Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

[dswatson83]

It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh

[SpareImp]

This site shows a sample photo at f/2.8. It’s a part of the slideshow, so you’ll have to wait for it. It also shows the benefit of the rounded diaphragm compared to a hexagonal diaphragm:
http://www.tamron.com.au/di24-70_a007.html
Already posted this in the other thread about this lens.

[cliffwang]

It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh

I don't get it.  If Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm mark I are about same price, that is a fair comparison.  If Tamron has better IQ and VC, why should I buy Canon 24-70mm?  Ask yourself how much you would like to pay for IS feature.  I have Canon 70-200mm II IS.  This lens is about 1000+ more than non-IS version.  I can tell you, I would like to pay at 300+ if Canon has 24-70mm IS version.  Don't forget Tamron has 6 year warranty and Canon has only 1 year warranty.

[birdman]

It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh

You would pay for Canon 24-70 Mk I because of much better resale value, much better build quality, and much better quality control. I've owned SEVERAL 3rd party lenses: Tokina 12-24, Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8; Tamron 17-50 (non VC), and Tamron 28-75. The Tamrons performed good, actually the 17-50 was super! But they are built so cheap. For instance the focus rings will wear out and the glue will loosen, the lens barrels will start to creep out, etc. Go for Canon or even Sigma.

I don't get it.  If Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm mark I are about same price, that is a fair comparison.  If Tamron has better IQ and VC, why should I buy Canon 24-70mm?  Ask yourself how much you would like to pay for IS feature.  I have Canon 70-200mm II IS.  This lens is about 1000+ more than non-IS version.  I can tell you, I would like to pay at 300+ if Canon has 24-70mm IS version.  Don't forget Tamron has 6 year warranty and Canon has only 1 year warranty.

[cliffwang]

You would pay for Canon 24-70 Mk I because of much better resale value, much better build quality, and much better quality control. I've owned SEVERAL 3rd party lenses: Tokina 12-24, Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8; Tamron 17-50 (non VC), and Tamron 28-75. The Tamrons performed good, actually the 17-50 was super! But they are built so cheap. For instance the focus rings will wear out and the glue will loosen, the lens barrels will start to creep out, etc. Go for Canon or even Sigma.

Hi bridman,
You are keeping mention RESALE value.  Here is my formula.  [Canon lens price] - [Tamron lens price] - [Canon resle value] + [Tamron resale value] = TRUE VALUE different.  Don't forget depreciation of USD.  I don't really see there are much different.  I agree Canon lens has better build quality.  However, I am looking for a lens has better IQ(Mark I) and IS feature and about same price.

[Stephen Melvin]

I don't get it.  If Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm mark I are about same price, that is a fair comparison.  If Tamron has better IQ and VC, why should I buy Canon 24-70mm?  Ask yourself how much you would like to pay for IS feature.  I have Canon 70-200mm II IS.  This lens is about 1000+ more than non-IS version.  I can tell you, I would like to pay at 300+ if Canon has 24-70mm IS version.  Don't forget Tamron has 6 year warranty and Canon has only 1 year warranty.

One thing to remember is that Tamron builds these primarily for Nikon customers, with the focus ring and zoom ring turning in the wrong (Nikon) direction. They don't even bother to consider their Canon customers, who will have other lenses turning in the right direction. Being in the middle of the zoom range, most customers will have a wider and a longer lens also, leading to some serious usability issues.

If they'd bother to correct that, I'd take a real hard look at getting this lens, even though it is the typical Tamron ugly. But as it is, a fault I can live with in an 18-200 superzoom becomes magnified in an ostensibly professional lens.

[cliffwang]

One thing to remember is that Tamron builds these primarily for Nikon customers, with the focus ring and zoom ring turning in the wrong (Nikon) direction. They don't even bother to consider their Canon customers, who will have other lenses turning in the right direction. Being in the middle of the zoom range, most customers will have a wider and a longer lens also, leading to some serious usability issues.

If they'd bother to correct that, I'd take a real hard look at getting this lens, even though it is the typical Tamron ugly. But as it is, a fault I can live with in an 18-200 superzoom becomes magnified in an ostensibly professional lens.

Do you mean Nikon has different turning direction for zoom ring(I believe focus ring is not a big problem).  I don't know what the impact for me because I haven't had the experiences for that.  How about other camera company?  Do they have same turning direction with Canon?

[dswatson83]

I'm so surprised Canon does not offer a lens like this Tamron. Canon had a huge video base on nondslr and dslr cameras alike. Stabilization is huge for any video camera and Canon offers nothing for full frame users at f/2.8 with IS (though for some reason cropped cameras get a lens). Sony has built in IS in the cameras and Nikon has very little skin in the game when it comes to video. This would be great for stills as well. You know how awesome it would be to be shooting indoor wide detail shots of the flowers and church during weddings at ISO 100 & 1/15th second shutter. Most people don't move during weddings anyway so most of my shots are at slower shutter speeds when I have IS. This is a big downside to moving from cropped to full frame as I have a f/2.8 IS lens with equivalent focal lengths for a 7D but not for a 5D.

[KyleSTL]

No no no.

Canons zoom in the wrong direction.  Nikons and Tamrons zoom correctly.

And yes you British and Aussies and Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road 

I'm going to thread-jack for a moment to share what my curiosity caused me to find:

I knew many of the first zoom lenses were of the push-pull variety, so I went searching for early twist-zoom lenses.  It lead me to find that the manual focus lenses by Nikon were originally the same direction as Canon, such as:

1967 Nikkor 50-300mm


It looks like they stayed consistent with that directionality throughout the manual focus era.  Then in 1986, with their first twist zoom AF lenses, the Nikkor 35-105mm, 28-85mm and 35-70mm, they decided to change direction:





So, Canon is the correct direction, and Nikon decided to screw it up in the 1980s, after decades manufacturing lenses the right way. 

[cliffwang]

So, Canon is the correct direction, and Nikon decided to screw it up in the 1980s, after decades manufacturing lenses the right way. 

I cannot tell which way is correct.  Why did Nikon decide to change the direction?  Maybe the original way was wrong.  Original design doesn't mean correct design.  I haven't used Nikon camera, so I don't know if that's a problem for different way for zoom ring.  I even don't see the points people argue for the zoom ring.  My only question is if the opposite way will impact me.  I am so exited to see some reviews of this lens next week.

[dswatson83]

A video of the lens just popped up on you tube but it is not in English. The photos look good though. The AF for video did not seem great but it was definitely better than without anything.

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A007 (탐론 24-70 VC 손떨방)	Small | Large

[cliffwang]

Finally the first review was out.  There are not too many details about the lens.  Hopefully, we can see some Canon 24-70mm VS Tamron 24-70mm reviews.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

[SpareImp]

It looks promising, even wide open with the exception of fall off. I can live with some fall off when I’m doing portraits though. Looking forward to more reviews and comparisons.

[dswatson83]

I was hoping for more info on how autofocus worked. That is my biggest reason for avoiding 3rd party lenses. I figured it would be sharp at f/4 which is the largest aperture canon offers on a stabilized lens so if it was usable at f/2.8, that in and of itself would be big. I really wish Canon offered this lens but now that the vII of the 24-70 is out without IS and with a crazy price tag, I feel like it will never happen. I am also curious if it can use the 5 center dual hair autofocus sensors on the Canon 5D mark III. The canon 24-70 version 1 only can use the center but the version 2 can use all 5. The 24-105 f/4 IS can't use any of them.

[SpareImp]

Yeah, I know it’s a Nikon-link, but he’s got the Canon-mount Tamron here (hands on):

Tamron 24-70mm VC - Hands on	Small | Large

Says it’s the best built Tamron he has ever tested. He also promises to update after some tests with the 5D2.