Canon 24-105 f/4 IS vs Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Hey everyone. Thanks in advanced if you answer this.

Currently I have a Canon 20D with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (which I love). It's a nice sharp lens and i love the f2.8 for hand "hold-ability" and DOF. But I find it a bit small a zoom range and would like something a bit wider as well. I've come to realize I don't like changing lenses so I'd really like one main lens. So I was thinking about the new Canon 24-105 f/4 IS (This has a pretty attractive zoom range I think.). The reviews seem good, so...

Question # 1:
Do you think the image quality is as good or better than the Tamron?

Question #2:

What do you think about the f2.8 versus f4. I know the IS helps a lot but how much of a difference will I see if trying to stop action? Will it be minor?

Question #3:

How do you think these compare, or in other words... which would you rather have on your camera if you could only choose one?

Thanks again,
Dan
--
instructor, graphic designer
Adobe Certified Expert
Adobe Certified Instructor

http://www.danrodney.com

I should probably add that I especially like to do night photography.

--
instructor, graphic designer
Adobe Certified Expert
Adobe Certified Instructor

http://www.danrodney.com

danrodney said:

Hey everyone. Thanks in advanced if you answer this.
Currently I have a Canon 20D with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (which I
love). It's a nice sharp lens and i love the f2.8 for hand
"hold-ability" and DOF. But I find it a bit small a zoom range and
would like something a bit wider as well. I've come to realize I
don't like changing lenses so I'd really like one main lens. So I
was thinking about the new Canon 24-105 f/4 IS (This has a pretty
attractive zoom range I think.). The reviews seem good, so...

Click to expand...

i made the switch from the tamon to the 24-105L too.

danrodney said:

Question # 1:
Do you think the image quality is as good or better than the Tamron?

Click to expand...

the tamron is sharper but not by much. tamron bokeh is better. canon color and contrast are the best. bokeh sucks on the canon in some cases.

danrodney said:

Question #2:
What do you think about the f2.8 versus f4. I know the IS helps a
lot but how much of a difference will I see if trying to stop
action? Will it be minor?

Click to expand...

tamron isn't as good at f2.8 as say the canon 27-70L but my 24-105 wasn't as good @ f4 as my 17-40L.

danrodney said:

Question #3:
How do you think these compare, or in other words... which would
you rather have on your camera if you could only choose one?

Click to expand...

the canon. it's longer, wider and has excellent color and contrast. the canon is an excellent walkaround but isn't a great portrait lens and has average to terrible bokeh.

btw, i sold the 24-105L and now own the 24-70L .

ed rader

danrodney said:

Thanks again,
Dan
--
instructor, graphic designer
Adobe Certified Expert
Adobe Certified Instructor

http://www.danrodney.com

Click to expand...

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

for static objects at night the 24-105L would be hard to beat. the only short/mid zoom that can beat it handheld would be the 17-55, imo.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

question #4

with the money (needed to buy the 24-105) will I be happier with a 5D and the tamron?

yes

a 5D with a tamron will be better than a 20D with the 24-105 (in my opinion)

anyhow: Ive been shooting with the tamron, the 24-70L and the 24-105L and I came to this conclusion:

the only problem I have with the tamron is the color interpretation (in particular with a flash, in particular with red faced appearing randomly)

This means that over a shooting of (say) 200 pics I need to dedicate quite a bit of time correcting in PP.

For the rest, considering the price, it's a real embarrassment for Canon to ask for so much more money given the unbelievable sharpness of the tamron.

IS is a good thing, of course: it's good to have but there are circumstances where you can only shoot 2.8 800ISO with no flash allowed (boxing for example)

I'd say to keep the tamron and consider the 5D upgrade instead

100%
Made the switch myself and everything Ed said i found as well.
The 28-75 f/2.8 was the sharpest lens i have ever owned but i needed more reach.
I think the 24-105L is a lot more usfull though. f/2.8 isnt that much faster.

I have indoor party shots that i took with both the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 24-105L and both handled the situation well but with the Canon producing less blurred shots so i dont think the f/2.8 - f/4.0 is a big deal for low light shooting. IS helped a lot, and yes, people were moving but i still got the shots, just not a higher % of keepers but more than with f/2.8
Just my findings though.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

I currently have both the Tamron 28-75, the Canon 24-70L and the 24-105 in my posession.

danrodney said:

Question # 1:
Do you think the image quality is as good or better than the Tamron?

Click to expand...

My 24-105L is sharper at its center than the other two standard ranged lenses. The Tamron is a bit sharper at its center than the 24-70L, but the difference can be found at the corners, where the two Canons are one to two steps sharper than the Tamron. That's a pretty big difference and you will notice it when you're shooting at apertures
The Tamron also has a warmer color cast than the two Canons.

danrodney said:

Question #2:
What do you think about the f2.8 versus f4. I know the IS helps a
lot but how much of a difference will I see if trying to stop
action? Will it be minor?

Click to expand...

Simple: IS does nothing when it comes to stopping action. IS allows you to use slower shutterspeeds. If that's better depends on the situation. For a stopped down evening scenery picture without a tripod, IS beats the f/2.8. When you want to stop action, f/2.8 beats IS.

danrodney said:

Question #3:
How do you think these compare, or in other words... which would
you rather have on your camera if you could only choose one?

Click to expand...

If you're using a crop camera, you won't see a difference, other than the warmer color cast, between the Tamron and the Canons. When you go full frame, get one of the Canons.... or both..

Thanks everyone so far for the comments.

Gium, it seems as though you are saying that the image quality of the Canon 24-105 is very good. So being used to the Tamron, it's fair to say i won't be disappointed with the optical quality of the Canon?

So if it compares to the Tamron, since the Canon has a larger range that is more desirable to me, it sounds like it would be a better walk around lens for me right? Stopping action is nice, but it's not the most important feature for me. I like to get night shots, but often avoid action and go for scenery. While it's nice to have that ability, I will keep my Tamron for those situations.

MarkLe's comment about a 5D is interesting, but that camera is twice the cost of the Canon 24-105 lens and lacks a built in flash. I know the built in flash isn't the greatest, but I shoot in many situations where I just can't lug a big flash around (and I don't own one). So that puts the 5D out of the running. Plus, I use longer zooms more than wide angle. I need wide angle occasionally, but tend to lean towards longer zooms. That's another reason why the Canon (on a 20D) is appealing. I get a bit more wide angle and more zoom and am happy on both ends. So I am just concerned about optical quality and aperture issues.

Thanks and keep the comments rolling. Considering the most expensive lens I've bought was the Tamron, I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing spending before spending over $1000.

Thanks,
Dan

--
instructor, graphic designer
Adobe Certified Expert
Adobe Certified Instructor

http://www.danrodney.com

I have also owned both but find the Tamron as good as the Canon F4 . As I dont do many portaits however others may differ .
Martin

Hi,

I bought the Tamron about 1 year ago for my 350D but had to return it a few weeks later as it was front-focussing quite badly. The dealer didn't have any more in stock so I bought a 24-105, just intending to play with over the weekend, and still have it...

In my opinion the pros are:

• very good (though maybe not excellent) image quality across the zoom range, across the frame and from wide open
• very forgiving of an amateur's lowly techniques!
• amazing low light handhold ability

And the cons:

• well, I won't say price because I have never had a single regret since bying it
• not as discrete as the Tamron for street photography
• bokeh is not great and F4 is not wide enough to get nice shallow DoF on a crop sensor at these focal lengths

What suits you best only you can answer, but I'd certainly suggest you try one out with a local dealer.

rfk.

Is it an issue of bokeh or more than that? I had read by those with both that the 105 had everything the 70 has except f/2.8. I guess it's more complicated than that?

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

Just because IS wont stop action it doesnt mean its not usefull for shooting moving objects. at 75mm you can get camera shake even though the shutter speed it fast enough to capture movment. and not every thing moves real fast unless your shooting sports action.
Like i said above having IS i got better lowlight people shots than using f/2.8

Plus shooting at f/4 will give a bigger DOF than f/2.8 and so may also be better in low light for somethings like kids moving around
IMHO of course but also from shooting with both
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

the 24-70L (my copy) has better IQ too. both are great lenses and the only two i would consider as a walkaround.

it's just that with the 24-105L i felt i was taking snaphots because it does not have the creative aspect of the 24-70L.

i used the 24-105L for eight months and thousands of pictures so it's a great lens but wanted a bit more out of my walkaround lens.

ed rader

--



'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

Question # 1:
Do you think the image quality is as good or better than the Tamron?

Yes every bit as good if not better.

Question #2:

What do you think about the f2.8 versus f4. I know the IS helps a lot but how much of a difference will I see if trying to stop action? Will it be minor?

IS helps a lot but you cannot replace the ability to create out of focus areas that you get with the 2.8

Question #3:

How do you think these compare, or in other words... which would you rather have on your camera if you could only choose one?

I had both and sold the 24-105 and picked up a 17-35 tamron to go with the 28-75. I found I missed the 2.8 too much for portraits. Also I did not like the distortion of the 24-105 at 24. For any type of photography shooting buildings or structures it was not usable for me. The 17-35 works much better at 24mm.

ed rader said:

it's just that with the 24-105L i felt i was taking snaphots
because it does not have the creative aspect of the 24-70L.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what you mean by "creative aspect." Is it the better bokeh or something more? Thx
--
Rick

richardkra said:

Thanks everyone so far for the comments.
Gium, it seems as though you are saying that the image quality of
the Canon 24-105 is very good. So being used to the Tamron, it's
fair to say i won't be disappointed with the optical quality of the
Canon?

Click to expand...

You won't be disappointed by the optical quality of the Canon.

richardkra said:

ed rader said:

it's just that with the 24-105L i felt i was taking snaphots
because it does not have the creative aspect of the 24-70L.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what you mean by "creative aspect." Is it the
better bokeh or something more? Thx
--
Rick

Click to expand...

I think it is the ability to isolate your subject with the shallower DOF, combined with the better looking bokeh that surrounds your subject. The 24-70 is better at this than the 24-105.

danrodney said:

Thanks everyone so far for the comments.
Gium, it seems as though you are saying that the image quality of
the Canon 24-105 is very good. So being used to the Tamron, it's
fair to say i won't be disappointed with the optical quality of the
Canon?

Click to expand...

Just be aware that you "may" at first be dissapointed, only for maybe a day. I have seen lots of posts (including mine) where we have spent all that money and expected maybe a bit more than we get.

When i got mine (and i was already aware that IQ wasnt going to be a big leap) i was dissapointed that my shots looked the same as with my Tamron. after about 100 shots i began to see that they were indeed better. the main thing was i found i was getting better colour and contrast with the 24-105L that i hadnt seen in any of my other (cheaper) lens's. plus focus was faster and more acurate.

The cost of the 24-105L has a lot to do with build and IS as well as IQ but its such a nice versitile lens i dont regret getting in to debt over it ;-)

--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

I recently was faced with the same issue... and I decided that a good all-around walking lens was more practical, than the 2.8 alone.

I sold my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L lens and just recently purchased Canon 24-105 f4IS. I couldn't be happier with the results.

I just got back from Portugal 2 weeks ago... you can check out some of my pics.

http://samvieira.smugmug.com/gallery/2002756

don't think too much... Just do it !!!

regards,
boabica

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4298510&a=32248569&f=

The last photo is with a different lens.

in many instances like when 2.8 isn't enough anyway, the Canon did better than my Tamron 2.8 as far as clean shots. I also have the Tam 17-50, and although it's a nice addition to compliment the Canon 24-105IS, I feel confident that the IS is a major factor, and added to the longer range, it is definitely the better walkaround. I hate changing lenses too. 85% of the time I use the 24-105.

In most instances bokeh on any lens will be better at the f2.8 range than f4 anyway. So you can say that the 24-105IS would not be as good in that respect, it does not mean that it is a flaw of any kind.

On that note, I wouldn't choose the 24-105 for my main portrait, but it does the job as well or better job as any other lens at f4. The IS is fabulous. I've hand held at 1/8 sec no prob. You won't get that with the Tamrons.
--



Linda~ http://sweetlight.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/362
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown