Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

[nda]

I have an old Canon 28-70mmf2.8L and I still get asked by pro photographers if I would be interested in selling it. It's in average condition, 12 years old, heavy and I have been offered AU$1000. What do you think the Tamron will be worth in 12yrs time?

[AJ]

I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years.  I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine.  It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again.  I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it.  If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything.  I got my money's worth a long time ago.  That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).

As for autofocus - yes it's loud.  But it's very accurate and not bad in low light.  Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.

[Policar]

The flip side of bad resale is you can get used lenses affordably.  I couldn't afford the zoom I wanted, but I picked up a used 70-300mm Tamron VC for about half the cost of the Canon version (used) and it's not bad at all!  Fast AF and great stabilization, acceptably sharp, too.  And then there are the unique third party lenses (11-16mm Tokina, which is pretty good, and the 20mm f1.8 Sigma, which is not so good) that seem to hold their value...

Canon's more expensive lenses usually seem really refined, whereas the competition comes close but misses a bit.  The 17-55mm IS f2.8 isn't much sharper than the Tamron or Sigma equivalents, but it's more consistent across focal lengths at the edges and manages acceptable bokeh and low distortion and is a bit longer.  This 24-70mm VC looks good in terms of performance, but the bokeh looks terrible.  But the price of the 24-70mm II will probably make this a popular lens.

[!Xabbu]

I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years.  I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine.  It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again.  I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it.  If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything.  I got my money's worth a long time ago.  That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).

As for autofocus - yes it's loud.  But it's very accurate and not bad in low light.  Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.

+1 I don't understand what issue people have with the AF - it works perfectly well on my 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC and I get great pictures out of this lens. Do I sometimes think about upgrading - yes, but overall I'm really happy with my Tamron.

And my Tokina 11-16mm is just a dream - I don't believe that the Canon UWA is even coming close in color, contrast and sharpness.

However, I also own a Sigma and it's a super soft lens. Might be a bad copy, but for me Sigma's are something I won't touch again.

[K-amps]

Interesting, I'll be watching for other testers and see what they say.  It looks like 70mm is the weak spot.

Good thing we some flavor of 70-200 to make up for that 

[hyles]

I think what is wort is how reliable is AF in low light condition and how is IQ wide open.
In good light condition it may even be good, but pro that need to work in low light using it wide open, with the canon they can be save that the lens deliver execellent IQ.  If this lens shows good IQ in difficult condition it may sell well.
I used the tamron 17-50 2.8, Af was slow and noisy, but quite accurate. IQ wide open wasn't great.
The canon 17-55 2.8 AF is fast and accurate and IQ wide open is very good. I would not trade the canon for the tamron. What about the 24-70? It dipends how it will behave @ 2.8
Diego

[epiem]

I have had TERRIBLE experiences with Tamron.

Out of the 4 Tamrons we have, 3 of them are completely broken and 1 the focus barrel is about to break.

Our little Nikon 18-55 pieces of crap withstood more and lasted longer than our Tamron equipment.

I will ONLY buy Camera Manufactures lenses now. I won't touch a 3RD party lens (except Zeiss for video) for anything.

Oh and good luck selling them for what you paid....

[SpareImp]

Here’s a very unscientific first impression of the lens, including photos taken handheld with a shutter speed of half a second:
http://www.photographyri.com/index.php/2012/04/27/brief-review-tamron-24-70mm-f2-8-vc-usm-1

[Jettatore]

First thing that comes to mind as to the thread title is, resale value, especially as the years go by.

Other than that, from the posted article "Focusing speeds may not be up to the speeds of Nikon and Canon equivalents, but they are not too far behind in all but the darkest conditions."  That could prove troublesome for some.  Otherwise, some of the sample shots looked pretty good.  Why not just get it.  IS/VR could be nice for video work.

[cliffwang]

Is really Canon lenses get better resale value?  I got my Tamron 18-270 about 2 year ago for 500 and just sold it on CL for 400 about month ago.  Now I am selling my Canon 17-55mm which I got for 1100 and asking 900 on CL.  Few people is asking for 800.  Now I am still holding it because 800 is too low for me.  The resale value of the Tamron lens is about 80%, and the resale value of Canon 17-55mm would be expected lower than that.  How you guys can say Canon lenses have better resale value.  Go to CL and check Canon 24-105mm and 24-70mm.  You will see people want to buy them for 65% to 75% of their value.  Wake up guys.

[cliffwang]

Is really Canon lenses get better resale value?  I got my Tamron 18-270 about 2 year ago for 500 and just sold it on CL for 400 about month ago.  Now I am selling my Canon 17-55mm which I got for 1100 and asking 900 on CL.  Few people is asking for 800.  Now I am still holding it because 800 is too low for me.  The resale value of the Tamron lens is about 80%, and the resale value of Canon 17-55mm would be expected lower than that.  How you guys can say Canon lenses have better resale value.  Go to CL and check Canon 24-105mm and 24-70mm.  You will see people want to buy them for 65% to 75% of their value.  Wake up guys.

By the way, I just sold my Sigma 30mm F/1.4 for 400.  I bought it for 450, so the resale value for this THIRD PARTY lens is about 90% of it original value.  It's much higher than Canon lens's resale value.

[DavidRiesenberg]

LensRentals did a test of the new 24-70: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

[scrappydog]

LensRentals did a test of the new 24-70: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

This is a good sign!  Thanks for the post.

[cezargalang]

We'll really just have to wait for really good reviews. So far i'm more interested in this lens than the 24-70L I of Canon. Resale Value? I dont really care about that, if i'm going to be really happy with this lens if i ever get it, why would i sell it? Just my thoughts. 

[AJ]

LensRentals did a test of the new 24-70: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

Those numbers look very encouraging!