Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

[DJL329]

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.

I was thinking the same thing the other day.  They had a 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 FF lens, but stopped making it about a half-dozen years ago.

[dilbert]

On Adorama's website, it says that this lens comes with a 6 year warranty.

Is this a mistake?

Because Canon's warranty, for all EF lenses in the USA, is 1 year.

[dadgummit]

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.

I had Tamron's 70-300 and it was indeed very sharp.  The issue I had was if I had 5-10 seconds to compose and focus on a still subject it did a great job almost every time.  If I had to turn 90 degrees and try to focus on something quickly (oh look your daughter is about to dump spaghetti on her head) the lens' focus motor would move quickly but there would be a 25-30% chance of the shot actually being in focus.  The canon 70-300L nails it every time (though 3-4X the price) Tamron's 60mm macro is an epic fail for canon's 7D, they admitted the problem like a year ago and I have not heard since whether or not they fixed it.   For me it would have to have been almost as sharp as the mark II at $1300 for me to even bother taking a risk, I hate paying for return shipping on a crap 3rd party lens.

[dadgummit]

On Adorama's website, it says that this lens comes with a 6 year warranty.

Is this a mistake?

Because Canon's warranty, for all EF lenses in the USA, is 1 year.

Taqmron's warrantys are very long, that is probably correct. 

[dadgummit]

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.

I was thinking the same thing the other day.  They had a 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 FF lens, but stopped making it about a half-dozen years ago.

I wish Sigma would make one personally.

I had the Sig 10-20 f4-5.6 on my 7d and LOVED it!! I only sold it when I purchased the 5d3.  In my opinion the sig 10-20 is sharper with less distortion on a 7d than a 16-35L II on a full frame.

[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.

I had Tamron's 70-300 and it was indeed very sharp.  The issue I had was if I had 5-10 seconds to compose and focus on a still subject it did a great job almost every time.  If I had to turn 90 degrees and try to focus on something quickly (oh look your daughter is about to dump spaghetti on her head) the lens' focus motor would move quickly but there would be a 25-30% chance of the shot actually being in focus.  The canon 70-300L nails it every time (though 3-4X the price)

Personally, I'm happy that they traded off focus speed for better IQ in the 70-300 VC. But for similar reasons, I'm considering the 70-300L.

Tamron's 60mm macro is an epic fail for canon's 7D, they admitted the problem like a year ago and I have not heard since whether or not they fixed it.   For me it would have to have been almost as sharp as the mark II at $1300 for me to even bother taking a risk, I hate paying for return shipping on a crap 3rd party lens.

Well it would seem that the lesson here is to wait for decent reviews before buying. I know that I'm going to wait for it to be officially reviewed before deciding. That way I can make an informed purchasing decision.

[dadgummit]

biggest problem I have is reviews put the camera on a tripod and shoot pieces of paper in a controlled environment.  In that case the 70-300 VC would perform very well.  But out in the field it was missing focus left and right.  I don't care how good the IQ is if my intended subject is not in focus.  The 70-300L nails it almost every time, I love my copy!! 

[dilbert]

Anyway, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC looks to be a fantastic lens on paper, picking up where the Canon left off.

With the usual discounting for 3rd party lenses, I wonder if we'll see this go for under $1000 from retailers?

Lets hope it delivers!

[gene_can_sing]

I had the Tamron 17-50 f2.6 VC APS-C and it had decent image quality, but the mechanics SUCKED big time. The focus throw was only a meager 45 degrees and very loose which made manual focus not very good for video.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is much better, but costs 2x as much.

If Tamron made it with decent mechanics and a good picture quality, I would be it because of the V.C. which is great for video.

[Maculosa]

Hello,

This is my first post but i often read on this forum.

Here i found i link on another forum that show some sample pictures of the new Tamron 24-70 VC.
Unfortunatly there is no pictures taken at F2.8.

http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70135411814

[dilbert]

Hello,

This is my first post but i often read on this forum.

Here i found i link on another forum that show some sample pictures of the new Tamron 24-70 VC.
Unfortunatly there is no pictures taken at F2.8.

In other words, they were taken by a professional photographer that wanted the entirety of their subject(s) in focus as the depth of field at 2.8 would have been too narrow for any of their photographs.

[eirikv]

This looks like an good alternative to Canons 24-105 4L that I have been thinking about for more than a year.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, my only problem with that lenses is it's 28mm wide angle. I have no other excuses than that to replace it. It delivers IQ at  the same level as my Canon L lenses and Canon primes.

I might be the one of the "crazy people" to order this before seeing any reviews.

My only problem with it is the 82mm filter diameter. I would like it to be 77mm.

[carlc]

I wonder what body Tamron used?  I am impressed with the shots.

[cliffwang]

I am highly interested in this lens.  Hopefully we will see more samples soon.  If the IQ is same or better than Canon 24-70mm mark I, I will buy it.

[carlc]

I can't wait to see a side by side comparison of the new Tamron 24-70 to the new Canon version, hopefully on a Canon 7D and a 5D3.  Need to finalize my 2012 purchase list.  Just hope the Canon version doesn't slip past July and Canon resolves the production and Firmware issues on the 5D3.  The wait is killing me!!!