Which 24-70mm f/2.8 EF mount lens?

Pretty straight forward...I need a zoom in this range. If you *had* to pick one of the following, which one would it be? If you care to add "why" that would be helpful.

Note: the $1900 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM is NOT on the list...lol

Like every other question like this that is asked on DPReview the answer is it depends.

On what you want to shoot.

My choice is the EF 24-70mm f/4L because my shooting is mostly stopped down and if I'm in situations where I want a fast aperture I'm going to want a prime that's faster than f/2.8.

trulandphoto wrote:

Like every other question like this that is asked on DPReview the answer is it depends.

On what you want to shoot.

My choice is the EF 24-70mm f/4L because my shooting is mostly stopped down and if I'm in situations where I want a fast aperture I'm going to want a prime that's faster than f/2.8.

Ahh…I appreciate the reply, and I do get the sentiment, I really do.

But-what I want to shoot subject-wise anyway, is not really that relevant to the question. I want to shoot at f/2.8 between 24-70mm. If f/4 worked for my needs I would have put three f/4 lenses up with the same question. Or even better, Inwould just pick up the 24-105mm f/4 IS II. (I already have four fast primes in that range already, but a fast zoom in that range is a pretty handy tool of it can produce the right results).

If someone has had a good or bad experience with the Sigma or Tamron, that would be helpful to me (and others?) in making a decision.

I really like Canon’s L lenses, but I have heard reports that the Sigma and Tamron outperform the version I from Canon, AND have stabilization. All three are around the $1000 mark (Canon would be used , but the Sigma and Tamron are like $1100 new). The Sigma and Tamron can be had for around $700 used from what I’ve seen which is a great deal if they can keep up with the Canon image-wise.

Anyway…

I would rather toss it up here than wade through reviews and MFT charts elsewhere. Just looking for some real-world opinions from people in the field. I figured it was a pretty simple thing to ask honestly.

Thanks for your thoughts.

You don't really have to "wade through reviews".

Just look at something like this as a starting point;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1119&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

and ;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1144&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I am not suggesting that it provides a definitive answer to your question, but might help with some insight.

Colin

I'd be getting mk 2.  That is my real choice would be f/4 L, but if we are talking about f/2.8 I would not be looking at anything else.

Now the discussion is getting helpful…

Thank you gentlemen, not exactly what I want to hear-“BUY THE CANON EF 24-70 f/2.8 II!” Lol, but helpful nonetheless less…

ALSO-the Tamron is getting some attention but the Sigma is not. Also helpful.

Did you have a look at the TDP links I posted above and compare the lenses at different focal lengths and apertures ?

Colin

Andy01 wrote:

Did you have a look at the TDP links I posted above and compare the lenses at different focal lengths and apertures ?

Colin

Yes, I did actually take a look at those. And I do appreciate the time you took to post them.

Though what I am interested in hearing are the personal experiences of people who are using, or have used these lenses on a regular basis. A broader sample group than the typical single sample “review”. I have seen charts that were the exact opposite of each other, so much so that the reviewers had to seek out a second or even third sample to find a “good one”.

I have read reviews of the Canon version 1 that said it was wonderful and others that said it was a dog. Same with the Tamron and the Sigma.

To be honest, judging by the popularity of this range zoom, I kinda thought that there would be at least a hundred responses-at least to the poll. Three days later and we have what-7? LOL! On a forum of this size there are only 7 people using a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens that cared enough to answer? Lol.

Just scratching my head a little bit that’s all.

So answers like-why do you need f/2.8? Or, Why don’t you get the F/4.0? Or, just buy the ($1900!!!) Canon ver. II! Are really not getting me what I am after. (Your links did help somewhat to give me a general idea of the differences).

So what am I after?

”Had the Sigma…shots were sharp, but the AF just could not keep up so I bought the Canon.”

”I do mostly portrait and event work and replaced my Canon ver. I with the Tamron G2. WOW! What a difference it made having IS!”

“For me, the color and contrast of the ver. 1 Canon more than makes you for any loss of sharpness compared to the Sigma.”

There are like 400 posts on the Canon 100-400mm (OK, a bit of an exaggeration…lol). So ask about three of the most popular 24-70mm zooms and ….. (Surely I must be Incredibly Invisible! Haha).

Curious if you have a 24-70mm f/2.8 , and which one you have if you do? What do you think of it?

All The Best!

I actually don't have any 24-70mm lens. I have had the 24-105L (original) and now have the 24-105L ii (and a few other EF lenses). So, unfortunately I have no experience first hand with any of them.

I assume that you have done a search in this and the other Canon forums for threads about 24-70mm lenses - I realise that sifting through dozens of threads is more time consuming than getting direct answers here, but since you are not getting many suitable answers .....

I would suspect that part of the problem is that many people who have bought R bodies (especially the R5 & R6 - did you say which body you had ?) bought them because they wanted a step-up in performance and compromising that performance by using a "old-tech" or 3rd party zoom may not be that common. I see lots of thread (in the R forum especially) about people talking about 3rd party primes (especially Art lenses) and 3rd party long zooms (15-600mm & 60-600mm), but short 3rd party zooms seem to be less common (in the Canon forums, especially the R forum).

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=tamron%2024-70&forum=1060&only-threads=yes

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=sigma%2024-70&forum=1029&only-threads=yes

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=canon%2024-70&forum=1029&only-threads=yes

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=sigma%2024-70&forum=1070&only-threads=yes

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=tamron%2024-70&forum=1070&only-threads=yes

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=canon%20ef%2024-70&forum=1070&only-threads=yes

You could modify the searches to be more specific to the exact lenses you mention ? Anyway good luck in your search.

Colin

Canon mark ii is available on the used market for pretty reasonable prices these days. I paid €1,100 for a mint copy recently. You might pay less for one in less good condition. Something to think about maybe.

Go for the original Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens.

MannyV wrote:

I have Tamron 24-70 G2 version. I use it RP + original Canon mount adapter. Works fine. Actually more than fine it works great 🙂

Thank you.

The Tamron has my attention. I currently have  aTamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 that is a really good lens.

I sold my ancient Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and have found that I really miss it as a general purpose walk-around lens…

Which led me to this post…lol

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/canon/

I voted "None of the above" because the options didn't include a used copy of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II. This is the route I ended up taking, getting a pristine copy for £950 GBP (this was a couple of years ago of course).

Initially I'd set my sights on the Tamron having had a great experience with the SP 45mm but I got two bad copies in a row; one clearly had some bad electronics and the other had severe and obvious optical misalignment issues. Had I tried a 3rd I might have lucked out, but two consecutive duds is my limit. I also considered the Sigma but in the reviews I'd seen, Canon's f/2.8 II was more consistent across the range and I wanted decent 70mm performance at f/2.8 more than I wanted image stabilization.

Anyway I saw a used copy of Canon's (then) flagship 24-70 at a price I could afford with a limited warranty and good return options, and I took the gamble. It worked out very well indeed. Unless I need to go faster than f/2.8 I'm happy to use the zoom in place of my primes - it is that good. AF performance with my previous mirrored bodies was consistently fast and trustworthy; with my mirrorless bodies it's at least as good if not better.

My acquittance uses a Tamron on his Mark IV, he likes it a lot.

I haven't tried it yet, but I've some experience with Tamron 70-200 2.8 - awesome lens, and good buy...