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

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I still wouldn't pick the Tamron over my 17-40L as a landscape lens, but it has proven a very worthy performer at the 24mm end because of great color rendition, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than something like my 24-105L:


As the Ice Forms by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

[RustyTheGeek]

Dustin, I like the shots you have shared and I am increasingly finding your writing style and thought process about your photography and equipment to be respectable and worth reading.  I'm glad you are willing to spend some of your time helping others gain perspective about building their own kits and craft.  (Not to mention putting your name on the line for others to judge you and your methods.)

How much have you used the Tamron 24-70 for journalistic style handheld people shooting, esp indoor with available light?  IMHO, this is a bigger challenge for any lens, esp at larger apertures.  No offense but shooting large landscapes doesn't expose a lens' faults quite as much as up close shots in low light.  Don't you agree?  Comments?

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, I like the shots you have shared and I am increasingly finding your writing style and thought process about your photography and equipment to be respectable and worth reading.  I'm glad you are willing to spend some of your time helping others gain perspective about building their own kits and craft.  (Not to mention putting your name on the line for others to judge you and your methods.)

How much have you used the Tamron 24-70 for journalistic style handheld people shooting, esp indoor with available light?  IMHO, this is a bigger challenge for any lens, esp at larger apertures.  No offense but shooting large landscapes doesn't expose a lens' faults quite as much as up close shots in low light.  Don't you agree?  Comments?

Rusty, I have actually used the lens most in the scenarios that you describe, both personally and professionally.  I have shot multiple business events, weddings, and portraits and have been extremely impressed with the lens in those settings.  My only reservation would be that the AF is not as fast as my other lenses (primarily L class lenses).  It has gotten the job done, however.  I share less of this kind of work because it is often A) Professional work, which I share less of out of respect for my clients and B) Is often less exciting than my landscape/fine art images I share and sell.

That being said, I like the Tamron more in that kind of setting than any lens I have used previously.  The color rendering is, well, special, and I find the transition to ooF very smooth with the lens.  I love it.

Here is a sample from a business event I shot.  Poorly lit hall at a hotel, natural light, ISO 2500 - wide open.  This was before AFMA with the 6D, so my results are a bit sharper now.

[RustyTheGeek]

Wow.  Fast reply.  On a Sunday.  Thought you'd be in church!!   

Thanks for sharing.  I like the way you caught her head in the light wash on the wall behind her as a background enhancement.  (I assume you would likely crop the light fixture above out.)  Yes, tricky lighting.

If you were to compare the Tamron 24-70 to either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105, how would you rate it with regard to your real world use in these type situations?  In other words, for someone who owns those lenses already, what was your impression of the Tamron 24-70 difference in actual use?  Good, bad or otherwise?  I'm trying to decide if I should spend the money (or not) in order to achieve a potential (but unknown) XX% improvement for the cost.  I hope I'm not asking something directly covered in your review.  If so, sorry!!

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Wow.  Fast reply.  On a Sunday.  Thought you'd be in church!!   

Thanks for sharing.  I like the way you caught her head in the light wash on the wall behind her as a background enhancement.  (I assume you would likely crop the light fixture above out.)  Yes, tricky lighting.

If you were to compare the Tamron 24-70 to either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105, how would you rate it with regard to your real world use in these type situations?  In other words, for someone who owns those lenses already, what was your impression of the Tamron 24-70 difference in actual use?  Good, bad or otherwise?  I'm trying to decide if I should spend the money (or not) in order to achieve a potential (but unknown) XX% improvement for the cost.  I hope I'm not asking something directly covered in your review.  If so, sorry!!

You caught me before service   I've prayed, preached, and prayed some more...so back to photography until this evening  

The 24-105L has perhaps the best focal length of any EF lens (unless you count the 28-300L, which few people do).  That being said, the 24-70 focal length is obviously a very usable one for general purpose.   I found I stopped using my 24-105L after I purchased the Tamron, and eventually sold it.  The Tamron color is more appealing, the fast aperture adds a lot of different creative options, there is much less distortion, and the VC makes it one of the most handholdable lens out there (perhaps bested only by Canon's new 35mm IS).  I would definitely recommend it over the 24-105L.

I haven't used the Canon 24-70L in either variation.  If money is no object and you don't need the VC, I would go for the 24-70 II - it is considered one of the top zooms ever.  The Tamron adds the VC of course, and is optically superior to the MKI and slightly inferior to the MKII.  If you don't have (or don't want to spend) MKII money, I would definitely recommend the Tamron.  It is my current go-to lens and spend the most time on my camera despite having a bag full of great lens.

P.S.  Color renders warmer in the Tamron vs. the 24-105L.  Whether that is good or bad depends on your preference.  I personally like it.

[RustyTheGeek]

Great response and what I was wanting.  I have always preferred a warmer tone but in the past year I have realized I probably like it a bit too warm and have started moving a tiny bit cooler to hopefully make a "better" image.  The lens that stays on my camera the most is the 16-35L v1.  After that it's the 24-105L or the 24-70L.  So the new Tamron makes sense.  My biggest concern at this point is the Tamron QA and consistency on this lens.  It seems pretty common to hear folks having to go through several copies to find one that is ideal.  This is a bummer and something I don't have the time to deal with at the moment.  Maybe in a couple months.  I'm sort of hoping Tamron gets their act together and maybe I can jump in later when things get more consistent and whatever issues exist are corrected.  Thank you so much for the quick and informative replies.  I'm sure many who read this will benefit.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Great response and what I was wanting.  I have always preferred a warmer tone but in the past year I have realized I probably like it a bit too warm and have started moving a tiny bit cooler to hopefully make a "better" image.  The lens that stays on my camera the most is the 16-35L v1.  After that it's the 24-105L or the 24-70L.  So the new Tamron makes sense.  My biggest concern at this point is the Tamron QA and consistency on this lens.  It seems pretty common to hear folks having to go through several copies to find one that is ideal.  This is a bummer and something I don't have the time to deal with at the moment.  Maybe in a couple months.  I'm sort of hoping Tamron gets their act together and maybe I can jump in later when things get more consistent and whatever issues exist are corrected.  Thank you so much for the quick and informative replies.  I'm sure many who read this will benefit.

To be fair, there seems to be a fair bit of sample variation with the new 24-70II also, and the MKI had an even worse reputation for that.  The plus side with the Tamron is that you get 6 years warranty. 

When I speak about transition to ooF, this casual shot from Friday night at a games night at the church shows what I mean.  Available light, ISO 1000, but note the almost prime-like transition to out of focus.  The crop shows the detail in the focal point.

[RustyTheGeek]

Great!  Thanks for that.  Very good point.  The ooF transition is something that isn't often discussed.  That's a great example.  Shots like that make a world of difference in understanding more about the personality of the lens.  I hope you have a great Sunday and get a chance to relax and enjoy it.  Cheers!

[wickidwombat]

Dustin, how have you found the build now that you have owned it for a reasonable length of time and probably put it through its paces a fair bit by now?
my previous tamron experiences have not been good so I'm hesitant to go around again but your images are pretty compeling I've been hoping sigma release a competitor since canon seem determined not to. but sigma aren't playing either I have the canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 which my wife uses alot at events however I think a ligther version with IS would benefit her alot (I personally prefer primes and the 16-35 so i shoot with those more) but the weight of the 24-70L takes its toll on her after extended event shooting and IS would be a godsend especially coupled with reduced weight.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, how have you found the build now that you have owned it for a reasonable length of time and probably put it through its paces a fair bit by now?
my previous Tamron experiences have not been good so I'm hesitant to go around again but your images are pretty compeling I've been hoping sigma release a competitor since canon seem determined not to. but sigma aren't playing either I have the canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 which my wife uses alot at events however I think a ligther version with IS would benefit her alot (I personally prefer primes and the 16-35 so i shoot with those more) but the weight of the 24-70L takes its toll on her after extended event shooting and IS would be a godsend especially coupled with reduced weight.

I sincerely don't think build quality is an issue at all with this lens.  When you first pick it  up, it feels like  a dense, quality lens.  I have used it in most all weather conditions (I do live in Canada!) and I use it without reservation just as I would my L series lenses.  It is weather  sealed and I have never  had any kind of glitch or issue using it in rain, wet snow, or extreme cold (-35).  I haven't dropped it or anything, but I generally try NOT to do that. Furthermore, if you are in North America, the warranty is 6 years, which definitely does give some peace of mind.

I own no stock in Tamron, but I can honestly say I do really love the lens.  I suspect I would feel the same about the Canon MKII as I love great optics, but when I look at the images I get with this lens I don't feel like I am missing much...and certainly not enough money for almost two Tamrons much.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I just traveled to Virginia/DC over March break with a Tamron 24-70VC and a Canon 70-300L.  It is the best travel combination that I have used to date - a lot of creative options there.

Here's a shot of the condo building we were staying in from the Tamron:


A Slice of Virginia by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

[RustyTheGeek]

Thank you for sharing!

Nice place!  Great colors!  While I enjoy viewing this image and I think you did a great job capturing it, I can't help thinking that wide tight aperture landscape shots like this don't necc show the best qualities of the lens.  As much as I like the image, don't you think that it would look pretty much the same with most other decent quality lenses?  (24-105L comes to mind.)

Educate me about how this lens made the image better.  Was it the low light of that time of day that would have otherwise come out way too dark (hence blurry) without this lens?  Is it the color rendition or the more controlled CA that another lens can't match?  The VC?

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult your post, quite the opposite.  I'm interested in what challenges you faced in taking the picture and how the lens helped you overcome them.  In short, how would having the 6D + this lens help me  to get a picture similar to this when faced with a similar situation?

[RustyTheGeek]

Oh, and did you do a lot of tourist stuff in DC?  I'm thinking the Tamron 24-70 worked great in the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, etc.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thank you for sharing!

Nice place!  Great colors!  While I enjoy viewing this image and I think you did a great job capturing it, I can't help thinking that wide tight aperture landscape shots like this don't necc show the best qualities of the lens.  As much as I like the image, don't you think that it would look pretty much the same with most other decent quality lenses?  (24-105L comes to mind.)

Educate me about how this lens made the image better.  Was it the low light of that time of day that would have otherwise come out way too dark (hence blurry) without this lens?  Is it the color rendition or the more controlled CA that another lens can't match?  The VC?

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult your post, quite the opposite.  I'm interested in what challenges you faced in taking the picture and how the lens helped you overcome them.  In short, how would having the 6D + this lens help me  to get a picture similar to this when faced with a similar situation?

That's a valid point.  As far as a shot like this, the Tamron has a couple of advantages over the 24-105L.  First, it has a bit wider angle of view (if the Canon is a true 24mm, then the Tamron is at least 23mm).  Secondly, it has considerably less distortion, which means that either you have less distortion uncorrected or retain more of your image after correction.  The lens is also sharper.  Finally, I do like the color rendering from the Tamron better.

Of course, the big advantage of the Tamron comes either in low light situations (this link has an image I took in the DC Metro handheld at .8 seconds!) http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/03/metro-arrival/ or when you want shallow depth of field.  I really love the lens for that type of shot because I find the transition from focus to ooF very smooth with the Tamron.  I often will pack a prime with me for this types of shots, and I didn't miss not having one with me at all on this trip.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Oh, and did you do a lot of tourist stuff in DC?  I'm thinking the Tamron 24-70 worked great in the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, etc.

One big advantage in those types of settings is that because of the wider aperture and great stability, I can more easily use a circular polarizer to minimize glare and reflection off glass.  I loved my 24-105L for this type of work, but I can honestly say that I have not missed it since selling it a few months after purchasing the Tamron.