Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Announced

[wickidwombat]

With the increased high iso becoming available the requirement for IS is reduced. This is particularly true of the shorter lens where unintentional motion blur becomes more and more likely as shutter times increase. For an example a 24 mm lens shooting at 1/30 doesn't need IS - but will almost inevitably get motion blur. Put 2 stops IS on the lens and low and behold everyone starts shooting at 1/10 or slower - where even IS wont stop handshake translating into motion blur - and hoards of people start complaining about the quality of the image.

Factor in to that the pixel size and that smaller pixels typically require either a faster shutter or a more steady picture on the sensor.

For 35mm film, the accepted wisdom was that 1/focal-length-in-mm was the required shutter speed for a photo without blur. So a 300mm lens requires 1/320 or better. A 2 stop IS system potentially lets someone shoot at 1/80, hand held. Now that's 35mm film. If the sensor in your camera has twice the resolution of 35mm film then you'll need to double that. Thus there are those that say that if you are using a 5D Mark II, you need 1/2*focal-length-in-mm for a good shot. So a 300mm lens requires 1/600 hand held, but if you're using a 2-stop IS system, you're back around 1/150.

IS is required to offset the increase in MP density.

On my 5DII I stick to the basic rule which is the next stop faster than the focal length. For example the 135 f/2 at 1/200 gives sharp every time.

I think everyone is aware of the benefit of IS for longer lens - the issue being disussed is when IS falls down on short lens where handshake looks like motion blur. This is presumably why Canon didn't include IS on wa.

problem is that argument was fine until they released a bunch of slow expensive WA primes with IS

[dadgummit]

Sample pic:


*Late March 2012 release date
*Less than $1400

Source: http://www.photoreview.com.au/news/productnews/tamron-unveils-2470mm-lens.aspx

Hmmmmmm  Tamron is one of the brands that heavilly discounts their lenses from the MSRP.   If this lens is as good as their 70-300 VC this could be a winner. With rebates I would not be surprised to see it in the sub-$1100 range which would make it a great deal compared to Canon's $2300 Non IS version. 

[unkbob]

Give me a Sigma OS version! Pretty please

[wickidwombat]

Give me a Sigma OS version! Pretty please

Ditto I've been burnt by tamron once I dont think i could do it again but sigmas new lenses are really stepping up

[new-z]

when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
- Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM

Canon EOS 450D - Canon EF 70-200 L 2.8 - Canon 50 1.4
www.new-z.fr
www.premierephoto.net

[Chewngum]

It has an Aussie street pprice and looks to maybe be available.
http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/tamron/di_lenses/tamron_sp_24-70mm_f28_di_vc_usd_lens_-_canon
You saw it here first!

[Dylan777]

IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...

... and motion blur can be a good thing if it's intentional.  If fact it opens up a world of possibilities.
Villagers dancing around the maypole.  Portland Parish, Jamaica

great shot, love it! Also afully agree with the point you make and demonstrate so well with this picture.


My opinion:
* IS is always useful, in any lens
* IS is NOT big and heavy see for example the EF 70/200/4 L IS vs. non-IS - same size, just 55grams more weight (on a 760g telezoom)
* IS  does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
* IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization
* IS should be standard in all new lenses coming from one of the 2 camera manufacturers that chose not to offer in-body stabilization (Ca/Ni)

I do look forward to seeing reviews of the new Tamron 24-70 VC and to the price of the lens.
Competition is good!

[/color]

+1...can't wait to see what this lens can do

[smirkypants]

Really interested in this lens. A girl I've sort of been dating does a lot of birthday parties in hideous, hideous light. She isn't very strong and a 5D2 + 24-70 + 580EX II is actually a lot for her to handle for a couple of hours. I know that for all of us he-men, slinging that around is nothing, but when you don't have a lot of strength, camera shake becomes a problem.

So... I just don't get why anyone would be against IS. I really don't. Maybe YOU don't need it, but there is a lot of insinuation that you must be some kind of crappy photographer to want it. Sorry, but my girl isn't a crappy photographer; in fact, she's a fantastic photographer. She just has a model's build and she could use a little IS in low light to keep from having to throw out a lot of blurry photos.

Can't wait to see the reviews.

[dilbert]

Readers of this thread should also read here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5389.0

[moreorless]

* IS  does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
* IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization

As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.

As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.

Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.

Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.

[AdamJ]

As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.

As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.

Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.

Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.

I agree. I'm not one to bemoan the price of the new 24-70mm. I simply won't be a customer for it, a) because I don't need it and b) because I couldn't possibly justify spending that kind of money on it even if I could afford it. I'm sure the vast majority of Canon users share this view.

As for having no IS, I can't help thinking that Canon has got itself in a real marketing mess with the launches of the two new wide-angle IS primes. After all, who in their right mind would be shelling out £800 each for these primes if the new 24-70mm, with its promised image quality, also had IS?

Actually, who in their right mind will shell out £800 each for these primes in any case? Canon's relentless climb up the price curve is leaving an ever-increasing void in the market which Sigma and Tamron between them will quickly fill. I doubt we will have to wait too long before Sigma launches similar (and probably faster) wide-angle OS primes at half the price. I'm looking forward to it.

[moreorless]

As for having no IS, I can't help thinking that Canon has got itself in a real marketing mess with the launches of the two new wide-angle IS primes. After all, who in their right mind would be shelling out £800 each for these primes if the new 24-70mm, with its promised image quality, also had IS?

Actually, who in their right mind will shell out £800 each for these primes in any case? Canon's relentless climb up the price curve is leaving an ever-increasing void in the market which Sigma and Tamron between them will quickly fill. I doubt we will have to wait too long before Sigma launches similar (and probably faster) wide-angle OS primes at half the price. I'm looking forward to it.

My guess is that Canon is targetting different markets with these releases, the new 24-70 is going to be bought by either pro's or high end amatures who likely preffer the very best optical performance and using a tripod to IS. The primes seem to be aimed at a lower end users, users who want to work light without a tripod or heavy zoom and the video market, to these people IS likely makes more sense.

It does seem to bit strange that all of these lenses have come out at the same time as two new FF bodies that havent pushed MP to me though since they all seem best suited to landscape use with there improved(if Canon's charts are right anyway) boarder performance.

If Canon do put out a 30 MP+ body then I'd guess that optics are going to become an even more key battleground than they are now.

[ruuneos]

when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
- Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM

I'm pretty sure that we are going to see that battle at DigitalRev!

[Chewngum]

when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
- Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM

I'm pretty sure that we are going to see that battle at DigitalRev!

Look up "thatnikonguy" on youtube, he has down a reasonably extensive though non scientific comparison of most of these. I bought the tamron 24-70 2.8 VC last week, one of very few in AUS. I returned it due to it being a soft copy but some other stuff i noticed:
1. The VC has an activation delay. On my 24-105L the IS started as soon as i pressed the shutter, on the tamron it seems to not respond for a little under a second and then start working.
2. The vignetting is a non issue in the field.
3. The build is solid though only slightly less so than the canon 24-70 mkI
4. The AF is quick enough for anythign short of fast paced sport 1m from the camera.
5. The weight feels right on my gripped 5d, good balance.

[wickidwombat]

when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
- Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM

I'm pretty sure that we are going to see that battle at DigitalRev!

cant wait for that video!

i also hope sigma bring out a 24-70 OS that follows the build and quality of the 85 f1.4