Tamron 24-70

ElDude

ElDude

ElDude

Soldato
Joined
8 Apr 2004
Posts
2,734
Location
Wrexham
http://www.slrlounge.com/first-ever-video-reviews-of-tamron-24-70mm-f2-8-vc-4-way-comparos


http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/tamron-ef-24-70-f2-8-vc-in-stock-quick-mtf-review/


http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

This actually looks like it could be worth a purchase. To be honest I've always been a bit snooty when it comes to Tamron and not even considered them before, but the image quality and write ups on this lens for Canon mount, seem to be quite good so far.

My 24-70 gland is twitching again :D
 
My Tamron 17-50 was great. The build quality, although a bit plastic, was actually pretty decent and the optics were great for the price.
 
That video of him comparing the Canon to the Tamron was rather good. Both seems equally sharp, and the stabilisation seemed rather tasty. Admittedly I'd be using it on a 60D, but unless some horror stories surface, I may postpone my Stratocaster purchase :D
 
With the price of the new Canon 24-70 so damn high, as long as the IQ holds up this might end up replacing my 24 and 50. Build quality is meant to be pretty good, and the stabilisation is definitely good.

Still wish Canikon would put sensor stabilisation in though... Then again that might kill off the need for ISO performance, but still, would be very useful imo.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/7124116529_e0ef25ebde_o.jpg

^^ One second exposure @ 70mm, very impressive
 
That does look nice :)

I won't get rid of my Sigma 50mm1.4 as I absolutely love it, but this 24-70 would be perfect for toddling about doing candid/street stuff, along with some landscapes. Annoyingly I'll have to buy another adapter for the lee filter though. I really do like the idea of this lens, and the price is appealing. Come August if it's out, I'll have the dosh to buy it :)
 
Vertigo1 said:
Maybe they think they've spotted a gap in the market when the Canon is discontinued in favour of the (much higher priced) Mk2?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the obvious reason, and quite frankly I think Canon have missed a huge chunk of the market by not having this. More are using the 5Dmkii & now iii to record videos (and obviously the lower ranking cameras with video). In the indie music scene alone there are more and more making videos using it. Not having this stabilisation seems baffling.

That Tamron, admittedly from only a handful of videos, seems very decent. IQ seems fine when directly compared to the Canon video on offer too. Unless the full reviews show massive hardware flaws, and sharpness failings, I can't see a reason why I wouldn't want this.
 
Hello my next lens :D

As an owner of the 28-75 XR Di which I favoured insanely, this new one with the range I'm looking at and VC will sit next to the 10-22 perfectly!
 
Ksanti said:
Still, would like to see a full review with f/2.8 analysis, naturally.
Click to expand...

That's the clincher really. You buy a constant f/2.8 lens so you can use it wide open whenever you want or need to and many lenses fall down quite a bit when used wide open so the full tests will be interesting.
 
Vertigo1 said:
That's the clincher really. You buy a constant f/2.8 lens so you can use it wide open whenever you want or need to and many lenses fall down quite a bit when used wide open so the full tests will be interesting.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the Tamron will hold up wide open just as the other high level lenses from them have in the past.

I'm quite close to ordering one as a friend of mine is interested in buying my Sigma 50 1.4 off me which works out quite well because I won't need the 50 any longer if I get the Tamron. Combination of 10-22 and 24-70 will serve as epic tools for portraiture and venue work!

Still....£999-£1099 is a fair bit of green to slap down on a non manf branded lens although the build quality seems every bit as good as you'd expect for the price.

Luckily the increased filter size doesn't bother me as the 77mm filters I have only get used on the 10-22 :D
 
mrk said:
I have no doubt the Tamron will hold up wide open just as the other high level lenses from them have in the past.
Click to expand...

They're far from infallible however. The VC version of the 17-50 f/2.8 is widely regarded as optically inferior to the original lens. For this reason alone it will be interesting to see if they've managed to incorporate stabilisation into this 24-70 without adversely affecting the optics.
 
Vertigo1 said:
They're far from infallible however. The VC version of the 17-50 f/2.8 is widely regarded as optically inferior to the original lens. For this reason alone it will be interesting to see if they've managed to incorporate stabilisation into this 24-70 without adversely affecting the optics.
Click to expand...

It may well be optically inferior but the difference is incredibly slim and actually quite a small price to pay for a very good stabliser. Tamron were a victim of there own success the origional lens was the best in class beating even the might canon 17-55mm F2.8is. Matching this in the replacement lens was always going to be a challenge but the internet myth that has grown around this now has most people dismissing the VC version of this lens as utterly useless which fortunately keep the sencond hand price of what in reality is a very good lens nice and low.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It may well be optically inferior but the difference is incredibly slim and actually quite a small price to pay for a very good stabliser. Tamron were a victim of there own success the origional lens was the best in class beating even the might canon 17-55mm F2.8is.
Click to expand...

Err, no.

Sorry but, good though the Tamron is/was, the Canon 17-55 was slightly better. The Tamron may have been far better value or "bang for buck", but wasn't quite as good optically as the Canon.
 
mrk said:
Hello my next lens :D

As an owner of the 28-75 XR Di which I favoured insanely, this new one with the range I'm looking at and VC will sit next to the 10-22 perfectly!
Click to expand...

I had to use my 28-75 recently for a wedding, I wasn't looking forward to it as to be honest I don't like the lens that much (as I have said before on here). Now I don't know if it has a hidden "auto detect wedding use" feature or something, but I was pleasantly surprised when I got to review the pictures taken with it. There weren't the dull lifeless shots that I normally expect from it, so I'm going to give it more of a chance from now on...

IS\OS\VC is nice to have, but I don't know that I would pay such a premium for it. As I don't shoot landscapes very much at all, and the vast majority of subjects that I do shoot are moving, VC isn't a feature I need at this focal length as I want the shutter speed to be at a min of 1/100 anyway (to stop movement, although a higher shutter speed is generally needed to be honest). I can see how it is useful for handheld low shutter speed landscapes, architecture, static shots though.
 
Yeah I think the 17-50 was an exception. I had the 17-55 Canon and it was sharp at 2.8 at all zooms around the entire frame. Sharper than my 50mm 1.4 at the time at 2.8-4 as well.

The 17-50 Tamron wasn't as sharp.

My reference was about the 28-70 XR Di really. The VC motors on this 24-70 are laid out differently too as are the other internals so I should expect it to be stellar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom