for full-frame shooters that the 24-70L ii doesn't include IS capability.

 

I bought my 24-70L several years ago right after the 24-105mm f/4L IS was introduced.  Many photographers dumped their 24-70L lenses in favor of the new kid on the block and there was a momentary drop in the used price of the 24-70L.  This might happen now that the 24-70L ii has been introduced but, would DEFINITELY have occurred if Canon had included IS in the new lens...

 

I cannot qualify the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 against the 24-70L as far as quality goes because I have never used the Tamron.  On the other hand, I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on my 7D and I would definitely prefer the focal range of the 24-70L for wedding and event photography.  I once owned both lenses but since I no longer do wedding or event photography, I sold my 24-70L. 

 

I use my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens in conjunction with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras (40D and 7D) for general and travel photography.  I love that combination for those uses but, don't think that I would like it for wedding use because I would want the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens for that use.  But, then again, I would not be carrying the lens for 8-12 hours of walk around shooting.

 

I might enjoy using the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens in tandem with the 85mm f/1.8  Canon lenses on a pair of 1.6x cameras for wedding and event photography and I would not be adverse to pairing a Tamron 17-50mm with the 85mm f/1.8 for a low cost wedding and event option.  I would still want a second mid-range zoom in case the Tamron went down.  I would not necessarily need a second 85mm lens because I could cover a wedding or event quite well with the 17-50mm Tamron alone...

 

You REALLY should have a second camera for wedding shoots.  It would provide a safety feature in case one camera goes down...