downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests well

[elflord]

I was actually hoping for even better performance from Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8 in the borders and bokeh from the originally published MTF charts but, considering the price, build quality and optical stabilization, this is likely to become a very good budget-minded choice for full-frame mid-range zoom.  It does beat the previous EF lens in most areas, the vII will be interesting to see tested.

Tamron test link below

www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff

I don't see it putting price pressure on the Canon regardless, because some people will pay a premium for the Canon lens. The topic of this thread reflects that -- the first reaction when Tamron seem to have a winner is not to buy the Tamron, it's to hope for a cheaper Canon lens. The Sigma 85mm hasn't put much downward pressure on the flagships from Sony, Nikon or Canon, and I don't see this doing the same.

[Aglet]

The biggest issue for this lens is onion bokeh.

Yep, it's still got something ugly goin' on in OOF hilites, but so does Canon's v1 lens and, to a lesser degree, so does Nikon's.

[/quote]

I'm not sure it would put much pressure on the Nikon version, its pretty much inferior accross the board.  It does have lower CA's, but sharpness really is not close. Its not priced at much less either.  I was interested in seeing how it compared to the nikon 24-70G for my D800, but it would be a downgrade.
 
In the case of the old canon lens, it might be a better lens, but the focus shift bothers me, as you stop down, focus moves backward.  Doesn't do that on the Nikon version either.

Yes, have to give the nod to Nikon's current lens for IQ at the moment. The Tammy does pretty well tho, and might be a suitable compromise if you want to save a few hundred $.  Too bad it's priced a little hight at the moment, maybe it'll come down a tad in a year.

And that focus shift issue is something that really dogged me when shooting with their first 18-270mm and that's really annoying.  I was shooting some really nice close-ups of fruit on a tree, the backgrounds were terrific but when I got them back to the computer I found that on 2cm subjects the focus had shifted by nearly that much with only a few f-stops!  All the shots were so OOF they were useless.  Then the IS acted up and started causing blurring.  I got rid of it and picked up the Canon 18-200mm zoom instead; it works much more reliably and I still have it for a walk-around.

One would have to see to what extent the new 24-70 focus-shifts at "normal" shooting distances but it could be a deal-breaker.

[cliffwang]

The biggest issue for this lens is onion bokeh.

Yep, it's still got something ugly goin' on in OOF hilites, but so does Canon's v1 lens and, to a lesser degree, so does Nikon's.

That's why I only like, not love, my Canon 24-70mm.  I will buy either this Tamron lens or Canon's MK2.  I will make a decision in few months.

[VanWeddings]

i don't think it's going to affect the mk2's price, but i've got the tamron 24-70 and i'm extremely happy with the build and sharpness. the sharpness is comparable to the 70-200L. love the VC. only thing i don't quite like is the opposite direction for the rings, but i'll get used to that.

[Z]

I really don't know why people keep saying this:

And when lights go low during receptions, the IS on Tamron could spank the Canon 24-70 II no matter how much better the MTF may look in lab.

when the answer is clearly this:

what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required?

If you have to rely on IS in the 24-70 focal length for shooting people, your shutter speed is far too slow for anything but artistic blurs.

[dilbert]

Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.

The center sharpness is outstanding with nearly every focal length and f-stop reaching well into the "excellent" category.

Aside from the "onion bokeh", this Tamron lens has better IQ than Canon's 24-105/f4 "L". And they're about the same price.

To put this in shopping terms, instead of buying the Canon, you buy the Tamron lens, get better IQ and an extra f-stop of light.

What's not to love about that?

[picturesbyme]

Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.

The center sharpness is outstanding with nearly every focal length and f-stop reaching well into the "excellent" category.

Aside from the "onion bokeh", this Tamron lens has better IQ than Canon's 24-105/f4 "L". And they're about the same price.

To put this in shopping terms, instead of buying the Canon, you buy the Tamron lens, get better IQ and an extra f-stop of light.

What's not to love about that?

Nothing. Only, if it would be "Canon" printed on it vs "Tamron"
..
Now, PUT DOWN that stone...

 

[Dylan777]

That's the reason why Canon probably didn't put IS in the 24-70ii - what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required? IS is certainly nice and helps composition, but it doesn't freeze the world around you.

+1
For me Canon 24-70 MK2 and Tamron 24-70 VC are in different market.
MK2 is for kind PRO shooting for events and high speed.
Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.

Actually I am more interested in Tamron because I am not a PRO and shoot a lot photo for my family.  VC is very important for me.

I'm not a PRO neither and don't do photo for living. I  JUST enjoy the IQ on L lenses. I'm going for mrk II.

[drjlo]

when the answer is clearly this:

what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required?

If you have to rely on IS in the 24-70 focal length for shooting people, your shutter speed is far too slow for anything but artistic blurs.

I don't understand why people keep minimizing IS for not being able to freeze subject motion.  I know IS can't freeze subject motion, but it sure helps to get more keepers in low light by reducing camera shake, especially at the 70mm end, which can mean the difference between either getting that magic moment (say a bride) or NOT getting it At All. 

[Marsu42]

I know IS can't freeze subject motion, but it sure helps to get more keepers in low light by reducing camera shake, especially at the 70mm end

Nobody (I guess) disputes that having IS is better than not having IS given the same lens. But the main difference IS makes for me @70mm is that it reduces camera shake so I can place the af point better, but I still shoot at higher speeds for things that move at least a bit, i.e. not someone posing for the camera like in the good ol' days with a stick behind him to hold his neck.

It might be true that you get a *little* higher keeper rate with IS, but it is disputable if this is worth it esp. there are tradeoffs in iq or weight - Canon obviously didn't think so.

[Aglet]

It might be true that you get a *little* higher keeper rate with IS, but it is disputable if this is worth it esp. there are tradeoffs in iq or weight - Canon obviously didn't think so.

I really don't get why Canon decided not to include IS on the 24-70 L 2 when they seem to be putting into the new wide primes.
I think I'd prefer my wide prime w-o IS more than a midrange zoom I may use in low light.

[romanr74]

corner performance seems to be an issue with the tamron lens - this can be expected looking at the mft charts and test charts at the-digital-picture confirm this - even though i'm not sure these are the final results. corner to corner performance of the canon mark I is better. corner performance of the canon mark II must be awesome - if the mft charts are for real.