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

[epsiloneri]

I had two of these lenses and both were crap.

Thanks for contributing with your experience. Your review strikes me as a bit too emotional, exaggerating and contradicting with other reviews for me to take it seriously, in particular since this also is your first post and we haven't had a chance to gauge your experience, skills, language and general attitudes. I cannot say I've seen internet flooded with negative reviews of the lens. To measure barrel distortion you need to carefully align your paper wall with the sensor plane - they have to be absolutely parallel. This doesn't seem to be the case in your example photo, which looks as if tilted slightly downwards. Distortion has previously been measured to be very low, ~1% barrel at 24mm and 0.02% pincusion at 70mm, uniform across the frame. Very few issues with flare and ghosting, even when shooting into the light. Vignetting sure is a problem at f/2.8, but by f/5.6 it's down to half a stop in the corners, and is noticably better than Canon's current offering.

Good luck with your purchase of this lens....

Thanks, I probably will get it at some point, and then I will take care to evaluate the lens to check for any problems you mentioned. Maybe Tamron has problem with its QC, but at this point I cannot exclude user error.

[Marsu42]

1.Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.

Known issue w/ Tamron, it might be a hassle to get a good copy. But you might want to keep in mind you get two Tamron 24-70 *with* IS for one Canon mk2...

2. Mega barrel distortion.
3. Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)

Well, that's what postprocessing software is for.

4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.

I didn't read about that yet, the test I know said the flare wasn't nice but nothing too serious.

5. Acceptable(depending on type of photography), but slow autofocus

This is one of the two real issues, the other issue is that the Tamron never really gets sharp across the frame even stopped down and that mid-frame sharpness is mediocre on large apertures on full frame. So if you don't need f2.8 the 24-105L might be the smarter choice, but the Tamron has @currently 1000€ ok bang for the buck.

[dwarf]

Sorry if i didn't quote properly...
[/quote]

Well, that's what postprocessing software is for.
-You can't correct that heavy mustache distortion with any software.

4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.

I didn't read about that yet, the test I know said the flare wasn't nice but nothing too serious.
If the sun is up at 2 o'clock and it is at an 80 degree angle you will get it no matter if you use the lens hood.

Every independent reviewer that actually purchases the lens and is not affiliated with Tamron in any way will score this lens negatively. I also met some other people, a guy from the dombower forum, and thomas from photozone that were very disappointed with it...
If it is in the 400$ range, I might buy it with reservations.

[Marsu42]

Sorry if i didn't quote properly...

Um, with the bad quoting it's hard to get an idea of what you're saying... but the photozone is rather in favor of the Tamron: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=2

And saying that everybody that likes the lens is affiliated with Tamron is really ridiculous, it's just a matter of how much you're willing to pay for what performance. A $400 tag for this lens would be nice of course, but if you compare it to the competition it's better than the Canon mk1 in center sharpness and less than half of the price of the still IS-less Canon mk2. So I'm absolutely convinced at least many amateur shooters will be very happy with the lens and IS for static indoor shots.

[dwarf]

Ok, my quoting was a total disaster 

I wanted to answer Marsu42,

You can't get rid of the mustache/wavy distortion with any program. It's there forever. Even if it was possible like with some other lenses you would be cropping the centre of the image losing way too much resolution, but this lens has distortion even in the very centre.

About the flare, I wanted to say if you use a lens hood, and the sun is in the 12am-4pm position and the light is coming at an angle that is behind you,  you will get flare.
I do agree with you "some" amateurs will be happy with it, but even for them it is too expensive and IQ is bad.
I'd rather buy 2-3 fixed focal length lens by Canon and be happy instead of using the Tamron.

[Marsu42]

You can't get rid of the mustache/wavy distortion with any program. It's there forever.

This is the first time I read about this distortion, and I've read all tests out there I could find). Is this your personal experience w/ one sample, or can you please give a source where the lens was tested with this result so I can read on?

[dwarf]

I am surprised the hear that you haven't heard of mustache distortion so far..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
Every web site like, photozone, dpreview, kenrockwell etc etc mention it if the lens has that kind of distortion...
You can see in the images of the brick wall i provided.
Happy reading

[Marsu42]

Happy reading

You misunderstood me: I *know* what a distortion is, I just didn't read any *review* that says the lens has a problem with it. Dpreview & KR have no review yet, Photozone: "At 24 mm the lens shows a heavy amount of barrel distortion (~3.8%), which flips over to a slight pincushion type (~0.8%) at 70mm. In the middle range the distortions are marginal. "

Of course there a dozens and dozens of user reviews out there - but given the poor Tamron quality control many people "test" a bad sample and generalize their findings. I'd rather rely on a professional reviewer who replaces a lens if he discovers unexpected problems. Btw, even a moustache distortion could be corrected with the correct lens profile, it's just a question how much quality is lost.

[candyman]

Happy reading

You misunderstood me: I *know* what a distortion is, I just didn't read any *review* that says the lens has a problem with it. Dpreview & KR have no review yet, Photozone: "At 24 mm the lens shows a heavy amount of barrel distortion (~3.8%), which flips over to a slight pincushion type (~0.8%) at 70mm. In the middle range the distortions are marginal. "

Of course there a dozens and dozens of user reviews out there - but given the poor Tamron quality control many people "test" a bad sample and generalize their findings. I'd rather rely on a professional reviewer who replaces a lens if he discovers unexpected problems. Btw, even a moustache distortion could be corrected with the correct lens profile, it's just a question how much quality is lost.

I think Dwarf is referring to :
http://www.lenstip.com/340.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_24-70_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html

[Marsu42]

I think Dwarf is referring to :
http://www.lenstip.com/340.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_24-70_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html

I see - but I think this review is a good example of a test of a Tamron lens with qc issues because the verdict is "Tamron loses in many categories (like resolution in the frame centre [...]" which is the *exact* opposite of what every other review is saying: The main advantage of the Tamron is supposed to be its sharpness in the center with massive falloff even in mid-frame! So I think that explains the "moustace" distortion, too, but still getting a good Tamron seems to be like winning the lottery.

[Rienzphotoz]

Sorry Bvukich, but the general consensus by non-Canon fan boys (ie Independent Testers), the 5D3 got it's a$$ handed to it by Nikon.

Canon needs a real winner, and soon.
[/quote]
Until 2 weeks ago I had the Nikon D700, Canon 7D (sold both to buy 5D MK III).
I  almost bought the D800 until I took a few shots at the store at ISO 1600 & ISO 3200, then I also held the 5D MK III and did the same ... my conclusion is that Nikon D800 5cuks cow ni9ples at ISO 800 and above ... yes the D800 is AWESOME at ISO 100 in a controlled lighting environment but NOT in all lighting situations.
For photographers like me an affordable all-rounder full frame DSLR is more useful then the awesomeness of megapixels at low ISO.
During video recording I use Samsung 128GB Series 7 Slate 11.6" Tablet PC (running on Win 7 & Canon EOS Utility) tethered to my DSLR as my touch screen live view / field monitor ... and I've made several videos for my company with this setup.  To have the same set up with Nikon I have to shell out extra money for their software.
Contrary to most uninformed buyers (in terms of video performance) Nikon D800e (which sells for US$3300) is closer to 5D MK III (yet D800 falls short of 5d MK III's video performance) ... also Nikon does not give any software similar to Canon's EOS utility for free (instead one has to shell out US$ 135 to get Nikon software) ... so for someone like me the price difference between D800e and 5D MK III is only US$65 .... I am glad I bought 5D MK III at $65 more than D800 and got better video performance and an all round camera that works amazingly well at incredibly high ISO. Another thing that most people (who make purchase decisions on price alone) do not consider is that Nikon glass is much more expensive than the equivalent Canon glass (so whatever price advantage they thought they got from D800 over 5D MKIII, they quickly lose that in the Nikon lenses ... in the end you realize that both cameras, eventually, cost the same).
For me Canon already has a real Winner in 5D MK III   
For studio photographers or those who always use  tripods, yes there is no equal to Nikon D800 at that price range and it knocks the socks off 5D MK III. But I am not a studio photographer and for my needs I have a real winner in 5D MK III.

[BrianMichael]

I'm totally sold on the Tamron 24-70mm with VC over the Canon..

Canon is said to be a lil sharper.. But not worth $1000 more.. Plus.. A lot of what I do is in low light no flash.. I need to shoot on lower shutter speeds while shooting hand held.. The vibration compensation of the Tamron sells it for me.. Way to go Tamron for stepping it up as a third party company..

If we were speaking about 70-200mm I'll be a canon fanboy

[Marsu42]

Canon is said to be a lil sharper.. But not worth $1000 more.. Plus..

The Canon is more "worth it" if corner sharpness is paramount or often really shooting @f2.8 - but if the general style is to shoot @f4+ for increased dof and only for available light emergencies wide open then the Tamron with vc and 6 year warranty has a strong case - if you can get a good copy.

Yes, there is one report of a lens element coming loose and if I'd be a full time pro on heavy duty shooting the build quality might favor the Canon, but currently that won't hinder me from getting the Tamron.