Tamron 24-70

The tamron 28-75 2.8 is just no where near as sharp as the Nikon outside the very center so I wouldn't raise one's hopes to high that this new Tamron is in the same ball park as the new Canon or Nikon. We have been here before, the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 line were as good as the Tamron 28-75 and they announced a new one which they promised was their best ever and will canon and Nikon versions, once tested it is clear the lens is a long way behind, and not just sharpness- the bokeh is really unpleasant on the newest sigma 24-70. I strongly doubt the new Tamron will really compete so strongly, and will use price to lure customers.

But at current prices the benchmark Nikon 25-70 is but 200 gbp more, I would never touch this new Tamron given such a small price difference and I doubt it will ever come close to the Nikon in all round quality including build quality, auto focus, micro contrast, weather sealing.
 
Last edited:
The 28-75 I had was most definitely sharp and I also use the Nikkor 24-70 on a D300 so am familiar with its qualities.

Maybe I got lucky with a good sample first off but I bought it based on the online reviews about it being so sharp anyway. I had the Canon version thoigh.
 
The Tamron 28-75 is sharp in the center, but not towards the edges. This is especially apparent when tested on a FF sensor. In my work I don't place the subject in the center and need whole frame acuity.

Look at the FF results form here:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/49/cat/23
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d?start=1

It is not even in the same ball park as the Nikon:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13

The Sigma attempt has atrocious corners:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1236/cat/31
Verified here also:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx?start=1
Terrible edges and corners wide open. And look at that harsh Bokeh

I'm just saying, neither Sigma nor Tamron have produced a 24/28-70/75mm f/2.8 that competes with the Nikon lens. This new Tamron is only marginally cheaper and I would bet money it is not as good overall.
 
Last edited:
Most of the early adopters over on FM have sent the Tamron back. Only chap who kept it was due to the VC.
 
Yeah, sadly it seems the lens has some rather big flaws. Also Canon just announced they're discontinuing the 24-70 so prices will rocket on ebay soon. I saw one for £600 somewhere last night, when I was bored in town waiting for my mate to turn up. I can't find it for the life of me now or I'd probably get it.

I'm not paying £2200 for a lens. I might just go the 16-35 route instead.
 
"Tamron APS plastics"

Uh oh... They must be better than the plastics on the 17-50 surely?

Neil79 said:
Yeh :(, gutted really then I had a 6month bad taste in my mouth trying to return it!

Going to stick with Canon and Sigma
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't rate Sigma either...

I've owned eight lenses over the last few years.

1x Sigma
1x Tamron
1x Tokina
5x Canon

The Sigma didn't break but never seemed that good
The Tamron broke within a week of owning it
The Tokina is a superb lens but broke after two years (need to get it fixed!)
None of the Canon lenses have broken, all have been very nice (even the 18-55) and some of them probably date back 20 years and still worked as well as day 1.

My personal preference now is certainly pushing towards manufacturer lenses.
 
I couldn't stand the Canon 18-55, horrid cheap lens that I just plain didn't like using. The Tamron 17-50 was a massive step up. The plastics\build on the new 24-70 are being reported as improved, which you'd hope in a lens at that cost...
 
Rojin said:
I couldn't stand the Canon 18-55, horrid cheap lens that I just plain didn't like using. The Tamron 17-50 was a massive step up. The plastics\build on the new 24-70 are being reported as improved, which you'd hope in a lens at that cost...
Click to expand...

The Tamron 17-50 felt to me to have the same build quality as the 18-55, it was a very similar lens in that sense. That build is fine on a £50 kit lens but for something that is supposed to be a step up it was certainly poor, especially when Tokina and to a slightly lesser extent Sigma, can produce far better built lenses for a similar price.
 
Amp34 said:
The Tamron 17-50 felt to me to have the same build quality as the 18-55, it was a very similar lens in that sense. That build is fine on a £50 kit lens but for something that is supposed to be a step up it was certainly poor, especially when Tokina and to a slightly lesser extent Sigma, can produce far better built lenses for a similar price.
Click to expand...

It's not a massive step up in build quality, the picture quality was in a different class. Tokina are well made, generally using metal. Sigma I don't have issues with, there is the old peeling issue but I never suffered from that. The lenses I have seen it on, it's no different to well used chipped Canon lenses.
 
Just thought id revive this based on the Tamron SP 24-70mm

Would anyone here say its possible to shoot a whole wedding with this lens combined with a Canon 5D MK3 ?
 
Depends entirely on the location and the access you have for the shoot. Some churches might not let you in front of the back row of pews and as such the 24-70 will likely be far too short for your usage which could make it difficult to get the crucial shots of the ceremony. In the right situation though and in the right hands, yes, absolutely it would be possible. Also depends on if you're the main photographer or just a guest looking to show up the hired professional :P

On another note, this lens has tanked in price as far as I can tell. I saw mint copies on MPB for as little as about £580 the other day which makes it an absolute steal, will be very tempted if I find myself wanting a video lens or a 24-70 for whatever reason
 
It's a great lens... I use it for video most of the time.

I wouldn't do a video for someone with one camera and one lens.. Are the couple getting married your friends?... Are they paying you... If you are a guest and you want to film some parts of the day, then this lens will serve you pretty well.. If you are getting paid you should have at least 2 camera's 3 zooms a few primes a slider, a monopod, a tripod and some decent audio..

Filming a wedding requires investment and experience... For friends and family, you can put something together that could be quite nice, but if it's someone paying... 1 camera 1 lens is only going to get you so much..
 
I was looking at the lens as a photographer point of view not videographer.

So does anyone know if anyone has shot a wedding with just this or with another for the day?
 
Last edited:
I have the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD for my A65/A77 it’s an amazing lens for the money, I’m sure it takes much better photos than all my other lenses, I’ve just got a Sigma 150-500 OS and was looking at some shots between this and the Tamron because I had them both on the same SD card and it’s my main lens, I was very disappointed with the Sigma, I know it’s a different type of lens all together but I was expecting the Sigma to blow me away.

1080p with the Tamron 17-50mm http://youtu.be/9GRDM-sqoUs
 
Last edited:
I don't know what from any reading you could have done on the internet that would have told you the Sigma is barely acceptably sharp at most focal lengths that would have lead you to be expecting to be blown away. In any case the 17-50 are 24-70 are totally different lenses.

As I said MP4, plenty shoot primarily with 24-70s and this a particularly good one, I'd probably go as far as saying the best on the market depending on your usage. Like I said, it depends on the location as no two weddings are exactly the same. Behind the scenes before the ceremony it will be good for if potentially a little dark if things get manic. For the service again it depends on if you're sitting 20m away from the couple because of restrictions on where you can stand or if you can be behind the couple (as in on the other side of the couple to the pews).

Assuming you can get within range to do it properly the 24-70 lenses will reward you, but if you need longer there's no substitute for a 70-200 or 135 type telephoto.
 
MP4 is shooting his first wedding next month and has only really ever shot natural light.
He asked me for advice, and yes I told him to practice and prepare as much as possible.

He asked what I shoot with, I said 2x FF bodies 24 35 & 85 F1.4. Personally I have never shot with a longer lens at a wedding.

He said he currently has a 400D but wants to upgrade to 5D3.
Below is the rest of the gear he has.
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
17-55 Kit lens
Sigma 70-300 F4
600EX RT

I advised that an all prime setup on your first wedding when you only have one body will be challenging.
I advised to also have a standard zoom as he obviously can't use the kit lens.
He suggested the 24-70L. I said from experience I have found F2.8 is too slow if you want to shoot pretty much natural light only (especially early April), but of course if you want to use a flash it will be ok.
I pointed him towards the Tamron as an extra 2-3 stops of stabilisation will make a very tangible difference to the ambient lighting conditions he can shoot in, especially when your hand is shaky with adrenalin. Instead of ISO 12800, he can shoot something like ISO 1600 which is a big deal for a wedding photographer imo.

I then told him to ask the same here and to see what other or different advice people come back with.
 
I'm not convinced stabilisation will be of much use for people photography. Anything less than 1/100 and you're very susceptible to motion blur from movement (your subject can, you may also move slightly yourself). Certain types of shot you will get away with, but a slw shutter speed will limit you. A lot depends on the venue, my last church wedding I had to shoot from the back at 200mm on a 7D...

As to the OP, a hell of a lot of weddings are shot with a 24-70. It's usually paired with a 70-200 as well though...
 
My apologies MP4... The tamron is a super lens.. The VC is amazing. Its always nice to have a 70-200 available, pref with image stabilisation.. But in short, the 24 -70 is the most popular length for weddings!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom