I have been looking forward to reviews of this lens. I have used the non-VC version and found it very competent optically but also found the AF too slow to use in professional work. I took some really nice pictures with it for a few weeks and then sold it. So, I am interested in this lens, but only if it is a true competitor for the Canon MKII version. I get this magazine (it comes free to those who have bought and registered Tamron products) and find that they strive towards objectivity (i.e. they will be honest about downsides to Tamron products) but will typically lean towards the glass-half-full perspective.
I am personally disappointed with a couple of things here:
#1 The very flat and uninspiring conditions don't lend itself to overwhelming pictures here. I would have liked to see a little more of a mixture of conditions (maybe some shots in the city at night) to show a larger gambit of color. That being said, the color on the mallards looks nice.
#2 They spoke of how great the bokeh was, but none of these image show off bokeh in any kind of meaningful way. How about getting a little closer to something?
I found the bokeh in the non-VC quite smooth, but I wouldn't say it threatened my 135L. One big plus of the original as the minimum focus distance, which allowed for very smooth flower shots like this one (SOOC)Windblown
by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott
, on Flickr
I wish they could have shown a little more inspiring images all with the text. I have been very pleased with the new 24-70 VC, and if this was a true match, it might be worth the money.