At first glance and how 99.99% of people would view a photo like that - indistinguishable. The only diiference folks notice are those that pixel peep and actually look for some kind of difference. At the end of the day the Tamron can be had for half the price plus the Tamron has IS and therefore will result in more keepers. For my style of shooting 2.8 is used to blur backgrounds and for landscapes/buildings I'm not shooting wide open anyways. Great video and thanks for helping me make up my mind. The Tamron's at great prices rn.
I respect your opinion and review, but I have the Tamron and never experienced issues. My photos will not be featured in any magazine, so a little vignetting on the corners is no problem for me. I love my lens
I've had the Canon mount G2 for a few years--AND the 150-600 G2. Both are superb. Rest of my lenses are Canon, save for three Rokinon maual lenses that I use for astro.
Thanks! Unfortunately, this one is just a correction of a previous video... I accidentally included a couple of photos that shouldn't have been in it. BUT I discovered the problem because I'm working on a new video that required those photos :-) New video will be coming soon.
Nice comparison, Matthew! Although I've already made my decision to keep the Canon over the Tamron for my shooting needs, it was nice to see a more scientific comparison!
Very good review :) Just dont forget that you can make the Tamron better with software updates and adjusting the AF to your camera with the Tap in Consol.
A good point... if I didn't mention firmware updates for the Tamron in the video, I meant to :-) Still, the Tamron did better than the Sigma (I posted that video today).
In some country at the end of 2018, the difference is now much more between the two lenses, and even if you have to buy the Tamron Tap-in to solve ALL autofocus issue you can have (included the one you had in movement) TAMARON is a no brain best buy. If you want incredible quality any way you need to use prime lenses. The G2 does fantastic autofocus job once is tuned for your camera, if you don't buy a tap-in you can find someone that can do it for you for 30$ or less. The only reason I am suggesting to buy the Canon lens is if you exchange often the lens between different cameras body
Excellent video. Seems like the Canon lens is better overall (I'm a Nikon shooter). But I would still get the Tamron because it's cheaper and most people won't see the difference when you upload to Facebook and Instagram.
With the G2 being sooo close to the Canon in terms of sharpness and the rest; 17:41 is all that matters. Period full stop. At least for me. I know I’m late to the party, but I still shoot SLR. There’s no reason for me, being a photo only shooter, to GAS myself into a mirrorless anything. The time came for me to get a quality everyday carry lens. A 24-70. 2.8. I recently picked up a Canon 35mm 1.4II L and thus I’m set for an unbelievably tack sharp prime. For less than $1k used In mint condition; because anyone who owns that type of glass babies it. The used EF market is so good right now. I’ve likely watched every SLR 24-70 2.8 Review clip and I must say, the Tamron G2 kinda came out of nowhere for me. It’s previous version is such a cheapy lens that I admittedly overlooked it at first. I was pretty much set on the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, because, why not? It is technically the “best” and prices have come down enough now that it’s really an affordable option for such a pro level piece of glass. But then I started searching hand held real world examples. IMO, and many others, there is simply no contest, the Tamron G2 is the very best SLR 24-70 2.8, because it’s comparably as sharp as the Canon II when pixel peeping tripod shots are compared; but, it’s VC makes it outperform everything else in a real world setting. Tripod shooting with a zoom/everyday do it all lens is simply not a thing, at least it shouldn’t be. It’s the walk around desert island focal length. Key word “walk”. And with VC the Tamron will deliver hand over fist vs the Canon. Thank you for highlighting this. IMO, with EF lenses being a thing of the past now; the Tamron G2 will go on to be known as the MVP of this 24-70 category.
Great video. Very nice. And I agree with you that few people look at a picture and say, “wow, such a great pic. So sharp!”. But they also don’t say things like “nice contrast” or “perfect exposure” or “wow, almost no vignetting”. I don’t think many people can put their finger on why one pic looks better than another (when looking at similar pictures) but the pro, expert, etc knows. So, yeah, it’s not all about sharpness but don’t minimize it’s place either.
The Canon 6D II, for practical purposes, is very similar to the 5D Mark III that I was using to shoot this video, and I'd expect it to give you very similar results. The 6D II has slightly higher resolution than my 5D III did, so some of the differences in resolution with these lenses may be slightly more visible, but it should be a negligible difference.
It's been a few years since I first watched this video. I went with the Tamron and found it a great low light performer. It is one of the two modern zoom lenses that I kept for my Canon R. I don't need auto focus but it is nice to have as an option. It's a great lens although it's a flatter image like all zoom and high element count modern lenses. I prefer low element vintage primes for the 3D pop and micro contrast in well lit compositions. It's very easy to remove chromatic aberrations and fringing as well as adding contrast in post.
Amazing video Matthew 👏👏👏 ! I have a canon m50 mark 2 what I useing it for portrait and pictures with indoor artificial lights and I have to chose between this two lenses 😅 !
I am 4 years too late, but it was obvious that the sample of Tamron lens you tested suffreed from ' decentering ' where the sharpness on the opposite edges of the frame were not the same. This is one of the biggest problems that seem to plague 3rd party lenses due to lack of quality control, or manufcaturing defects. They have to keep the cost down somehow, I guess.
Thanks for an amazing effort making this comparision. I use the 24-70 g2 and did not have those problems shooting professional basketball games. Maybe new firmware. Used on D500 and D850. On the D850 its actually one of the sharpest ever. Needed to say, after calibration. D850 is really hard to bad lenses. And it shines really with the Tamron. I have the possibility to work and test different lenses. On the D850 I would not change to any other brand. Maybe camera/lens that suit each other better?
I agree, it seems pretty certain that the autofocus issue I had with the Tamron would be camera-specific, if not Canon specific. I'm glad to hear that it works better for you with Nikon :-)
Yeh, Nikon shooter here as well and it works pretty good with my 850. I own both Nikon 2.8 24-70 lens, VR and non VR.... the non VR lens is the sharpest but just a tad over the Tamron. I carry the Tamron. Maybe the canon lens just beats them all, idk.
@@Notblind808 yes, the VR/VC normally helps. But in certain circumstances, read shutter speed, it can be slightly worse than not having VC/VR. Try shooting with that switched of and also if using D850 make a focus test. I did not see anything on D500. Had to calibrate on D850. After that super.
How do you actually calibrate the lens. Do you need special 'stuff' or can you do it just with the lens and the camera (for example a Niko D700 or so). I wonder.
Hello, Matthew sounds like a thorough fair review of both lenses. I currently have a Canon body 5D3 and really only do landscape photography with the use of a tripod. I recently damaged my lens and your opinion is vital in which lens I purchase which must be bought very soon. I normally shoot in manual @ f16 so my question is: Which one is the best lens for me? I thank for your time on this matter. With thanks...
Hi Allan, I'm not sure what I can add that I haven't already said in the video :-) , but it sounds to me as though the advantages of the Canon lens will be lost with the type of work that you do. For those occasions when you shoot at wider apertures, there may be some minimally appreciable difference, but otherwise (and especially with the 5DIII), there will be almost no practical difference for you. I'd go with the Tamron.
In your opinion would either the Sigma ART or Tamron G2 be accurate and fast enough for wedding photography? Brides and Grooms and guest won't be moving super fast like a basketball game, but can get somewhat animated on the dance floor, but again, no where near the movement of a sports shoot. I do need something that is fast with auto focus and accurate focus for weddings for those moments that you cannot re-shoot, like at a ceremony, etc. Thanks and super review (so was your Sigma vs Canon review)...
I would not be concerned about the Tamron G2 at all, for weddings. It did just fine in almost every circumstance... it just had a lower hit rate for bursts when tracking subjects that are changing direction/velocity. I'd have more concerns about the Sigma, but it would probably be fine, too... for weddings. But I'd go with the Tamron or Canon.
If you're talking about a micro-focus adjustment, then no, I don't when I'm doing resolution/sharpness testing. Instead, I shoot the resolution test shots in "live-view", which takes that AF module out of the loop so that AF adjustments are not a concern. Beyond that, I use Reikan FoCal for some testing data, and for AF adjustments when they're necessary.
I have the G1 Tamron. It’s fine and has gotten me through a lot of Events. I shoot a lot of events and some video. I really don’t need a upgraded 24-70mm but I feel like I want one. I find myself hating the lag on the autofocus but I know my style of shooting and I probably would benefit more from IS. But I love the images the canon produces. Do you think I should upgrade? If so what lens? Thank you for a great review
That's a tough question, and I'm afraid that you're probably the only person who can answer it. For your purposes, will the minor differences in image quality make a difference? I'd certainly upgrade if there's something that bugs you about your current lens... you need to be happy with the equipment you work with... but you also shouldn't expect a new lens to do something that only a good photographer can do (take better pictures). I do generally think that there's a noticeable improvement in AF and IS with the G2 from the G1, and maybe the slightest of improvements in image quality, and for a 24-70, I just couldn't live without image stabilization. So, I might move to the G2, but I wouldn't move to the Canon (though, maybe the Canon f/4... I did happily use that lens for a year or so).
How is the dust sealing on this particular lens? I've heard photographers having a nightmare with Tamron and Sigma's current 24-70 due to dust getting sucked in to the lens due to poor sealing on the extending lens barrel. To your knowledge, does the Tamron F2.8 24-70mm G2 have a filter between the extending barrel and the main barrel to prevent dust from getting sucked into the lens? Or in your extensive use of the lens, have you detected any issues with dust [long term use]?
It's been a few years since I have used this particular Tamron lens, but I haven't had any problem with dust getting sucked into the lens, partly because I haven't noticed any dust in the lens, but more importantly, because dust inside the lens does not have any effect on image quality. Dust on interior optics isn't visible and doesn't create dust spots on the image, and unless it's really horrible, it won't contribute to any flare problems (like it would on the front element). It is a problem if it's sucking dust into the lens and then blowing it onto the sensor of a mirrorless camera (or any camera, I guess, but it's more likely in mirrorless), but the fixed rear element of the lens usually doesn't allow that.
THe thing where did you focus, for example, some buildings are far, some near, so it is difficult to compare, we dont event know of the depth of field of the 2 lenses are same or not
Buy. the Tamron G2. It's only a bit more $ than the Siggy C, just as good, but much cheaper and lighter than the Siggy Sport. I also have a 500 f/4 II and the 150-600's sharpness seems damn near as good.
Had the Tamron and now use the Canon. For me, there was a big difference on my 5D III. Mainly because of the terrible AF of Tamron. But not only. Best 600 euros I ever spent.
Thank you for the detailed review. My canon 24-70 2.8 vI just died :/ I need to replace ASAP and am leaning towards sticking with Canon. I work mostly with families and use all natural light so low lighting performance is critical. I've heard the Tamron can focus hunt in lower light levels. . . . but then IS could be nice in said low light situation. . . . Would love to hear your opinion for this particular circumstance. Also, the review was with the center focus and I don't use the center focus point that often. Curious about your experience with focus sharpness and speed in non-center focus points?
Hey Kathleen, sorry to hear about your Canon! A couple of things: the AF performance with any lens will depend mostly on the camera, but I never had hunting problems with the G2 in low light (and I also shoot a lot of low light); but that's with my 5DIII and 5DIV. I can't speak for other cameras. I tend to use center focus for action, but focus closer towards the 1/3 lines for other stuff... portraits, landscape, street, etc... and again, I didn't have any particular problems with focus. At least, no more than I've had with Canon lenses... and there's always some user-error too. But the Canon is a little bit sharper. Not much, but a little.
@@MatthewGore Thanks for our quick reply! So with a 5d body (currently mark 2 but was planning to upgrade to mark 4 and then my lens died so I'll now wait until the fall for that). . . sounds like the take home is Canon is a tad sharper but otherwise you don't recommend one over the other? Low light/off center focus points fall about in the same performance range?
@@kathleenhunter7508 Yes. Actually, I'd say that the Canon is a hair sharper, but the Tamron's image stabilization is a big benefit for low-light/hand-held work, and autofocus was reliable with both lenses for me, whether I'm using the center AF points or peripheral.
Thanks for the video . If I may get your help please , I’m looking forward to start fashion or weddding photography and have already the 35 mm and would like to purchase another lense as the 24-70 f2.8 but I see it’s very expensive, would there be any other lense that you may recommend as the sigma or tamaron or if possible canon 24-70 f4 instead ? Thank you
A good 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty indispensable for shooting events. I didn't have much luck with the Sigma, but the Tamron G2 (and the original) were both very good. If you shoot APS-C (even as a second body), then you might also consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
Matthew Gore Hey Matthew If I can please get your recommendations about this lens , it would help me a lot . How about canon lens 24-70 2.8 L usm macro lens instead of the F2.8 L II USM Thank you very much
@@youssefdiouane4647 Ahh. The "Mark I", so to speak. If you're looking to save a bit of money, I'd go for the original version of the Tamron lens instead. If you haven't already seen my video on that lens, here I compare it to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II ruclips.net/video/mQSuexEQcgM/видео.html Essentially, the image quality of the Tamron is the same as it is in the G2, which is better than the early Canon. I didn't have any autofocus problems with it, either... though the G2 is a little more sure-footed.
I have a question, is it safe to use 3rd party lens on dslr cameras?? I went to a market and people discouraged me to buy Tanron, apparently it damages your camera
Thank you, great information! The Tamron may be in my future! I'm thinking of getting a macro lens - any reason to prefer the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro over the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro?
Hi John. I've used the Canon quite a bit and loved it, but I haven't used that Sigma much... I own the sigma 70mm macro for Sony, and it's great too. Hard to go wrong with a good macro lens, and they both are. The only reason I know to prefer the Sigma is the price.
For the basketball shots did you use servo autofocus? It appears to me that the focus is not "changing" just the distance of the kids. Had my difficulties as well during shooting basketball. The hardest part is catching the right moment!
Yes, for sports I always use servo rather than "One Shot" (in fact, I almost always just leave the camera on AI Servo). As I said in the video, the AF tracking was good on subjects that were moving at a consistent speed, even if that speed was quite fast and close to the camera. The problem only came when the moving player stopped or changed direction suddenly, and only with the Tamron.
@@benhir1 I imagine that the Tamron's performance would have been better with a EOS 1 series camera (I was shooting with a 5DIII) or even a newer 5DIV, but I don't know about mirrorless shooting adapted to an RF mount. Live shooting with an EF mount camera, it would have been worthless for action; not fast enough.
@@MatthewGore I would love to give it a go one day comparing it to Canon RF 24-70 2.8 IS on my EOS R. Upgrading the body from a 50D made a huge difference with autofocus for all the previous EF lenses I own. Loved your video, great pick of features you made to compare. Keep it up!
Hi Matthew. I wanna try to pick one from these lenses: Canon 24-105 f4 usm II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 usd G2. I will use for wedding photography. On the paper canon is more usefull because of more zoom capability and Tamron is better about more light . I think sharpness is same on both. I mean not good like 24-70 usm II but I think its enough for me. So What is your opinion ? Which spec is more important for you ? F2.8 or more zoom ? By the way I will use the lens with Canon 6D mark II Thanks.
The f/2.8 is more important for me, especially for events and weddings, but I wouldn't shoot any event professionally with ONLY one of those two lenses. I would at least want a 70-200 f/2.8, also. However, this is one of those "no right or wrong answers" situations.... it all depends on your own particular style of photography and what you want to get. There are plenty of people who shoot weddings with Leicas anduse 35 or 50mm primes for everything.
@@MatthewGore I see. I wanna buy 16-35 and 70-200 but ı dont have enough budget for all lenses. And I thought it can be a main lens for starting. I liked Tamron 24-70 g2 later from your video. But İf I start with Tamron I have to add another tele lens like 70-200 or at least 85.
@@ozdemirmurat Keep an eye out on the Used market for any of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (except Sigma), even from the previous generation... they're excellent, and it can save you a lot of money. Or, there are some really good, inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 lenses out there. If you start out with the 24-105, you'll do OK, too... you'll just have less background separation at f/4 than f/2.8, and you'll have more trouble with noise when shooting in low light... 1 stop can make a big difference... but you can always get a cheap prime to use for low light (50 f/1.8 or something like that). Good luck!
Did you get a chance to compare smoothness of manual focus? I'm interested in using mine for video, which is why I'm looking for IS, but I also might want to manually change focus while shooting
Hi Jason. I did use them both briefly with manual focus, but nothing stood out to me... I don't shoot video and rarely focus manually, so I wasn't really paying a whole lot of attention to it, I guess :-) Sorry I can't be of more help.
Very detailed review, too standard! But if you are a normal user you don't need such details. Basically the 2 lenses have almost the same quality, Canon is a bit better but not much, Tamron has anti-shake! The choice is genuine or third-party only
All the examples you show between 20:00 and 20:41 are not the same with what you shot on the other lens between 18:57 and 19:54. The Tamron examples were all of players stopping or changing direction, while the Canon examples were all of continuous drives by a player with same direction and speed.
Matthew I want the Tamron lens please tell me if I'm making the right decision. I'm on a budget and I don't like spending all that money unless I have it like that.
Interesting. Which camera did you use for the autofocus tests? I was thinking of getting the Tamron for use on my 5D4, have you any experience with this combination?
Alkesh Prajapati the RF is better in term of AF, IS, color, weight and compatibility. Tamron is better with one more stop of light (f2.8) and need a adapter. It’s not worth to trade off the 24-105 rf
Hello, I would like a 24-70 2.8 lens on my Canon R for shooting exclusively balls. What would be better? CANON or Tamron? I want to have pretty sharp photos on f2.8 and for the camera to catch up. I like Tamron thanks to the stabilization. So what would be better? There is still the possibility of Sigma, but I don't know how it is here. .thank you for answer
Unfortunately, Tamron doesn't make any lenses for native RF mount yet, and I haven't tested any EF-mount Tamron lenses with the adapter, so I can't give you a definitive answer. So, if you can test out the Tamron with an adapter (rent or borrow) and make sure that the AF works well with your camera, that would be the best way to know. Otherwise, the Tamron lens has excellent resolution and sharpness. When you're talking about shooting balls... I presume that you mean action / event shots with people moving and dancing? Remember that image stabilization can reduce blur from camera movement, but NOT subject movement, and if you're using a shutter speed that is fast enough to stop the movement of people at a ball, you're probably not going to encounter much blur from camera movement anyway. Let me know if that needs clarification. Good luck!
It's about proms, dancing ... not much sport. I have an adapter, but somehow I didn't think it could be a mess. I'll try to find out, or lend a try. The shutter speed would need to be 1/160, due to the flash. I was especially fascinated by the sharpness of the lens and the familiar stabilization. However, I saw it in this video along with the Canon EOS R and it looks good. ruclips.net/video/vWGi0EMJXTM/видео.html
@@MARTIN_VAGNER I certainly don't have any reason to believe that focusing would be a problem with the Tamron and adapter, I just haven't used the combo myself, so I don't want to give you uninformed advice. I'm a big fan of the Tamron lens, and it has generally been quite a bit less expensive than the Canon, which is important. If you're shooing with flash, though, then camera-shake is also not going to be much of a concern, unless you're using your flash for fill only. If it's the main light source, the duration of the flash is the effective shutterspeed... so you're not likely to get any camera movement problems at all. The only exception would be when you have bright lights in the background that do contribute to the exposure (as opposed to subjects that are lit by the flash), you might get some blur from camera movement in those lights, and stabilization could potentially help you out there.
For video there is no other alternative than to buy Tamron. 24 70 with IS and 2.8 - take my money... I have 80D, Canon 11-18 for vlog and I will buy Tamron for broll and stuff. It will be 38-105 mm on 80D. btw will apature change on crop sensor?
Easy answer: Yes. Slightly more difficult one: No, not exactly. There’s lots of additional math that goes on and it’s not as simple as a certain famous YT has mentioned where you do the same process to determine the equivalent aperture. Can you get identical shots on a FF and Crop sensor? Sometimes-but yes, they’ll have different settings. An f/2.8=f/2.8, but depending on your actual shot, the effects can be different. There’s tons of discussion board content on this!
I have the tamron 24-70mm G2 F2.8 Lens....but when I get the new canon eos R5 I want upgrade to this lens....would u do a comparison video between both of these lens.
@@MatthewGore yes definitely the new Canon RF versus the Tamron EF 24-70. When I get the new camera it's one of the lenses I'm thinking about upgrading for my Tamron but I'm not sure if it's going to be enough of a jump in quality to validate spending the money. Thank you so much for your response
@@Crakmonkey691 I just got an R5... and the 24-70 works seamlessly on it. As I'm keeping my multiple DSLR bodies (and my full quiver or EF lenses), I'll be slowly adding RF lenses.
well i'm not worry about the lens being heavy but i want to buy the tamron g2 cause i'm not going to spend over a 1000 dollars on a camera lens. i really want to get the 18-35 from sigma and the 24mm 1.4 from sigma and the 70-200 from sigma and the 24-70 from tamron along with the 2 i already have i should be straight right
Yes, that sounds like a good, solid collection of lenses, especially if you get a full-frame camera so that your 16-35mm covers the ultra-wide range. If you stick with the 80D for a while, you might think about a lens in the 11-16mm range (or 10-20mm, more generally), if that's the sort of thing that you'd use. If not, then you're pretty well set.
@@MatthewGore i spoke to the photographer at the wedding last night and trust me he had a lot og good things to say. he told me to get the 24-70 lens with a good speed light and a diffuser and shoot in mannual mode and i will become a great photographer if i keep it up what you think about that
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 I agree about the 24-70. Manual mode can help you learn a lot, but there are times when semi-manual is more practical for situations that are changing quickly. I'd recommend not spending too much on equipment right away; get a couple of good lenses and take LOTS of pictures... that's what will make all the difference.
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 The Canon 10-18mm has a good zoom range, but it doesn't let in much light. Again, at 18mm it let's in only a quarter of the light than an f2.8 lens would. So, if you're planning on using the lens for shooting events that might be in low light, then I'd recommend a low-light lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or Tokina 11-20. The Godox 860 series would be a great choice.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both... so it would depend on whether you're shooting with a single camera body or two (in which case the zoom range isn't as important) and what other lenses you might be using. Of course an f/2.8 lens will give you shallower depth of field for more subject separation and more light. The RF is a newer lens and has great optics and AF on an RF body, but you lose the light and bokeh. It's really a matter of personal preference, but if you aren't shooting with another large aperture lens, I'd make sure that you have at least one.
@@MatthewGore i already have an 85 is 1.4 and want to add a multi-function device and i'm wondering, i just sold the ef 24 70 l2 because of frequent cable breaks so i want to be safe with tamron or rf 24 105 f4 ! Tks
The first generation Canon 24-70 was actually a pretty old lens compared to the Mark II, and not up to the same standard, though a good lens overall. If I were to rank them, I'd go with the old Canon at the bottom, then the Tamron G2 (for image quality) and then the Canon Mark II as the best... with the understanding that the Tamron's image stabilization will be more important to some photographers than corner sharpness, so the Tamron may be a better choice.
Nice review Matthew, but here's a question. As a reviewer, a 5dsr is great, but for the casual ppl, I use a 6d mark ii, and maybe the two lens won't have too much of a difference？ The price difference is still an issue, though personally, a native lens would be much preferable. Is the tamron one good for casuals？Or are there any all around lens great for fullframe？My 24-105 is starting to show it's age.
Personally, I think that even on a 5DS R the minor difference is nothing to worry about, and on a 6D II, it would be negligible. But it all depends on what kind of work you do, and how it's going to be reproduced. If you sell large fine art prints, then maybe it's worth considering. I haven't found any single lens that I think is great, all-around. I stick with a 24-70 and a 70-200, most of the time... and Canon and Tamron make good options for both :-)
Aside from the resolution test shots, just about everything in this video was shot on the 5D Mark III, and as you saw, there were some differences in autofocus performance, but I didn't have any problem with the Tamron in terms of resolution... though perhaps there were times when the Canon would have been measurably sharper.
Yes you can, but it will look a little different. The 24mm end of the zoom range will appear like a 38mm lens because of the smaller sensor that the 750D uses, and similarly 70mm end will be like a 112mm. Otherwise, everything will work as expected.
@@74amino It's pretty true. The 750D uses an APS-C sensor, which is a crop factor of 1.6x for Canon, so the angle of view is roughly equivalent to what a 38mm lens would give you on a full frame. "Roughly" because of differences in distortion, but for practical purposes, it's pretty true.
Awesome comparison video! I believe I will go with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. The Canon pairs better with the 90D. I’ll also adapt it onto my R6MKII. Thanks again
Just kidding. It depends on your needs. The 35mm is sharper and has a larger aperture for low light, but of course it's much less versatile when it comes to range... so it all depends on what you need it for.
@@sohaibshah6690 Ultimately, it's a matter of personal taste, but for me, I'd much rather have the flexibility of a zoom lens if I'm shooting a wedding. I usually keep a 24-70 on one camera body, and a 70-200 on a second body.
Should it matter I just want a good camera lens to use on my 80d so I will get the cheaper one cause I don't think I'll be paying that kind of money on a lens that cost more than 1100 I rather get a good use one
I have used several different Tamron 24-70s, but this whole video/test was conducted with a single Tamron lens. As you probably know, there is going to be a little variation between lenses regardless of brand, but in this case, both lenses seemed about typical... though not perfect
@@hzubovi1Maybe a little bit sharper (if we're talking about the two Tamrons)... but it's hard to compare, and I've never done a side by side test with the two.
The Tamron E-mount lens has significantly better resolution away from the center of the frame at the wide end, and all around it has slightly better resolution, probably, but I haven't tested them side by side so it's hard to be positive.
@@Thedaydiver For the type of shooting that I do, image stabilization is important, so I went back and forth for a long time between the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 and the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS. I ended up sticking with the Canon lens because I was doing a lot of traveling at the time and I preferred the light weight, and my 5D's sensor was good enough that I could almost always get the quality that I needed at f/4 without too much noise. If you don't need IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is wonderful, and if you need an f/2.8, then the Tamron G2 is quite good... it was always good enough for me in real world use. amzn.to/3ludVyo
Thank you very much. Incredibly kind of you to take the time to write me back. I will look for a good deal on the Canon lense. I appreciate the advice sir and I really enjoy your channel.
It was much more common back in the film days, but of course, it's not ideal most of the time. Still, sometimes you're in a low light situation and need to take a shot and you either don't want the extra noise of higher ISO or are already maxed out on ISO. But there are also plenty of reasons why someone would want to shoot with a shutter speed that slow... when panning to capture motion, when you want people or other moving objects in your image to blur for creative effect.
I use this 18-400mm tamron lens and it's fantastic: amzn.to/3aRUZ5Y if you don't want to switch lens (or you can't because you are travelling) this is the right solution.
No, they are different sizes. However, if you take a look on Ebay or Amazon you'll find them for sale... though not especially cheap... like this one: tinyurl.com/u9dz47t or amzn.to/38kitiU
the main quality of the lens is not necessarily sharpness but quality of the bokeh for portraits which I cannot find here, both at print and display level nobody notices sharpness but bokeh indeed
Matthew Gore Mmmm, Let me explain. Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't do that many movies, but when he does he does Outstanding Work. I feel the same about your videos. Hope that make a little more sense. ;-)
unfortunately Tamron is not sharp specially at tele end. AF is not horrible but is not as reliable as canon. ill stick with canon. In UK you can get the Tamron at around 750 pound and canon can be found around 1100 pounds. I believe it totally worth to spend 350 extra and get canon
At first glance and how 99.99% of people would view a photo like that - indistinguishable. The only diiference folks notice are those that pixel peep and actually look for some kind of difference. At the end of the day the Tamron can be had for half the price plus the Tamron has IS and therefore will result in more keepers. For my style of shooting 2.8 is used to blur backgrounds and for landscapes/buildings I'm not shooting wide open anyways. Great video and thanks for helping me make up my mind. The Tamron's at great prices rn.
I respect your opinion and review, but I have the Tamron and never experienced issues. My photos will not be featured in any magazine, so a little vignetting on the corners is no problem for me. I love my lens
Vignette might possible be the easiest thing to fix ever in a photo or video, yeha it probably is
I've had the Canon mount G2 for a few years--AND the 150-600 G2. Both are superb. Rest of my lenses are Canon, save for three Rokinon maual lenses that I use for astro.
One of the best Comparison on the internet ever, just what a Pro need. Congrats
It was along time since last review ,thanks for sharing and appreciate the huge work you do to bring all these info on the table
Thanks! Unfortunately, this one is just a correction of a previous video... I accidentally included a couple of photos that shouldn't have been in it. BUT I discovered the problem because I'm working on a new video that required those photos :-) New video will be coming soon.
Excellent review and really helpful. I appreciate the lengths you took to make this comprehensive review. Thank you!!
I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2
I've used both... and I have seen where both are strong..
For what I do.. the Tamron performs brilliantly.
It's quite annoying that the Canon doesn't have imagine stabilization because it's a clear winner between Tamron, Sigma in my opinion.
not seeing it here. differences are minor and in many places impossible to spot.
Nice comparison, Matthew! Although I've already made my decision to keep the Canon over the Tamron for my shooting needs, it was nice to see a more scientific comparison!
Thanks Daniel :-)
Hey! wondering Do you know a Harry & Guiseppe Fazzari?
Wow. Amazing review.
Thanks for the great effort!
Very good review :) Just dont forget that you can make the Tamron better with software updates and adjusting the AF to your camera with the Tap in Consol.
A good point... if I didn't mention firmware updates for the Tamron in the video, I meant to :-) Still, the Tamron did better than the Sigma (I posted that video today).
I had to look again..you mentioned it one time around 22:50 and 24:40..Missed that the first time :) hehe...
In some country at the end of 2018, the difference is now much more between the two lenses, and even if you have to buy the Tamron Tap-in to solve ALL autofocus issue you can have (included the one you had in movement) TAMARON is a no brain best buy. If you want incredible quality any way you need to use prime lenses.
The G2 does fantastic autofocus job once is tuned for your camera, if you don't buy a tap-in you can find someone that can do it for you for 30$ or less.
The only reason I am suggesting to buy the Canon lens is if you exchange often the lens between different cameras body
Excellent video. Seems like the Canon lens is better overall (I'm a Nikon shooter). But I would still get the Tamron because it's cheaper and most people won't see the difference when you upload to Facebook and Instagram.
in that regard, nobody will!
With the G2 being sooo close to the Canon in terms of sharpness and the rest; 17:41 is all that matters. Period full stop. At least for me.
I know I’m late to the party, but I still shoot SLR. There’s no reason for me, being a photo only shooter, to GAS myself into a mirrorless anything.
The time came for me to get a quality everyday carry lens. A 24-70. 2.8.
I recently picked up a Canon 35mm 1.4II L and thus I’m set for an unbelievably tack sharp prime. For less than $1k used In mint condition; because anyone who owns that type of glass babies it.
The used EF market is so good right now.
I’ve likely watched every SLR 24-70 2.8 Review clip and I must say, the Tamron G2 kinda came out of nowhere for me. It’s previous version is such a cheapy lens that I admittedly overlooked it at first. I was pretty much set on the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, because, why not? It is technically the “best” and prices have come down enough now that it’s really an affordable option for such a pro level piece of glass. But then I started searching hand held real world examples.
IMO, and many others, there is simply no contest, the Tamron G2 is the very best SLR 24-70 2.8, because it’s comparably as sharp as the Canon II when pixel peeping tripod shots are compared; but, it’s VC makes it outperform everything else in a real world setting.
Tripod shooting with a zoom/everyday do it all lens is simply not a thing, at least it shouldn’t be. It’s the walk around desert island focal length. Key word “walk”. And with VC the Tamron will deliver hand over fist vs the Canon.
Thank you for highlighting this.
IMO, with EF lenses being a thing of the past now; the Tamron G2 will go on to be known as the MVP of this 24-70 category.
What an review.. I really liked it.. so detailed and to the point.. It did not take much time to make my buy after watching this review ...Excellent
Very detailed review comparison
Thanks for all the effort
Thank you so much Matthew for the comparison video! God bless you!
Welcome back
Tamron looks like has decentering issue
Babar Asghar Yes, that was my diagnosis, too :-)
@Dio Dio you saying that 2 thirds of tamrons 24-70's have problems?
Fantastic，amazing video。One of the best Comparison on the internet ever 2021.
Great video. Very nice. And I agree with you that few people look at a picture and say, “wow, such a great pic. So sharp!”. But they also don’t say things like “nice contrast” or “perfect exposure” or “wow, almost no vignetting”. I don’t think many people can put their finger on why one pic looks better than another (when looking at similar pictures) but the pro, expert, etc knows. So, yeah, it’s not all about sharpness but don’t minimize it’s place either.
Real world use, like for example at indoor events, the tamron has a big adventage with the vc.....good review
Agreed.
Fantastic Matthew, as always .. Wondering what your thoughts are on the use and comparison on these lenses on a 6D, Mark II ... ?
The Canon 6D II, for practical purposes, is very similar to the 5D Mark III that I was using to shoot this video, and I'd expect it to give you very similar results. The 6D II has slightly higher resolution than my 5D III did, so some of the differences in resolution with these lenses may be slightly more visible, but it should be a negligible difference.
Спасибо! Вы ответили на все мои вопросы относительно данных объективов
just ordered the tamron for photo&video :)
How have you liked it?
It's been a few years since I first watched this video. I went with the Tamron and found it a great low light performer. It is one of the two modern zoom lenses that I kept for my Canon R. I don't need auto focus but it is nice to have as an option. It's a great lens although it's a flatter image like all zoom and high element count modern lenses. I prefer low element vintage primes for the 3D pop and micro contrast in well lit compositions. It's very easy to remove chromatic aberrations and fringing as well as adding contrast in post.
Amazingly good review!!
Thanks :-)
Thank you Matthew, focus accuracy of moving objects is crucial when it comes to shooting sports.
Thanks for the video Matthew!
Amazing video Matthew 👏👏👏 ! I have a canon m50 mark 2 what I useing it for portrait and pictures with indoor artificial lights and I have to chose between this two lenses 😅 !
Great and very accurate comparison. Thanks a lot!
Excellent review ,best one I seen on these lenses …
I am 4 years too late, but it was obvious that the sample of Tamron lens you tested suffreed from ' decentering ' where the sharpness on the opposite edges of the frame were not the same. This is one of the biggest problems that seem to plague 3rd party lenses due to lack of quality control, or manufcaturing defects. They have to keep the cost down somehow, I guess.
Thanks for an amazing effort making this comparision. I use the 24-70 g2 and did not have those problems shooting professional basketball games. Maybe new firmware. Used on D500 and D850. On the D850 its actually one of the sharpest ever. Needed to say, after calibration. D850 is really hard to bad lenses. And it shines really with the Tamron. I have the possibility to work and test different lenses. On the D850 I would not change to any other brand. Maybe camera/lens that suit each other better?
I agree, it seems pretty certain that the autofocus issue I had with the Tamron would be camera-specific, if not Canon specific. I'm glad to hear that it works better for you with Nikon :-)
Yeh, Nikon shooter here as well and it works pretty good with my 850. I own both Nikon 2.8 24-70 lens, VR and non VR.... the non VR lens is the sharpest but just a tad over the Tamron. I carry the Tamron. Maybe the canon lens just beats them all, idk.
@@Notblind808 yes, the VR/VC normally helps. But in certain circumstances, read shutter speed, it can be slightly worse than not having VC/VR. Try shooting with that switched of and also if using D850 make a focus test. I did not see anything on D500. Had to calibrate on D850. After that super.
How do you actually calibrate the lens. Do you need special 'stuff' or can you do it just with the lens and the camera (for example a Niko D700 or so). I wonder.
Hello, Matthew sounds like a thorough fair review of both lenses. I currently have a Canon body 5D3 and really only do landscape photography with the use of a tripod. I recently damaged my lens and your opinion is vital in which lens I purchase which must be bought very soon. I normally shoot in manual @ f16 so my question is: Which one is the best lens for me? I thank for your time on this matter. With thanks...
Hi Allan, I'm not sure what I can add that I haven't already said in the video :-) , but it sounds to me as though the advantages of the Canon lens will be lost with the type of work that you do. For those occasions when you shoot at wider apertures, there may be some minimally appreciable difference, but otherwise (and especially with the 5DIII), there will be almost no practical difference for you. I'd go with the Tamron.
@@MatthewGoreGore thank you, I just needed to hear it from you. I went ahead and ordered the Tamron
@@allandavies1187 Do you still have the Tamron. If so, how have you liked it?
This review is so excellent.
Another amazing review. After a long gap.
In your opinion would either the Sigma ART or Tamron G2 be accurate and fast enough for wedding photography? Brides and Grooms and guest won't be moving super fast like a basketball game, but can get somewhat animated on the dance floor, but again, no where near the movement of a sports shoot. I do need something that is fast with auto focus and accurate focus for weddings for those moments that you cannot re-shoot, like at a ceremony, etc. Thanks and super review (so was your Sigma vs Canon review)...
I would not be concerned about the Tamron G2 at all, for weddings. It did just fine in almost every circumstance... it just had a lower hit rate for bursts when tracking subjects that are changing direction/velocity. I'd have more concerns about the Sigma, but it would probably be fine, too... for weddings. But I'd go with the Tamron or Canon.
Did you do a camera to lens calibration for these lenses before making this video?
If you're talking about a micro-focus adjustment, then no, I don't when I'm doing resolution/sharpness testing. Instead, I shoot the resolution test shots in "live-view", which takes that AF module out of the loop so that AF adjustments are not a concern. Beyond that, I use Reikan FoCal for some testing data, and for AF adjustments when they're necessary.
oh that was very thorough
I have the G1 Tamron. It’s fine and has gotten me through a lot of Events. I shoot a lot of events and some video. I really don’t need a upgraded 24-70mm but I feel like I want one. I find myself hating the lag on the autofocus but I know my style of shooting and I probably would benefit more from IS. But I love the images the canon produces. Do you think I should upgrade? If so what lens? Thank you for a great review
That's a tough question, and I'm afraid that you're probably the only person who can answer it. For your purposes, will the minor differences in image quality make a difference? I'd certainly upgrade if there's something that bugs you about your current lens... you need to be happy with the equipment you work with... but you also shouldn't expect a new lens to do something that only a good photographer can do (take better pictures). I do generally think that there's a noticeable improvement in AF and IS with the G2 from the G1, and maybe the slightest of improvements in image quality, and for a 24-70, I just couldn't live without image stabilization. So, I might move to the G2, but I wouldn't move to the Canon (though, maybe the Canon f/4... I did happily use that lens for a year or so).
Thank you for the video. I am a newbee, can you compare 18-55 vs 24-70?
harry chen the kit lense pales on comaparison to the 24-70 the main one being a fixed aperture with the 24 - 70
How is the dust sealing on this particular lens? I've heard photographers having a nightmare with Tamron and Sigma's current 24-70 due to dust getting sucked in to the lens due to poor sealing on the extending lens barrel. To your knowledge, does the Tamron F2.8 24-70mm G2 have a filter between the extending barrel and the main barrel to prevent dust from getting sucked into the lens? Or in your extensive use of the lens, have you detected any issues with dust [long term use]?
It's been a few years since I have used this particular Tamron lens, but I haven't had any problem with dust getting sucked into the lens, partly because I haven't noticed any dust in the lens, but more importantly, because dust inside the lens does not have any effect on image quality. Dust on interior optics isn't visible and doesn't create dust spots on the image, and unless it's really horrible, it won't contribute to any flare problems (like it would on the front element). It is a problem if it's sucking dust into the lens and then blowing it onto the sensor of a mirrorless camera (or any camera, I guess, but it's more likely in mirrorless), but the fixed rear element of the lens usually doesn't allow that.
THe thing where did you focus, for example, some buildings are far, some near, so it is difficult to compare, we dont event know of the depth of field of the 2 lenses are same or not
Excellent review, the best available on the Internet. I would also like to compare Sigma AF 150-600mm f / 5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM C with a similar Tamron
Buy. the Tamron G2. It's only a bit more $ than the Siggy C, just as good, but much cheaper and lighter than the Siggy Sport. I also have a 500 f/4 II and the 150-600's sharpness seems damn near as good.
@@rogerbarnett8412 what about all the way at 600?
Well I think I'm sold on the Tamron.
another great comparison.
okk so the tamron is choice for me.. thanks.. its a really great lens and i would say the tamron is better at the given pricepoint
You would be right. Love mine, and use it a lot..for two years now.
Had the Tamron and now use the Canon. For me, there was a big difference on my 5D III. Mainly because of the terrible AF of Tamron. But not only.
Best 600 euros I ever spent.
By terrible autofocus of tamron do you mean in the speed or the accuracy?
Garry Burgess I guess he means accuracy, at least my copy of it tends to miss from time to time
It's because he uses a crappy camera. A cheap Nikon $400 camera will beat the 5D III in image quality.
CastrejonHDTV only one of the most popular cameras ever
@@crxracer805 I'd prefer the 5Diii
Thank you for the detailed review. My canon 24-70 2.8 vI just died :/ I need to replace ASAP and am leaning towards sticking with Canon. I work mostly with families and use all natural light so low lighting performance is critical. I've heard the Tamron can focus hunt in lower light levels. . . . but then IS could be nice in said low light situation. . . . Would love to hear your opinion for this particular circumstance. Also, the review was with the center focus and I don't use the center focus point that often. Curious about your experience with focus sharpness and speed in non-center focus points?
Hey Kathleen, sorry to hear about your Canon! A couple of things: the AF performance with any lens will depend mostly on the camera, but I never had hunting problems with the G2 in low light (and I also shoot a lot of low light); but that's with my 5DIII and 5DIV. I can't speak for other cameras. I tend to use center focus for action, but focus closer towards the 1/3 lines for other stuff... portraits, landscape, street, etc... and again, I didn't have any particular problems with focus. At least, no more than I've had with Canon lenses... and there's always some user-error too. But the Canon is a little bit sharper. Not much, but a little.
@@MatthewGore Thanks for our quick reply! So with a 5d body (currently mark 2 but was planning to upgrade to mark 4 and then my lens died so I'll now wait until the fall for that). . . sounds like the take home is Canon is a tad sharper but otherwise you don't recommend one over the other? Low light/off center focus points fall about in the same performance range?
@@kathleenhunter7508 Yes. Actually, I'd say that the Canon is a hair sharper, but the Tamron's image stabilization is a big benefit for low-light/hand-held work, and autofocus was reliable with both lenses for me, whether I'm using the center AF points or peripheral.
@@MatthewGore Very helpful. Thank you!
I own Tamron and the zoom is clockwise min. 1:55.
Also I have Canon 70-200 and that is counterclockwise so I do believe 24-70 is the same.
Thanks for the video .
If I may get your help please , I’m looking forward to start fashion or weddding photography and have already the 35 mm and would like to purchase another lense as the 24-70 f2.8 but I see it’s very expensive, would there be any other lense that you may recommend as the sigma or tamaron or if possible canon 24-70 f4 instead ?
Thank you
A good 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty indispensable for shooting events. I didn't have much luck with the Sigma, but the Tamron G2 (and the original) were both very good. If you shoot APS-C (even as a second body), then you might also consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
Matthew Gore i appreciate your response and thanks for the help
Matthew Gore
Hey Matthew
If I can please get your recommendations about this lens , it would help me a lot .
How about canon lens 24-70 2.8 L usm macro lens instead of the F2.8 L II USM
Thank you very much
@@youssefdiouane4647 Ahh. The "Mark I", so to speak. If you're looking to save a bit of money, I'd go for the original version of the Tamron lens instead. If you haven't already seen my video on that lens, here I compare it to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II ruclips.net/video/mQSuexEQcgM/видео.html Essentially, the image quality of the Tamron is the same as it is in the G2, which is better than the early Canon. I didn't have any autofocus problems with it, either... though the G2 is a little more sure-footed.
@@youssefdiouane4647 or the tamron 28-75
I have a question, is it safe to use 3rd party lens on dslr cameras?? I went to a market and people discouraged me to buy Tanron, apparently it damages your camera
Great review! Is the G2 worth the upgrade from v1?
Only if you're having problems with the AF or stabilization in the G1. I don't think that there's a very significant difference in image quality.
Matthew Gore what’s the g2 which lense
@@lukas_g243 the latest one
Thank you, great information! The Tamron may be in my future! I'm thinking of getting a macro lens - any reason to prefer the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro over the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro?
Hi John. I've used the Canon quite a bit and loved it, but I haven't used that Sigma much... I own the sigma 70mm macro for Sony, and it's great too. Hard to go wrong with a good macro lens, and they both are. The only reason I know to prefer the Sigma is the price.
For the basketball shots did you use servo autofocus? It appears to me that the focus is not "changing" just the distance of the kids. Had my difficulties as well during shooting basketball. The hardest part is catching the right moment!
Yes, for sports I always use servo rather than "One Shot" (in fact, I almost always just leave the camera on AI Servo). As I said in the video, the AF tracking was good on subjects that were moving at a consistent speed, even if that speed was quite fast and close to the camera. The problem only came when the moving player stopped or changed direction suddenly, and only with the Tamron.
@@MatthewGore Interesting, do you think the performance of the Tamron would be different with a mirrorless camera (or live shooting)?
@@benhir1 I imagine that the Tamron's performance would have been better with a EOS 1 series camera (I was shooting with a 5DIII) or even a newer 5DIV, but I don't know about mirrorless shooting adapted to an RF mount. Live shooting with an EF mount camera, it would have been worthless for action; not fast enough.
@@MatthewGore I would love to give it a go one day comparing it to Canon RF 24-70 2.8 IS on my EOS R. Upgrading the body from a 50D made a huge difference with autofocus for all the previous EF lenses I own. Loved your video, great pick of features you made to compare. Keep it up!
Hi Matthew.
I wanna try to pick one from these lenses: Canon 24-105 f4 usm II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 usd G2. I will use for wedding photography.
On the paper canon is more usefull because of more zoom capability and Tamron is better about more light . I think sharpness is same on both. I mean not good like 24-70 usm II but I think its enough for me.
So What is your opinion ? Which spec is more important for you ? F2.8 or more zoom ? By the way I will use the lens with Canon 6D mark II
Thanks.
The f/2.8 is more important for me, especially for events and weddings, but I wouldn't shoot any event professionally with ONLY one of those two lenses. I would at least want a 70-200 f/2.8, also. However, this is one of those "no right or wrong answers" situations.... it all depends on your own particular style of photography and what you want to get. There are plenty of people who shoot weddings with Leicas anduse 35 or 50mm primes for everything.
@@MatthewGore I see. I wanna buy 16-35 and 70-200 but ı dont have enough budget for all lenses. And I thought it can be a main lens for starting. I liked Tamron 24-70 g2 later from your video. But İf I start with Tamron I have to add another tele lens like 70-200 or at least 85.
@@ozdemirmurat Keep an eye out on the Used market for any of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (except Sigma), even from the previous generation... they're excellent, and it can save you a lot of money. Or, there are some really good, inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 lenses out there. If you start out with the 24-105, you'll do OK, too... you'll just have less background separation at f/4 than f/2.8, and you'll have more trouble with noise when shooting in low light... 1 stop can make a big difference... but you can always get a cheap prime to use for low light (50 f/1.8 or something like that). Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thanks for all. choosing photohraphy lenses are more hard from choosing cinema lenses :=)
Did you get a chance to compare smoothness of manual focus? I'm interested in using mine for video, which is why I'm looking for IS, but I also might want to manually change focus while shooting
Hi Jason. I did use them both briefly with manual focus, but nothing stood out to me... I don't shoot video and rarely focus manually, so I wasn't really paying a whole lot of attention to it, I guess :-) Sorry I can't be of more help.
Very detailed review, too standard! But if you are a normal user you don't need such details. Basically the 2 lenses have almost the same quality, Canon is a bit better but not much, Tamron has anti-shake! The choice is genuine or third-party only
All the examples you show between 20:00 and 20:41 are not the same with what you shot on the other lens between 18:57 and 19:54. The Tamron examples were all of players stopping or changing direction, while the Canon examples were all of continuous drives by a player with same direction and speed.
Matthew I want the Tamron lens please tell me if I'm making the right decision. I'm on a budget and I don't like spending all that money unless I have it like that.
Interesting. Which camera did you use for the autofocus tests? I was thinking of getting the Tamron for use on my 5D4, have you any experience with this combination?
did u buy tamron? if yes how is ur experience so far?
@@sanjeevbhandari6000 no, I tested it and didn't like it. I eventually went for the Canon..
I checked version 1 of the Tamron lens and the manual focus direction was different as well. What about the actual lens?
I think the inside has some similar lenses, but the G2 has better stabilization and design. And im not sure if the G1 is weather sealed
Whichever lens is better or cheaper i just want a nice camera lens to buy for my full frame and my aps-c sensor
The music in the beginning feels like the breaking bad intro
Hey nice review, but want to know Tamron 24-70 g2 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 rf which one is better for eos r?
Alkesh Prajapati the RF is better in term of AF, IS, color, weight and compatibility. Tamron is better with one more stop of light (f2.8) and need a adapter. It’s not worth to trade off the 24-105 rf
Cool. You just halped me save 800€. Thank you.
me too
Hello, I would like a 24-70 2.8 lens on my Canon R for shooting exclusively balls. What would be better? CANON or Tamron? I want to have pretty sharp photos on f2.8 and for the camera to catch up. I like Tamron thanks to the stabilization. So what would be better? There is still the possibility of Sigma, but I don't know how it is here. .thank you for answer
Unfortunately, Tamron doesn't make any lenses for native RF mount yet, and I haven't tested any EF-mount Tamron lenses with the adapter, so I can't give you a definitive answer. So, if you can test out the Tamron with an adapter (rent or borrow) and make sure that the AF works well with your camera, that would be the best way to know. Otherwise, the Tamron lens has excellent resolution and sharpness. When you're talking about shooting balls... I presume that you mean action / event shots with people moving and dancing? Remember that image stabilization can reduce blur from camera movement, but NOT subject movement, and if you're using a shutter speed that is fast enough to stop the movement of people at a ball, you're probably not going to encounter much blur from camera movement anyway. Let me know if that needs clarification. Good luck!
It's about proms, dancing ... not much sport. I have an adapter, but somehow I didn't think it could be a mess. I'll try to find out, or lend a try. The shutter speed would need to be 1/160, due to the flash. I was especially fascinated by the sharpness of the lens and the familiar stabilization. However, I saw it in this video along with the Canon EOS R and it looks good. ruclips.net/video/vWGi0EMJXTM/видео.html
@@MARTIN_VAGNER I certainly don't have any reason to believe that focusing would be a problem with the Tamron and adapter, I just haven't used the combo myself, so I don't want to give you uninformed advice. I'm a big fan of the Tamron lens, and it has generally been quite a bit less expensive than the Canon, which is important. If you're shooing with flash, though, then camera-shake is also not going to be much of a concern, unless you're using your flash for fill only. If it's the main light source, the duration of the flash is the effective shutterspeed... so you're not likely to get any camera movement problems at all. The only exception would be when you have bright lights in the background that do contribute to the exposure (as opposed to subjects that are lit by the flash), you might get some blur from camera movement in those lights, and stabilization could potentially help you out there.
For video there is no other alternative than to buy Tamron. 24 70 with IS and 2.8 - take my money... I have 80D, Canon 11-18 for vlog and I will buy Tamron for broll and stuff. It will be 38-105 mm on 80D. btw will apature change on crop sensor?
Easy answer: Yes. Slightly more difficult one: No, not exactly. There’s lots of additional math that goes on and it’s not as simple as a certain famous YT has mentioned where you do the same process to determine the equivalent aperture.
Can you get identical shots on a FF and Crop sensor? Sometimes-but yes, they’ll have different settings. An f/2.8=f/2.8, but depending on your actual shot, the effects can be different. There’s tons of discussion board content on this!
@@realappleglass tnx buddy. I started to make YT videos half year ago, so You were very helpful.
I have the tamron 24-70mm G2 F2.8 Lens....but when I get the new canon eos R5 I want upgrade to this lens....would u do a comparison video between both of these lens.
You mean the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and the EF, or the Tamron G2, or the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L and the RF 24-70? I guess I'll do what I can in any case :-)
@@MatthewGore yes definitely the new Canon RF versus the Tamron EF 24-70. When I get the new camera it's one of the lenses I'm thinking about upgrading for my Tamron but I'm not sure if it's going to be enough of a jump in quality to validate spending the money. Thank you so much for your response
@@Crakmonkey691 I just got an R5... and the 24-70 works seamlessly on it. As I'm keeping my multiple DSLR bodies (and my full quiver or EF lenses), I'll be slowly adding RF lenses.
well i'm not worry about the lens being heavy but i want to buy the tamron g2 cause i'm not going to spend over a 1000 dollars on a camera lens. i really want to get the 18-35 from sigma and the 24mm 1.4 from sigma and the 70-200 from sigma and the 24-70 from tamron along with the 2 i already have i should be straight right
Yes, that sounds like a good, solid collection of lenses, especially if you get a full-frame camera so that your 16-35mm covers the ultra-wide range. If you stick with the 80D for a while, you might think about a lens in the 11-16mm range (or 10-20mm, more generally), if that's the sort of thing that you'd use. If not, then you're pretty well set.
@@MatthewGore i spoke to the photographer at the wedding last night and trust me he had a lot og good things to say. he told me to get the 24-70 lens with a good speed light and a diffuser and shoot in mannual mode and i will become a great photographer if i keep it up what you think about that
@@MatthewGore wife said i need the canon 10-18 and what you think about the godox 860 ii speed light
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 I agree about the 24-70. Manual mode can help you learn a lot, but there are times when semi-manual is more practical for situations that are changing quickly. I'd recommend not spending too much on equipment right away; get a couple of good lenses and take LOTS of pictures... that's what will make all the difference.
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 The Canon 10-18mm has a good zoom range, but it doesn't let in much light. Again, at 18mm it let's in only a quarter of the light than an f2.8 lens would. So, if you're planning on using the lens for shooting events that might be in low light, then I'd recommend a low-light lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or Tokina 11-20. The Godox 860 series would be a great choice.
Thank u Matt.
Tamron 24 70 g2 vs rf 24 105 f4
Which lens is more suitable for wedding photography?
Tks !
There are advantages and disadvantages to both... so it would depend on whether you're shooting with a single camera body or two (in which case the zoom range isn't as important) and what other lenses you might be using. Of course an f/2.8 lens will give you shallower depth of field for more subject separation and more light. The RF is a newer lens and has great optics and AF on an RF body, but you lose the light and bokeh. It's really a matter of personal preference, but if you aren't shooting with another large aperture lens, I'd make sure that you have at least one.
@@MatthewGore i already have an 85 is 1.4 and want to add a multi-function device and i'm wondering, i just sold the ef 24 70 l2 because of frequent cable breaks so i want to be safe with tamron or rf 24 105 f4 !
Tks
How does the bokeh compare between the lenses?
Tamron g2 vs Sigma next time pls
How is the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 first generation vs mark 2 vs Tamron 24-70 G2?
The first generation Canon 24-70 was actually a pretty old lens compared to the Mark II, and not up to the same standard, though a good lens overall. If I were to rank them, I'd go with the old Canon at the bottom, then the Tamron G2 (for image quality) and then the Canon Mark II as the best... with the understanding that the Tamron's image stabilization will be more important to some photographers than corner sharpness, so the Tamron may be a better choice.
Nice review Matthew, but here's a question. As a reviewer, a 5dsr is great, but for the casual ppl, I use a 6d mark ii, and maybe the two lens won't have too much of a difference？
The price difference is still an issue, though personally, a native lens would be much preferable. Is the tamron one good for casuals？Or are there any all around lens great for fullframe？My 24-105 is starting to show it's age.
Personally, I think that even on a 5DS R the minor difference is nothing to worry about, and on a 6D II, it would be negligible. But it all depends on what kind of work you do, and how it's going to be reproduced. If you sell large fine art prints, then maybe it's worth considering.
I haven't found any single lens that I think is great, all-around. I stick with a 24-70 and a 70-200, most of the time... and Canon and Tamron make good options for both :-)
I've used both on a 5DIII, the Canon did out-perform the Tamron for me.
Aside from the resolution test shots, just about everything in this video was shot on the 5D Mark III, and as you saw, there were some differences in autofocus performance, but I didn't have any problem with the Tamron in terms of resolution... though perhaps there were times when the Canon would have been measurably sharper.
Sometimes you have to have the lens adjusted
Can I use 24-70 to my canon 750d?
Yes you can, but it will look a little different. The 24mm end of the zoom range will appear like a 38mm lens because of the smaller sensor that the 750D uses, and similarly 70mm end will be like a 112mm. Otherwise, everything will work as expected.
Thank you
@@MatthewGore это не верно
@@74amino It's pretty true. The 750D uses an APS-C sensor, which is a crop factor of 1.6x for Canon, so the angle of view is roughly equivalent to what a 38mm lens would give you on a full frame. "Roughly" because of differences in distortion, but for practical purposes, it's pretty true.
@@MatthewGore извините, я спутал с Nikon d750.
Awesome comparison video! I believe I will go with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. The Canon pairs better with the 90D. I’ll also adapt it onto my R6MKII.
Thanks again
Should i buy tamron 20-70 2.8 or tamron 35mm 1.4
Yes.
Just kidding. It depends on your needs. The 35mm is sharper and has a larger aperture for low light, but of course it's much less versatile when it comes to range... so it all depends on what you need it for.
for potrait & weddings
@@sohaibshah6690 Ultimately, it's a matter of personal taste, but for me, I'd much rather have the flexibility of a zoom lens if I'm shooting a wedding. I usually keep a 24-70 on one camera body, and a 70-200 on a second body.
Should it matter I just want a good camera lens to use on my 80d so I will get the cheaper one cause I don't think I'll be paying that kind of money on a lens that cost more than 1100 I rather get a good use one
Porfavor compara con el tokina 24 70
raw file links?
Good video
Have you tested more than one tamron?
I have used several different Tamron 24-70s, but this whole video/test was conducted with a single Tamron lens. As you probably know, there is going to be a little variation between lenses regardless of brand, but in this case, both lenses seemed about typical... though not perfect
Just out of curiosit would you say that the tamron 28 - 75 is sharper than the 24 70?
@@hzubovi1Maybe a little bit sharper (if we're talking about the two Tamrons)... but it's hard to compare, and I've never done a side by side test with the two.
How does this Tamron compare to the 28-75 G2?
The Tamron E-mount lens has significantly better resolution away from the center of the frame at the wide end, and all around it has slightly better resolution, probably, but I haven't tested them side by side so it's hard to be positive.
@@MatthewGore what would you recommend for a Canon slr? Thank you very much for replying.
@@Thedaydiver For the type of shooting that I do, image stabilization is important, so I went back and forth for a long time between the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 and the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS. I ended up sticking with the Canon lens because I was doing a lot of traveling at the time and I preferred the light weight, and my 5D's sensor was good enough that I could almost always get the quality that I needed at f/4 without too much noise. If you don't need IS, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is wonderful, and if you need an f/2.8, then the Tamron G2 is quite good... it was always good enough for me in real world use. amzn.to/3ludVyo
Thank you very much. Incredibly kind of you to take the time to write me back. I will look for a good deal on the Canon lense. I appreciate the advice sir and I really enjoy your channel.
@@Thedaydiver Any time! Good luck :-)
@23:52 Conclusion.
I've never heard anyone recommend shooting hand held at 1/15 sec with or without IS.
It was much more common back in the film days, but of course, it's not ideal most of the time. Still, sometimes you're in a low light situation and need to take a shot and you either don't want the extra noise of higher ISO or are already maxed out on ISO. But there are also plenty of reasons why someone would want to shoot with a shutter speed that slow... when panning to capture motion, when you want people or other moving objects in your image to blur for creative effect.
I use this 18-400mm tamron lens and it's fantastic:
amzn.to/3aRUZ5Y
if you don't want to switch lens (or you can't because you are travelling) this is the right solution.
Just the OS makes the Tamron a much more useful lens unless you shoot everything on a tripod.
Agreed!
Will the canon's lens hood fit the tamron? Do they have same locking mechanism? Thanks
I bought used one without a lens hood.
No, they are different sizes. However, if you take a look on Ebay or Amazon you'll find them for sale... though not especially cheap... like this one: tinyurl.com/u9dz47t or amzn.to/38kitiU
No, it's the wrong size. However, you can buy one for about $29 on Ebay or Amazon.
the main quality of the lens is not necessarily sharpness but quality of the bokeh for portraits which I cannot find here, both at print and display level nobody notices sharpness but bokeh indeed
You are like the Daniel Day-Lewis of RUclipsrs. :-)
I don't know what that means, but thanks! ?
Matthew Gore Mmmm, Let me explain. Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't do that many movies, but when he does he does Outstanding Work. I feel the same about your videos. Hope that make a little more sense. ;-)
@@g4money Ahh, ok. I can live with that ☺
And Danial Day-Lewis is focussing on what he does - like a laser. You are that exact, too.
How about a fashion shoot? Most people use it for that, sports=70-200, landscape=16-35
You are comparing center to edge sharpness in a photo with a difference in distance, even at f2.8....
thx
Nice video, so we'll made. New subs here
L II not Mark!
Canon now have a live chat for those of you who have any questions www.canon.co.uk/canonlive/
who the heck shoots landscapes at wide apertures in broad daylight???
People who are testing a lens's resolution at that aperture and not trying to take good pictures, obviously. :-)
unfortunately Tamron is not sharp specially at tele end. AF is not horrible but is not as reliable as canon. ill stick with canon. In UK you can get the Tamron at around 750 pound and canon can be found around 1100 pounds. I believe it totally worth to spend 350 extra and get canon
that's more like 400 something extra--quite a bit for minor differences.