Professional TIFF exports often carry more color information per pixel than a typical web image ever will. Many cameras and scanners save 16 bits per channel rather than the 8 bits a standard JPEG uses, capturing far more subtle tonal gradation than a screen usually needs to display. AVIF supports higher bit depth output than JPEG, so converting a 16-bit TIFF to AVIF preserves noticeably more of that extra tonal range than converting to JPEG would, which matters most for a photo with a wide dynamic range, like a sunset or a high-contrast scan.
Color-managed TIFFs don't always translate directly to a browser format
TIFF remains a mainstay of professional print and prepress work partly because it can carry a CMYK color space or an embedded ICC color profile, giving printers exact color reproduction instructions. AVIF, like every other browser image format, only understands RGB, so converting a CMYK TIFF forces a conversion step through RGB, and colors calibrated for a specific printer or press can shift slightly in the result. This rarely matters for a scanned document or a straightforward RGB photo, but it's worth a quick check on any TIFF that came out of a print production workflow.
Encoding time scales with the source, not the result
AVIF's AV1-based encoding is already more compute intensive than JPEG or WebP, and that cost is paid based on how many pixels go into the encoder, not how small the output ends up being. A large archival TIFF scan at several thousand pixels wide takes noticeably longer to encode than a small web graphic would, even though the resulting AVIF file itself might be tiny. For a batch of large scanned TIFFs, expect each conversion to take real time rather than finishing instantly the way a small icon conversion would.
When the smaller file genuinely matters for a TIFF source
The size gap between an uncompressed TIFF and its AVIF equivalent is usually the largest of any format pairing on this site, since TIFF frequently starts out uncompressed and AVIF finishes as one of the most compressed formats available anywhere. That makes the extra encoding time worth it specifically when the destination is a website or app where every kilobyte affects load time, rather than for a copy that's staying in an internal archive, where the original TIFF should remain the master file regardless.