Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC in Stock & Quick MTF Review

[SR20DEN]

He doesn't seem to have much trouble with Zeiss lenses. And, I am not saying you didn't, but for example if you compare the charts of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon, you'll notice that in the center at f/2.8, the Tamron is actually sharper than the Canon. The problem I see on those charts is that all lenses suffer more on the outsides. The evidence condemns many Canon lenses as well. So I don't get the impression that he seems to care who made each lens. One more point, he does not only test Canon gear. There are plenty of Nikon lens tests on that site.

[elflord]

He doesn't seem to have much trouble with Zeiss lenses.

He doesn't have trouble with the autofocus on Zeiss lenses because those lenses don't autofocus.

And, I am not saying you didn't, but for example if you compare the charts of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon, you'll notice that in the center at f/2.8, the Tamron is actually sharper than the Canon. The problem I see on those charts is that all lenses suffer more on the outsides. The evidence condemns many Canon lenses as well.

His test chart shots are just fine, I don't have any issues with these.

Its the review comments that seem somewhat colored. It seems that every time he reviews a third party lens, he is on a mission to plant seeds of doubt in the potential buyers mind. He has persistent problems with third party lenses but not Canon lenses. For example,  photozone claim to have gone through 4 copies of the Canon 24-70mm, whereas tdp's review for that lens reads like a marketing brochure.

[HarryWintergreen]

in the end it depends on what you are aiming at. To me a good bokeh and no field cuverture is essential (not always the biggest asset of Tamrom). Very good sharpness should go without saying.

[Axilrod]

1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
2) Very overpriced Canon Cinema division got destroyed at NAB by Black Magic and Sony who stole all the buzz.
3) Now Tamron fills the I.S. niche that #1 feature in the 24-70 that Canon customers were begging and pleading for, but Canon failed to deliver.

1) That's an opinion, there are plenty of people that prefer the 5DIII.
2) The Black Magic camera is very cool, but geared more towards consumers.  The Cinema EOS cameras are for the film industry.  See how many Hollywood productions end up using the BM camera, I'm sure it won't be many.  2.4x crop is a joke (I know it's useful in some applications, but obviously you can't shoot everything on it).
3) I'll agree with you on this one, but the 24-70 II really hasn't been tested yet.  I don't think IS is very essential in that range.  You'd think that no one had ever taken a good picture with a 28-70 or the current 24-70 the way some people cry about IS, people have done just fine without it.

You say "non-Canon fanboys" prefer the D800, which is pretty much saying "Nikon fanboys prefer the D800."  You can claim these products as failures all you want, but I guarantee you all of them will sell well within their respective markets.  The 5DIII has been selling like crazy, if it was that bad of a camera no one would buy it.  The D800 is a great camera, but the MP count makes it seem better than it really is. 

[Marsu42]

He has persistent problems with third party lenses but not Canon lenses.

I certainly didn't read all reviews there, but they got a second sample of the 70-300L - you can see them in the iso test charts, and the first one was certainly bad. And this did make me doubt if buying this Canon lens is too large a gamble in comparison a 3rd party 70-300.

[John Thomas]

...

...
3) I'll agree with you on this one, but the 24-70 II really hasn't been tested yet.  I don't think IS is very essential in that range.  You'd think that no one had ever taken a good picture with a 28-70 or the current 24-70 the way some people cry about IS, people have done just fine without it.

...

Well, I would say that's very important. A 24-70 lens at F/2.8 is distinctive (IMHO) in indoors, spaces with low-light. Otherwise one would go for 24-105 f/4 which is the kit lens for 5D. A cheaper lens with a bigger zoom range.

But in low/dim light situations is important to have a lens which is capable to shot sharp images at (at least) 0.5 x Focal Distance, which (at least) at 70 mm and taking in account that we have a max aperture of 2.8 one can find enough situations in the day-by-day photo reportage.

I think that there will be many cases in which one would stop down the aperture at (let's say) 3.2 to achieve the best sharpness and try to keep the ISO's noise under control. Hence, having shutter speeds at 15 - 30 can be quite normal and so, IS is quite important imho.

Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Just my2c

[Marsu42]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

CR's take on the 24-70ii was that Canon had several prototypes, but the one(s) with IS were too heavy or the iq tradeoff was to large to get the weight down. And Canon simply sells stuff for as much money as they can get away with - and they should since I cannot afford it anyhow, better release the "good" stuff at a reasonable price and sell the "stellar" stuff at a premium. For a pro who's in business 1000$ is not a lot of money for better results, and nothing compared to the cost of good tele lenses. When did anyone complain about the price of the 70-200?

[John Thomas]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

CR's take on the 24-70ii was that Canon had several prototypes, but the one(s) with IS were too heavy or the iq tradeoff was to large to get the weight down. And Canon simply sells stuff for as much money as they can get away with - and they should since I cannot afford it anyhow, better release the "good" stuff at a reasonable price and sell the "stellar" stuff at a premium. For a pro who's in business 1000$ is not a lot of money for better results, and nothing compared to the cost of good tele lenses. When did anyone complain about the price of the 70-200?

Yeah, I'm aware about Canon's strategy. Thanks a lot, anyway. But now the things are changed. And are changed in a significant matter, imho. There IS a viable alternative at a much lower price.

And not a viable alternative (imho) but one which has an important feature which Canon didn't manage to make it - so the price difference doesn't justify. Not the price alone.

See, in the case of of 70-200 (esp. in the case of 70-200 II) there aren't other alternatives which can compete with much success (ok, Sigma perhaps). And hence Canon can settle for a price which market can bear. The same is in the case of, for example, L 8-15 fisheye. It is worth $1400? But since Tammy's & Sigma offerings cannot compete optically and feature wise (or, better to say that the others' offerings are nonexistent), Canon has that price.

But in the case of newly released Tammy's 24-70 VC the things are different. I think that the price / performance ratio is in favor of Tamron by a wide margin, even compared with Canon's 24-70 II if the Canon will keep the same price.

0.02c++ & HTH,

John Th.

[Marsu42]

But in the case of newly released Tammy's 24-70 VC the things are different. I think that the price / performance ratio is in favor of Tamron by a wide margin, even compared with Canon's 24-70 II if the Canon will keep the same price.

Looking at the "onion" bokeh, while it might not matter for a lot of shots, it could ruin them when overlapping and pp is difficult. Someone who sells his/her pictures might think it's worth the $1000 price difference, because this is not the difference between a good shot and a very good shot, but between nothing and very good.

And concerning "is it worth it", there's also the serious amateur to consider who reached his personal ceiling and thinks that the real thing that's been missing from his shots for all this time is this "tack sharp" 24-70ii lens. I read an economy article about the real price of ice cream the other day, and you might have guessed it: If people want ice cream, they're going to pay about anything to get one if they want it, so prices will still rise :-)

[RobertG.]

Hi, maybe there are not many photogs like me but coming from a crop body with the EF-S 17-55 IS as standard lens I'd like to have something similar on a FF body, too. The EF 24-105 has a nice range but the f4.0 is unacceptable. So I'll propably go for the Tamron. If I look for a stellar perfomance or best low light use, I use a good prime lens. Such a zoom is just a walk- around lens and the f2.8 alone limits its use. But with the Tamron you can at least shout at 70mm with as little as 1/15s which means usable 3 stops light less than with the Canon when it's critical not to raise the ISO value.

[Marsu42]

The EF 24-105 has a nice range but the f4.0 is unacceptable. So I'll propably go for the Tamron. [...] But with the Tamron you can at least shout at 70mm with as little as 1/15s which means usable 3 stops light less than with the Canon when it's critical not to raise the ISO value.

Looking at your lens arsenal, I don't think you're a typical case of Canon customer - but your requirement for a walk-around 2.8 with IS does make sense of course. For the rest of us, while the Tamron really could be just a sturdier, water-resistant 17-55 equivalent, it's seems to be a good primary lens, too.

I'm actually considering it as a 17-55 alternative because the Tamron can be used both on crop and ff (yes, all ef lenses can, but with the Tamron it does make sense because less vignetting on crop and still sharp). And the Tamron lens seems to be predestined for 1.4x tc use if a quick zoom range extension is needed and f4 doesn't hurt.

[elflord]

Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Canon probably don't want to put IS on if it requires any compromises in optical performance. The photographers who are going to buy this lens are mostly pros who bring along whatever accessories are needed to get the correct exposure (tripods if they want long exposures, flashes if they want shorter exposures than available light affords). There aren't on the other hand accessories that improve optical performance of a poor performing lens (though again an accessory that lets you stop down like a tripod or a flash is the next best thing!)

There are few real world scenarios where a 1/15s exposure is optimal. It might just happen to be the right exposure for a particular landscape scene, but that landscape photographer is prepared to expose for as long as necessary, so he usually has a tripod. For photographing people, that exposure is just too slow.

So I guess the answer to the question is, Canon's strategy for this lens will be to market it as the standard zoom with the best optics. It is priced accordingly. They are counting on their target market not caring too much about IS. They do also have good offerings for users who want a "convenience zoom" (24-105IS)  and an "available light lens" (primes)

[dilbert]

Looking at the "onion" bokeh, while it might not matter for a lot of shots, it could ruin them when overlapping and pp is difficult. Someone who sells his/her pictures might think it's worth the $1000 price difference, because this is not the difference between a good shot and a very good shot, but between nothing and very good.

The "onion" bokeh was due to water on the lens, so it is not something anyone would expect to see unless ... they've got water on the front lens element.

I wonder what sort of bokeh you see on the Canon 24-70 lenses when there's water on the front of them?

And concerning "is it worth it", there's also the serious amateur to consider who reached his personal ceiling and thinks that the real thing that's been missing from his shots for all this time is this "tack sharp" 24-70ii lens. I read an economy article about the real price of ice cream the other day, and you might have guessed it: If people want ice cream, they're going to pay about anything to get one if they want it, so prices will still rise :-)

n years ago, people crowed about how tack-sharp the 24-70 Mk I was. Now there is a 3rd party lens that is better and even Canon has a lens that is better. To me that would make both of the newer lenses "tack sharp".

[Marsu42]

The "onion" bokeh was due to water on the lens, so it is not something anyone would expect to see unless ... they've got water on the front lens element.

Unfortunately, it wasn't, or I wouldn't have to think about getting it or not - see this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=85

On the one hand, with a f2.8 lens bokeh is important, on the other hand the situations where the "onion" bokeh is very visible and even overlapping should be rare...

[aznable]

Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Just my2c

the IS is a useful feature...better to have that dont for sure

well from the first test the tamron optically is in the same leaugue of old canon 24-70 that's wasnt anything special, so i guess the new 24-70 II will be really better that tamron and will be better built, with a better and faster autofocus, and of course it will feature a red ring.

in my opinion the brand is important, so Canon e Nikon are able to sell their stuff to a price considerably higher than 3rd parties, so they have the margin to give you an all around better product