Anyone got the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD?

Sh4rkie said:
Well mine arrived and given it a quick go. Initial impression is it's sharp, very sharp. No decentering issues so it's good across the frame but softer at the extreme edges as expected. There is a but though, with VC off i get sharper images than with VC on. I've read a few reports of this and some say after a short break in period it corrects itself. Basically it consistently adds a hint of blur with the VC enabled (hand held, not on a tripod). It's not bad but at a pixel peeping level i can tell it's there.

I'll give it a day or two to see what happens with the VC and perform some more exhaustive test with it.
Click to expand...

What kind of shutter speeds? At higher shutter speeds VC/IS/VR will add blur and it should be switched off. Actually., VC/IS/VR should be switched whenever possible and only enabled when necessary.
 
D.P. said:
What kind of shutter speeds? At higher shutter speeds VC/IS/VR will add blur and it should be switched off. Actually., VC/IS/VR should be switched whenever possible and only enabled when necessary.
Click to expand...
1/80 and below so should be fine. Documented issue with the Tamron VC and my 70/200 doesn't show similar behaviour.
 
Sh4rkie said:
1/80 and below so should be fine. Documented issue with the Tamron VC and my 70/200 doesn't show similar behaviour.
Click to expand...

At that speed VC should be fine, once you get to 1/500th you should turn it off. Even at usual shooting speeds though any kind of stabilization can have odd effect on the Bokeh sometimes.
 
D.P. said:
At that speed VC should be fine, once you get to 1/500th you should turn it off. Even at usual shooting speeds though any kind of stabilization can have odd effect on the Bokeh sometimes.
Click to expand...
Indeed. VC on turns sharp in focus elements softer in this case, play properly tomorrow night all being well.
 
Well no improvement with the VC so a replacement is now on it's way.

Such as shame as this lens otherwise is very sharp! Hopefully the replacement with be as sharp but with working VC...
 
Last edited:
Sh4rkie said:
Well no improvement with the VC so a replacement is now on it's way.

Such as shame as this lens otherwise is very sharp! Hopefully the replacement with be as sharp but with working VC...
Click to expand...

Any update on this mate? Also, was it sharp without any AF tweaking when you got it?
 
Second copy showed up and exhibited identical symptoms, sharp with VC off and a hint of blur / softness with VC on.

Second copy went back and then i found this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3559567


1DX user who had identical issues. The conclusion was mirror slap and by enabling silent shooting it reduced / eliminated the problem.


My third copy arrived and again softest shots with VC on, sharp as a tack VC off. Tried the above workaround and sure enough VC on with silent shooting it is very close to the sharpness of VC off normal shutter.

Putting aside the VC issues all three copies were as sharp as each other so no variation in general terms. Serials numbers were significantly apart so not a batch run problem.

Debating what to do next but i will probably keep the third copy as moving to silent shutter for static subjects at low shutter speeds isn't a problem. The alternative is the Canon f2.8 II which doesn't make sense for me as while it's sharper (damn it must be razor edge sharp as this Tammy is already fantastic) it's also significantly more expensive for a lens i won't use very often but want in my bag.
 
I played with a 5D MIII and a Canon 24-70mm, one of the best camera setups I have used (I swear the camera out of focus was as sharp as my little old D5200 in focus :p). It didn't take me long to start looking at the Tamron 24-70mm, my question is would this lens be wasted on a cropped sensor?
 
doodah said:
I played with a 5D MIII and a Canon 24-70mm, one of the best camera setups I have used (I swear the camera out of focus was as sharp as my little old D5200 in focus :p). It didn't take me long to start looking at the Tamron 24-70mm, my question is would this lens be wasted on a cropped sensor?
Click to expand...

I think only you can decide whether 35-112mm is a focal range you are going to find useful or not.
 
Yeah came across that this morning though I would need to get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC for mine. More research :) - thanks for the suggestion.

It's a lot cheaper than the 24-70mm!

Edit - the VC version of this sounds worse than the older version.
 
Last edited:
Surely a Canon won't fit on my D5200 so I would have to get the Nikon which will be too expensive or more likely the equivalent Tamron or Sigma?
 
doodah said:
Surely a Canon won't fit on my D5200 so I would have to get the Nikon which will be too expensive or more likely the equivalent Tamron or Sigma?
Click to expand...

Ahhh sorry I thought I read you had a Canon APS-C camera.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC / Sigma 17-50 OS HSM are cheap as chips and have to be worth a try... if you don't like them just return them for a refund.
 
doodah said:
I played with a 5D MIII and a Canon 24-70mm, one of the best camera setups I have used (I swear the camera out of focus was as sharp as my little old D5200 in focus :p). It didn't take me long to start looking at the Tamron 24-70mm, my question is would this lens be wasted on a cropped sensor?
Click to expand...

I had a Nikon 24-70mm with a crop body for a while, mostly just a very expensive paper weight. I got the lens because, as you can read earlier in this thread I had gone through 3 different Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lenses and they were all duds. I spotted the Nikon 24-70 on a new electronics website associated with a supermarket (Migros electronics for Richdog) and it had some kind of pricing error, hundred less than anywhere else, so I snapped it up without thinking. I also expected to e buying a D700 with in a few months so it made sense.
That never happened. For several years more I retained my trusty D90. The 24-70 sat on a shelf collecting dust untouched. The focal length is just useless for every day photography.


however, for events and portraiture it works very well actually. 35-105mm lens on Nikon crop is quite useful , but you do have to keep swapping to soemthign wider for group shots.







I would get the Sigma 18-35mm f/.8 lens instead.
 
Thanks D.P. :)

Been reading/comparing a few today. I can't believe how much more the Canon 24-70mm costs than the Tamron! Also what is the RRP for the 5D Mark III - I am seeing fluctuations of nearly £1k!! I am not going to buy one but 'accidentally' looked into it earlier :o.

I have had my D5200 for a couple of years and I love it but have a great deal more to learn on it, weddings seem to be my strongest area. Currently have the 18-55mm kit and a prime 35mm which for £130 is a great piece of glass. However after playing with the MKIII and Canon 24-70mm yesterday, I would be quite keen on expanding my glass and spending a decent amount/more than £130 :p.

So it's a case of going for the 24-70mm @ 35-105mm or going lower as you suggest. I would imagine the 18-35mm would suit my style more anyway (low light, wide angle, cities, portraits and weddings). If the Canon is rated higher than the Tamron for the 24-70mm, does the Sigma 18-35mm hold up against it's (likely) more expensive Nikon counterpart? Also would this not work/be worth it for a full frame camera in the future?
 
the Sigma 18-35mm is an exceptionally sharp lens and is unique in being the only zoom at f/1.8. However, it wont work on FF, neither will the 17-55mm f/2.8. But I don't think you should ever worry about lens compatibility worth a FF camera. But lenses for the camera you have now and no the camera you dream of having.

You can bu the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 pretty cheap second hand, built like a tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom