Tamron introduces 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS

[unruled]

sharp!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/transcontinenta/6937093976/#sizes/o/in/set-72157629441185336/


(check full res!)

 

[cliffwang]

sharp!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/transcontinenta/6937093976/#sizes/o/in/set-72157629441185336/


(check full res!)

Too bad. There is no F/2.8 one.

 

[SpareImp]

Too bad. There is no F/2.8 one.

Actually, there are two. The flower and the jewellery. Both macro shots, and neither were particularly sharp or interesting. So yeah, modified too bad.

 

[eirikv]

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

 

[bycostello]

I dont know why everyone still harps on about IS

I do not even think its necessary these days, the 5d mk II has good higher iso & no doubt
the 1dx and the upcoming mk III will exceed the previous versions

in any case, looking forward to this lens as on a budget. my guess is around 1600 at launch

noise is noise.... i want to use the lowest iso possible...

 

[bycostello]

i'm told that the shorter the focal length the harder it is to put IS on a lens so a canon 24-70IS would be both physically large and expensive (although tamron are maybe saying it isn't the case).... it is the one upgrade i'd make in a flash though if canon ever make one...

 

[D.Sim]

Cant wait to see how till this will compete against canons 24-70L II. My tamron 28-75 comes pretty close to my 24-70L

Here's a special site just for the 24-70 Tamoron. And as pointed out by others, all shots at 5,6 or narrower, not very comforting.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a007/index.html

All the shots are at 5,6 because otherwise parts of the shots would be out of focus.

The photographs were taken by a professional photographer who is showing what the lens can do. There's more to any lens than what it can shoot at maximum aperture.

If any of those photos had of been taken at 2.8 then critical parts of the subject matter would have been out of focus. Seems to me that people criticising the lack of 2.8 pics are arm chair internet experts rather than photographers.

Thing is though - people want to know what it can do at maximum aperture as well... if you're only going to shoot it stopped down, you're not competing against the L lenses, you're going up against the lesser lenses with smaller apertures...

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Cant wait to see how till this will compete against canons 24-70L II. My tamron 28-75 comes pretty close to my 24-70L

Here's a special site just for the 24-70 Tamoron. And as pointed out by others, all shots at 5,6 or narrower, not very comforting.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a007/index.html

All the shots are at 5,6 because otherwise parts of the shots would be out of focus.

The photographs were taken by a professional photographer who is showing what the lens can do. There's more to any lens than what it can shoot at maximum aperture.

If any of those photos had of been taken at 2.8 then critical parts of the subject matter would have been out of focus. Seems to me that people criticising the lack of 2.8 pics are arm chair internet experts rather than photographers.

Thing is though - people want to know what it can do at maximum aperture as well... if you're only going to shoot it stopped down, you're not competing against the L lenses, you're going up against the lesser lenses with smaller apertures...

You both have a point. Dilbert is right in that the shots were made with the proper aperture for the depth of field for the scene. At the same time, to D.Sim's point, I'd have liked to have seen shots where the proper aperture is wide open -- portraiture, low light, action, that sort of thing. That is, how well does it perform wide open in settings where the proper way to shoot is wide open?

b&

 

[SpareImp]

That's horse s**t and if you actually spent time looking at multiple lens tests you'd know that. So before you post again, why don't you be a good little boy and read all of the EF and EF-S lens tests over at photozone.de before commenting further?

I’m sure what he means is that this lens is competing against the Canon L-glass and must perform well wide open to do so – or else the f/2.8 is just a marketing number like it often is in lesser lenses. Most lenses get noticeably sharper when stopped down, while you have to pay extra to get a large aperture that’s usable. I’m sure you are aware of this – and yeah, some lenses will never get sharp - but it's not horse s**t.

 

[machingo]

i'm told that the shorter the focal length the harder it is to put IS on a lens so a canon 24-70IS would be both physically large and expensive (although tamron are maybe saying it isn't the case).... it is the one upgrade i'd make in a flash though if canon ever make one...

Hmm... then what about the 17-55 f/2.8? It is even wider than the 24-70 (not considering the crop factor, of course), and has IS!

Would servicing the full frame sensor with IS make that much of a difference?

 

[preppyak]

Hmm... then what about the 17-55 f/2.8? It is even wider than the 24-70 (not considering the crop factor, of course), and has IS!

Would servicing the full frame sensor with IS make that much of a difference?

Yes and no. The 17-55 only has to cover the EF-s image circle, thus it can be smaller. Think of the lenses that micro 4/3rd's companies make; they are tiny. That's because they fit an even smaller sensor and image circle. They probably could have made the 17-55 smaller by a decent amount.

But, I'm also not sure I fully buy the "IS makes a lens larger". In the 70-200 f/4 case, those lenses are the exact same size, and only about 50g difference with and without IS. Same is basically true of the 70-200 f/2.8's. Also, the 24-105 is about the same size as the 17-55. So, I'm not so sure that IS on the 24-70 would amount to a huge size or weight difference. It would probably kill a lot of 24-105 sales though...

 

[cliffwang]

But, I'm also not sure I fully buy the "IS makes a lens larger". In the 70-200 f/4 case, those lenses are the exact same size, and only about 50g difference with and without IS. Same is basically true of the 70-200 f/2.8's. Also, the 24-105 is about the same size as the 17-55. So, I'm not so sure that IS on the 24-70 would amount to a huge size or weight difference. It would probably kill a lot of 24-105 sales though...

A lot of time Canon makes the decision to maxims the company profit. Higher price because we Canon fans will pay for it. Missing IS feature because IS feature might hurt its other products. Or Canon can make IS version in the future and sell it higher price. Many many reasons. Don't forget Canon is a company. Companies want to make more money from their customers especially their royal customers. That's why Apple, Sony, and Canon can make so much money from us.

 

[Pixel Nut]

;D I just purchased the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with a Canon mount today. It is sharper than my 24-105 which is sharper than every Canon 24-70 f2.8 series one I have tried. It is just a fraction sharper than my 17-55 f2.8. Unlike my Tamaron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, the autofocus is fast and the color is great. With f2.8 and IS it is the best of both worlds. It will join my Canon 70-200 f2.8L II in my camera bag. I purchased this lens for $1289.00. This price will probably go up. C'mon Canon, can you give us IS?

 

[Marsu42]

It is sharper than my 24-105 which is sharper than every Canon 24-70 f2.8 series one I have tried.

Then you won the Tamron lottery, because every review I read says it's at most on par with the 24-105 @f4 and has problems on the long end.

I got hold of a Tamron 24-70 in a store today and compared it with some test shots to their 24-105L and the 35L. First off, the rumors seem to be true - there is a larger production variance with Tamron, because it had a healthy frontfocus that is uncorrectable on my 60d. But I could compare the lenses at the zone where the af ended up. If I ever should get the Tamron, its probably best to buy five lenses, test them and return four.

The iq of this Tamron copy was a big letdown, at f2.8 its very underwhelming (even on crop!), and nearing the 24-105 at f4. The 35L in comparison is a class of its own and knocks your socks right off, it's as sharp at f1.8 as the Tamron at f4. VC seems to be ok, but really, at ok indoor lighting and open aperture its "nice to have" but hardly essential - the shake at these focal lengths is very low anyway, except if you're shooting video or handheld hdr. The Tamron af is noticeably slower than the 24-105, but faster than the 35L - someone please try servo af and lots of consecutive shots and tell if the Tamron is precise.

Since the 24-70vc & 24-105L cost about the same, the f2.8 of this particular copy is for small print only or emergency use, esp. in combination with the vc. And you trade it for longer zoom range and better af. I hope lots of 5d3 owners sell their "crappy" kit 24-105L lenses and they end up with people who can appreciate them. But I'll try another 24-70 when I stumble upon it - maybe I just was very unlucky and end up as a Tamron user after all.

 

[Pixel Nut]

Re: Tamron Lottery

8)Apparently, I was not the only luck winner. Go to:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845339-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html

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

and read other reviews. It may be a fluk considering that I had some minor issues with my Tamaron 17-50mm f/2.8, which was traded for it's Canon counterpart. However, if it's a Lottery prize, I graciously accept the win. Oh, in case you haven't noticed; the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 mk1 is going for $799.99 from some dealers. There is also a rumor that the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII may sell for $1799.00-$1899.00. Hmm, I wonder why? Don't be so loyal to the red ring that you lose control of your wallet. P.S The 135mm f/2 is still the sharpest lens in the Canon inventory...oops, maybe I won that lottery too.
I am going to try to attach a photo that was taken, handheld at night, with the Tamron 24-70mm @ f/2.8 ISO 400 Shutter Speed 1/4 sec

 

[Tammy]

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

The graphs look pretty normal - peak in lens resolution at somewhere around f/5.6 to f/8.0. For a landscape shot, at f/8 or f/11, it's going to be pretty damn good.

Interestingly, even though the center peaks at 8.0, it is also at around this point when the entire image is of similar resolution - exactly what you want and need for a good landscape shot.

To read the graph in a different manner, if you're shooting portrait at 2.8, looking for nice bokeh with your subject centered then the drop off in resolution towards the edge is not going to harm the picture at all.

look at the graphs for the Canon 24-70 mark I at F/2.8 in another tab/window.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

Here is a more realistic review with reasonable charts.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=1

 

[Marsu42]

Both of these reviews make it quite clear that the Tamron is quite easily the equal of the Canon 24-70 MkI. I'd suggest going to a store and trying out different Tamron 24-70's if you are having trouble.

Actually, today I tried the 3rd Tamron 24-70 and at last this copy performed as expected: very sharp in the center even at f2.8, making it an optimal "bang for the buck". I'll buy it when the price drops under 1000€.

The only "issue" with the Tamron is that the af is slower than Canon, and Tamron has a two-phase af system (see the nikonguy youtube video on this) that needs getting used to: (At least in lower light) the af first focuses near the target, then nearly stops and then micro-focuses the rest of the way. Canon does it maybe slower on some lenses I know, but all in one go. I'll have to remember that the Tamron af has a slower lock than is to be expected when simply feeling the speed with which it starts.

Btw: Does anyone know how many "cross" or "double cross" af points are available with the Tamron 24-70 on the 5d3 or 1dx?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Btw: Does anyone know how many "cross" or "double cross" af points are available with the Tamron 24-70 on the 5d3 or 1dx?

The lens identifies itself to a Canon body as a 85mm f/1.2L by using code 137 in the EXIF, so the points available to that lens will be available. The multiple stage AF might be a result of this, the camera might do extra accurate AF for a 1.2 lens.

 

[Marsu42]

The multiple stage AF might be a result of this, the camera might do extra accurate AF for a 1.2 lens.

That sounds plausible, but would be bad because the f2.8 lens could gain speed with another lens code. However, a video review on youtube shows the same effect with a Nikon body, but maybe for the same reason. It's hard to tell without a thorough test.