Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

There's no denying that I did return my first copy. That was being critical of course, but you are critical when you pay $1300 for a lens. I suspect the variance in focal length  was more due to my flawed original testing that an actual sample variation.  The upside, of course, is that in North America warranty is six years with Tamron. I would suspect that if you're going to have an issue it will show up during that period of time, and by the time that length of time is up you might be considering a new lens anyway

Unfortunately, i'm not in the US and i don't have the 6yr warranty. And i don't have the luxury like in the US where you can change for a new copy within a certain time frame. Over here, there's no such thing and the last time i had issue with my Tamron after a few days bought, i sent it in and they sent it back to Japan and it was gone for 1mth...i don't think i want to risk it again...they will fix it yes...but it's just a waste of time and hassle...

Well that certainly is a whole other matter.  My replacement copy was to me in just a few days.  I wonder why Tamron doesn't offer the same warranty in different areas?  I will say, however, that the build quality on this like is beyond any previous Tamron lens I have used.  That being said, I had my copy of the 70-300mm VC replaced too because I got lens errors with the first copy.  I bought it very early, however, and I have not heard of similar issues.  Part of being an early adopter is dealing with some of the issues.  If you aren't in a rush, you might want to wait and see how they hold up.  If you have the money to buy the Canon MKII version I doubt you will be disappointed.  It appears to be a fantastic lens with outstanding build quality.

I am happy with the Tamron, but I am in a much better position with the warranty than you are obviously, so that certainly enters the decision process.

[Drizzt321]

The focusing is a bit slower than the L lenses I've used (24-105, 135, 17-40, rented 14L, 24-70L v1, 70-200 2.8 IS v2). Not bad really, but not snappy like I'm used to. I shot most of the night in AI-Servo, since they were dancing and moving all around. As I said the lighting was quite challenging, but even when the AF points I was using was over the subject in decent lighting, I always felt like I had to wait a second or two for the camera to lock focus and start tracking. Quite annoying actually, and nothing something I'm used to. Part of it may have been, as stated above, my fingers rested right on the focusing ring so I may have confused it.

Leaving aside the IQ, if I can't figure out the AF in this kind of lower light, I might have to not get this lens, which would make me sad as this is exactly the environment I'd use this in. I'll try using my 24-105 briefly in the same lighting conditions to see if it shows similar hesitation, and if so it's the camera/lighting, and not the lens and I'll have to test out in other dim lighting conditions.

FYI, the low light AF Lock issue probably isn't the lens, it's the 5D3.  That's why TWI didn't have AF problems.  If you look around on this forum, the canon forums, etc you'll find a LOT of low light AF complaints with the 5D3 using any lens.  Your comments sound a lot like the same thing.  Some bodies seem to be affected more than others.  I myself had to return my first copy of the 5D3 it was so bad.  So it very well may have nothing to do with the lens.

Yea, that's kinda what I was feeling by the end of the 2nd night. I expect normally there would even be somewhat more light. It was just exceptionally bad lighting.

[agierke]

the colors from these wedding shots seem to be a bit odd to me. can you confirm if this is just a "look" that you go for in post or is the Tamron lens rendering color this way out of the camera?

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

the colors from these wedding shots seem to be a bit odd to me. can you confirm if this is just a "look" that you go for in post or is the Tamron lens rendering color this way out of the camera?

It depends on which shots you are talking about.  Most of the indoor shots are natural color (unless monochrome of some kind, obviously).  Most of the outdoor shots have been split toned as the natural light for the day was very grey and flat.

The Tamron's color is a bit warmer than, say, my Canon 24-105L, but color balance and skin tones render very naturally.  Anything that looks otherwise in these shots is probably due to post processing.

It is my experience that most young clients these days are not looking for perfect white balance shots.  They are accustomed to a more "Instagram" style.  I try to find the middle ground while delivering hopefully something unique to my clients.

[agierke]

i had a feeling that was the case. a severely overcast day is a nightmare to try to deal with in post as it is.

[Fred]

i decided to buy this lens after i compared a few reviews online (including yours !) . and i am really happy with my decision !

in a way this lens is very unique, because it offers 2,8 aperture and image stabilization. Lenses with F4 were never an option for me..

 advantages :

- image sharpness ! (maybe not as good as the Canon 24-70 II, but better than the old 24-70)
- 9 rounded blades = acceptable bokeh
- water-sealing (and you dont need an extra filter for the front element like for the canons)
- affordable price
- 5 years warranty ( in europe)
- image stabilitzation
- silent AF

disadvantages:

- AF speed is good ( & precision too) - but the Canons are faster
- wrong zoom-direction
- build quality is fine - but its not built like a tank
- no CPS-service (obvious)

But you really have to order a few ones or check them in your retail store. The first one i have taken was great, but the second one (which i just took for comparison) had a backfocus..

(sry for my crappy english)

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

i decided to buy this lens after i compared a few reviews online (including yours !) . and i am really happy with my decision !

in a way this lens is very unique, because it offers 2,8 aperture and image stabilization. Lenses with F4 were never an option for me..

 advantages :

- image sharpness ! (maybe not as good as the Canon 24-70 II, but better than the old 24-70)
- 9 rounded blades = acceptable bokeh
- water-sealing (and you dont need an extra filter for the front element like for the canons)
- affordable price
- 5 years warranty ( in europe)
- image stabilitzation
- silent AF

disadvantages:

- AF speed is good ( & precision too) - but the Canons are faster
- wrong zoom-direction
- build quality is fine - but its not built like a tank
- no CPS-service (obvious)

But you really have to order a few ones or check them in your retail store. The first one i have taken was great, but the second one (which i just took for comparison) had a backfocus..

(sry for my crappy english)

Glad you are happy with the lens, and that my review could help a bit.  I'm enjoying mine a lot!!

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

For those concerned about the "onion bokeh" potential on the lens, I have now had a scenario in which the onion bokeh was more prominent. I took this holiday themed shot while shooting decorations for a wedding.  It was the "perfect storm" for the onion bokeh, and it is noticeable even at this magnification:


Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I have an adjustment brush that I have developed in LR4 for when I want to further soften a background (it basically reduces clarity, contrast, and sharpness).  It did a fairly good job of reducing the effect in about ten seconds.  I could obviously reduce it further if I was desperate.


Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Now obviously I'm not crazy about the fact that this phenomena exists at all, and I think it would be a consideration if a person did a lot of photography that involved similar circumstances.  For me it has been a very isolated issue, and, in fact, overall I find the bokeh very pleasing and the transition to ooF very smooth for this type of lens.  But under the right conditions, it certainly will exhibit the onion bokeh effect.  I don't work for Tamron or have any stock in them, so I want to do my best to present my findings as unbiased as possible.  I have now been told by several people that they have bought this lens in part based upon my recommendation, so I want to keep an accurate stream of data about the lens going. 

On a positive note, those who have told me they bought the lens have been really pleased with it.  I suspect Tamron is going to sell quite a few of these lens.  It will be interesting to see what the resale value is after several years.  If the demands stays strong for the lens, I suspect that the resale value will probably be decent.  I have found, for example, that the non-VC version of the 17-50mm actually holds its value quite well.  In the meantime, however, I am happy with mine and it will very likely stay in my kit for some time to come.

[smithy]

Nice review!  Just one note though (to help with your writing), the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses'.

I'm only pointing this out because the word is used a lot in your review, for obvious reasons, especially in the first two paragraphs (intro and build quality).

[dstppy]

Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

[Drizzt321]

Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

I MFA'ed my rental copy with FoCal, although I feel I would have redone it a couple of times with better distances if I had time, I was rushed and it was the night before so I had to do it in my apartment (not that big). The values ended up being +14 wide, -1 tele. When I finally purchase this lens, I'll have to do some extensive tests to try and check that I get a good copy of the lens. Hmm...time to see if Neuro has a guide up somewhere on a good way to self-test in non-lab conditions for sharpness.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

I MFA'd the lens (although on MK2 I can only do focal length, which I did at at 70mm).  I ended up setting mine at a +5.  I will be picking up a MK3 in this calendar year and look forward to being able to dial it at a couple of settings.  I've been happy with the sharpness after the adjustment.

[Efka76]

Dustin, your review was extremely helpful. Outstanding pictures in review!!!!!

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, your review was extremely helpful. Outstanding pictures in review!!!!!

Thanks, it's something I plan to do more of.  The problem is, that other than the shorty forty, none of my lenses qualify as new enough (in terms of release) to review.  I may do a series of reviews on some of my vintage glass, however, as there aren't many detailed reviews on them as they predate the internet.

[dstppy]

Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing?  I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm  -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?

I MFA'd the lens (although on MK2 I can only do focal length, which I did at at 70mm).  I ended up setting mine at a +5.  I will be picking up a MK3 in this calendar year and look forward to being able to dial it at a couple of settings.  I've been happy with the sharpness after the adjustment.

Can the MK3 do MFA by focal length/lens or do you just mean that it should be more accurate out of the box?

Thanks again.