Hi Bob, I just bought a Canon 5d Mark 3 and the Canon 24-85 f3.5/4.5 which is non-IS. My question is whether or not the Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD f2.8 will produce better or worse images when using a tripod on both lenses?
The Canon cost me about $100 in pristine condition. So apart from IS can you take a stab at how my images might compare from the $1,300 Tamron after the images are corrected for vignetting and pincushion/barrel distortions in software?
My motivation for this question stems from having a 7d with the ef-s 17-55 IS f2.8 lens which I adored over the past few years, but didn't think that I benefitted much from the IS, and I am not excited about spending another $1,300 at this time.
Hi Barry for what it's worth I have been a keen photographer for just over 50 years. In that time I have have never wished for image stabilisation. I owned the 17-85 for about three years and that is my only experience of IS. I gave the lens to my son when I bought the Sigma 30mm, a lens that I love. I would not spend 1300 on the Tamron if the 24-85 gives you the results that you want. I realise that there are some circumstances where IS is a benefit but I remain to be convinced that it is as much an asset as people think. The thing that might convince me to pay for the Tamron is the fact that it is a 2.8 lens.
Hi Ken, I certainly agree with you re the f2.8. But I am wondering what the difference in picture quality might be between these two lenses when comparing photos taken at the same f-stop. Would there be differences in contrast? color tone? sharpness? Or would there be no noticeable differences? Barry