September 18, 2014, 02:00:22 AM

Author Topic: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70  (Read 10623 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14390
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2013, 11:58:38 AM »
Even though I own the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, I would buy the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, again, without any hesitation (that is if I can afford it) ... and although I always refer to Digital Picture reviews for all my Canon lenses, I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses ... I wonder if they are just jinxed with all their third party lenses or ... ? :-\

Try reading the Canon 24-70/2.8L II review and see how many copies he had to test.  It's not only 3rd party lenses, but usually 3rd party lenses.  The Sigma 35/1.4 is the only one that interests me, but I'm sure Canon will bring their MkII shortly with better IQ and weather sealing.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2013, 11:58:38 AM »

bholliman

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 746
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2013, 02:47:36 PM »
I was seriously considering buying this lens, debating between it and the Canon 24-70 2.8 II.  But, this review along with experience of others with bad copes has made rule out buying the Tamron. 

The copy Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) tested was very good and Dustin Abbot
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.0 has a very good copy.

However, TDP had to go through 3 lenses before getting a good one.  A friend of mine who is a professional wedding photographer purchased one from B&H.  He has received and returned 4 lenses and still has not received a decent copy.  All had AF issues and the others were sharp on one side and soft on the other.  Once lens front focused badly and was not correctable at AFMA +20.  Sounds like Tamron has some serious QA issues...

Personally, I don't want to go through the hassle of trying to find a good copy.  I could get lucky, but evidence says the odds are against it.
Bodies:  6D, EOS-M (22/2 and 18-55)
Lenses: Rokinon 14mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 IS, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 135mm 2.0L, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, Extenders: EF 1.4xIII, EF 2xIII ; Flash: ST-E3-RT, 600EX-RT (x3)

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2013, 03:09:07 PM »
babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

For my part (largely worthless though this information is), I've used two copies, one via lensrentals and one I bought from amazon.  Both performed exactly as they should (I ended up returning the one I bought because it had no relevant advantage for me over my 24-105).

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2041
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2013, 04:15:00 PM »
Is it a way to check if a lens is decentered with Focal?
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2013, 07:47:31 PM »
After seeing this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market.  I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....

Please see this:

On November 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Jasmin Robert said:

Hi Roger!

Any new problem with this lens? Any others which has failed in the mean time? How does the one repaired hold up now, are they sharp?

I would like to buy this lens but I’m not sure since reading this report, and now that the Canon 24-70mm F/4 has been announced with the macro mode, I’m even less sure! thanks!

On November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:

Hi Jasmin,

No new trouble and no more copies to have the second element problem. It’s really doing pretty well, and quite a nice lens.

That's great...but the reviewer at The Digital Picture just purchased TWO unacceptable lenses and sent the lens in to Tamron for a repair and had the lens returned unrepaired.?...reinforcing the bad experience that Roger had with lens elements falling out. I have been shooting for well over 40 years....I have never heard of that kind of failure for a Lens in that price range. (There may be other incidence of elements falling out, but I am unaware of any).
Each of us can make our own decisions..I have stated mine and backed it with supporting info as to my choice. Everyone is free to make their individual choice, as well. If we take in all the evidence here and read some of the experiences in the post above, purchasing this lens seems very risky to this photographer.
I have to say I purchased a great copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and am very happy even at the high cost.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 05:14:49 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4527
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2013, 04:42:57 AM »
Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.

3rd party manufacturers like Tamron are at the disadvantage because they have to fight a bad reputation, esp. if releasing a quality lens like the 24-70/2.8. If a Tamron breaks, surely the cheap quality is to be blamed, if a Canon breaks it's really, really bad luck and could happen to anyone.

Ladislav

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2013, 06:19:37 AM »
I have this lens. My experience is full of contradictions.

I purchased this lens in February based on reviews when I owned only 650D with kit lens 18-135 IS STM (Rebel T4i). I wanted a standard zoom to slowly prepare for purchase of 6D. Initial experience was excellent. Better image quality, better colors, better DOF ... Two weeks after the purchase I noticed that my battery in the camera gets discharging even when the camera was turned off. I found that this was a common issue of the first generation when used with newer Canon bodies (650D and 6D). I took the lens back to retailer and I made a serious mistake. I let them to repair the lens because I wanted to keep it instead of requiring money back. Retailer first didn't want to believe that such problem is even possible but I referenced several reports from Internet. It took 4 weeks to get my lens back. It was "repaired" in local service center. Repair report scared me - VC was replaced and CPU reprogrammed but the issue disappeared.

I used the lens with my 650D quite happily since that. Some of my images had a really bad focus but I thought it was my mistake (I started with photography in November 2012). Two weeks ago I bought 6D. While it make my 70-300L even much better lens than it was with 650D it also made Tamron completely useless with aperture less than 5.6 or 8 (depending on distance). My Tamron has a terrible back focus on the longer end. When I made a test myself it had 10-12 cm back focus when shoting from 1.5m distance wide open. FoCal was not able to fix this issue. It predicted that necessary AFMA setting would be at least -36.

I don't understand how could I not notice this on 650D. Somehow I believe that it is not pure back focus issue because in such case all of my photos taken with 650D wide open would have to be out of focus but only some of them really are. It looks like a serious AF inconsistency. I took the lens to service center on Monday. I skipped the retailer to make this quicker. When I saw the service center (the only one authorized for warranty Tamron repairs in my country) it just made my frustration bigger. Somehow I don't trust them and I really don't believe that they are able to make any serious repairs of such complicated thing correctly (understand reliably in the long term). I will see. I'm also very curious if they can fix the problem in claimed "3 days" promoted in the whole Europe.

While I still believe that this can be a wonderful lens my copy is definitely not that one and I don't believe that just fixes in local service center will change that. I live in a small country where only few Tamron lenses are sold and the support is equivalent to the size of the market. It also means that available lenses are probably all from the first bad series. I know another owner who uses this lens on 5DII and he also complains problems with inconsistent focus.

My another problem is with VC. I'm not able to get what is claimed in tech specs. 3 stops? No way. My real world experience is 1/30s shutter speed on 70mm to get a sharp image. When I go with 1/20s it will be blurred when 1:1 zoomed. That is more like 1.3 stop but I have similar problem with all my lenses so it can be just in my technique.

My opinion about Tamron is so far: You get what you have paid for. You can get a great lens for a great value if you are ready to suffer initial fight to get a good copy but you must live in the big market handled directly by Tamron because otherwise you can have a hard time to get replacement easily (my case). It is lottery. I personally don't like to be QA/QC, especially if I pay for that.

Canon's MkII costs 105% more in my country and it lacks IS. It is a big price difference but if it saves you from this madness it probably worth the money. I would never admit it before but my problems and big satisfaction with 70-300L (even used!) changed my mind.

We have a proverb: "I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product". More and more I think if this wasn't the case?  I'm deciding to go a hard way and try to use warranty to get my money back because my lens doesn't meet specs. If I get money back, sell 650D and its kit lens, I will need just few hundred bucks more to get Canon's MkII. I will miss VC a lot but it is just only 1.3 stop at the moment. On the other hand I wanted to use money from 650D and kit lens to acquire 100L.

I will see how my lens performs once it is returned from the warranty repair. Somehow the issue described by Roger from LensRentals would make my decision (and warranty claim for money back) much simpler.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 06:25:48 AM by Ladislav »
6D | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 70-300 L IS | 430 EX II | Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 + MH054M0-Q2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2013, 06:19:37 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2013, 07:04:30 AM »
Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.

3rd party manufacturers like Tamron are at the disadvantage because they have to fight a bad reputation, esp. if releasing a quality lens like the 24-70/2.8. If a Tamron breaks, surely the cheap quality is to be blamed, if a Canon breaks it's really, really bad luck and could happen to anyone.

Sure, but straight out of the box the lens should function as claimed. Tamron hasn't "earned" the bad reputation for nothing.

I won't say that I've not had problems with Canon, but the problems with the third party lenses have been (a) more frequent, and (b) are compounded by lack of customer support because (usually) Canon and the third party manufacturer blame each other and refuse to take responsibility for the problem.

I'm am comfortable giving my lenses and bodies to Canon for calibration ... I'm not too sure about Tamron.
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2013, 07:07:43 AM »
Bought one from a bricks and mortar store (in case I wanted to exchange copies). Its a fantastic lens. Very sharp, IS works really well. Absolutely no problems so far (and a 5 year warranty if I do)...

I've also used the Canon 24-70 2.8 marks I and II, and I prefer the Tamron to both. While the Canon Mark II is a little sharper, I'm happy to trade a very small amount of sharpness for the benefits of IS (most of my paid work is video, where for anything that isn't on a piece of grip equipment IS is needed). The Canon Mark I is noticably less sharp (there's a bigger difference between the Canon mark I and the Tamron than there is between the Tamron and the Mark II).

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2916
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2013, 08:05:46 AM »
I won't say that I've not had problems with Canon, but the problems with the third party lenses have been (a) more frequent, and (b) are compounded by lack of customer support because (usually) Canon and the third party manufacturer blame each other and refuse to take responsibility for the problem.

If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Quote
I'm am comfortable giving my lenses and bodies to Canon for calibration ... I'm not too sure about Tamron.

Not all Tamron lenses can have their focus calibrated in the same way that Canon lenses can due to the way in which they are made however AFMA pretty much negates this problem.

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2013, 08:18:13 AM »
If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14390
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2013, 08:44:17 AM »
If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.
Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite.  He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered.  He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?).  He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number.  Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens? 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2013, 08:48:36 AM »
If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.
Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite.  He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered.  He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?).  He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number.  Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

Ok ... if you really want to rub it in ;D
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2013, 08:48:36 AM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2013, 08:50:25 AM »
If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.
Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite.  He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered.  He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?).  He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number.  Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

+1, and it still performed poorly in AI Servo.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1591
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2013, 09:05:09 AM »
I imagine a few people have wondered when I would weigh in, since many of you have read my review of the lens.  First, I did return my first copy of the lens.  The IQ was great, but I didn't feel the VC was working within spec.  The online retailer I purchased from had no problem with this and had me my new copy within a week.  My second copy has been superb.  I was worried after that first copy, but am I ever glad that I stayed with it and got that second lens.  It is my most used lens, and is an incredibly useful tool that keeps impressing me with great results.

It's interesting to me that everyone here has fixated on Bryan's QC issues (thanks to whomever brought up Roger's update that the newer copies of the lens have been very reliable and that the lens has done well) and few people seem to have noted that the Tamron essentially keeps up with the image quality of the 24-70II - a lens considered to be the finest zoom lens to date.  Ummm, that ain't so shabby for a lens that costs half as much and adds a killer feature in the VC.  I do find the AF slower than L series USM, and I would agree that it wouldn't be a great sports choice because of that.  I have taken thousands of pictures with the lens, though, including a lot of time sensitive event work, and I haven't noticed the inconsistent focus that Bryan reported.  I have used the lens on a 60D, 5DMKII, and two 6D bodies.  I just shot a golf tournament and business mixer a week ago, and was consistently impressed when I zoomed in 100% in LR and saw all of the shots so beautifully sharp.  In fact, I came home from the same event and decided to run AFMA on my 85mm f/1.8 again because I was disappointed on the focus in some of its shots. 

In all fairness, though, I haven't shot a lot in AF Servo mode.  I primarily shoot One Shot mode for most of my work.  Because of the slightly slower acquisition time of the AF, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't excel in AF Servo mode.  You have to consider the style of shooting that you will primarily do.

As far as optical quality, however, Roger's conclusions are that their copies of the Tamron are far more consistent than the MKI of the Canon 24-70.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2013, 09:05:09 AM »