Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

[Wild]

Comparing the MTF charts from the Tamron to the 24-70L I it looks like the Canon is going to have better sharpness.  And for nearly the same price, I'd take the robustness of the Canon over the IS and future compatibility issues of the Tamron.

[dunkers]

That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.

Not if you compare it to the mark 1.....

If the Tammy is sharper than the mark 1, then I'm more inclined to get it over the II. Sure I lose build quality, but I want that VC

[dilbert]

If you look at the Canon 24-70, MK-I charts:


For the Canon's charts, you have to use the black lines. The blue lines are all f/8.0.

So if you compare this to Tamron's:


Then it is clear that the Tamron has better sharpness at f/2.8.

The chart for Canon's lens is crazy. I've mentioned the Canon 24-70 MkI lens here because that is the one that is similar in price.

[dilbert]

For reference, the 24-70 MkII MTF charts:


So clearly the Canon MkII lens is better than both the Tamron and the MkI.

But for twice the price of the Tamron lens, do you get twice the performance with the MkII?

[smirkypants]

One area where this lens is sure to shine is in terms of bokeh. To my eye the meridonial and sagital lines are extremely close together across focal lengths and from center to edge. Looks like in terms of sharpness it loses out handily to the Canon L v2, but it beats it in terms of bokeh.

It does have nine blades. You might not be able to see the contents of your model's every pore edge to edge, but it should make for some fairly pleasing portraits.

[epsiloneri]

Who cares as long as it has stunning image quality? This is going to be Tamron's biggest issue by far. Every single one of their lenses, except for the 18-270mm & 60mm Macro, has performance that matches Canon lenses from the late 80's to early 90's for a price that's usually not much lower than the current ones.

You forgot the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC version that optically perform comparably to the EF-S 17-55/2.8 USM IS (i.e. excellent) for a fraction of the price.

That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.

Comparing the MTF charts from the Tamron to the 24-70L I it looks like the Canon is going to have better sharpness.

Whaaat? I don't know how you read the MTF charts, but looking at the ones provided by dilbert (thanks), wide open the Tamron will generally be similar or superior to be mark I (in particular in the corners and at 70mm). The bokeh is also poised to be great (as smirkypants pointed out), but we will have to wait for actual samples to be definitive.

If there are no AF issues, with VC I'd say we have a clear winner here (compared to the mark I). Compared to the mark II the story is different, but I could still see the Tamron be attractive, not the least because of the price and the VC. If build quality or the zoom/focus ring directions are of critical importance, then no, the Canon will clearly be the lens for you.

[Maui5150]

That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.

Especially compared to the II from Canon... Though some people have been clamouring for IS... Though not sure is IS is all that great if the image is soft to begin with.  I would prefer tack sharp with some misses than a peak of muddied across the board

[dilbert]

I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?

Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.

[dilbert]

That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.

Especially compared to the II from Canon... Though some people have been clamouring for IS... Though not sure is IS is all that great if the image is soft to begin with.  I would prefer tack sharp with some misses than a peak of muddied across the board

Does the Canon 24-70 MkI result in images that are "muddied across the board"?

No. Everyone talks about how great it is, how sharp it is.

Both the new Tamron and Canon MkII are better than that.

[birtembuk]

These MFT's promise better sharpness and contrast than the 24-70 mkI. With VC, and If the QC is on par with these charts, it's a no-brainer ... Well, I think I'll wait for some users' reviews.

[cayenne]

I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?

Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.

Please forgive a noob...I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on my first Canon, and doing research ,reading forums here...etc.

What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....

Thank you!!   

cayenne

[smirkypants]

What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....

Voice-control

(no, just kidding... vibration control = IS = image stabilization)

[Stephen Melvin]

I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?

Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.

Please forgive a noob...I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on my first Canon, and doing research ,reading forums here...etc.

What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....

Thank you!!   

cayenne

"Vibration Control." It's their variation on Canon's image stabilization.

[dilbert]

"Vibration Control." It's there variation on Canon's image stabilization.

"their".

[AvTvM]

Looking at the pictures, it appears that, yet again, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L?

This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?

+1
Really incredible to not offer "really right" lenses! Goes for  Tamron as well as for Sigma and Tokina.