The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

[Marsu42]

Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.

3rd party manufacturers like Tamron are at the disadvantage because they have to fight a bad reputation, esp. if releasing a quality lens like the 24-70/2.8. If a Tamron breaks, surely the cheap quality is to be blamed, if a Canon breaks it's really, really bad luck and could happen to anyone.

 

[Ladislav]

I have this lens. My experience is full of contradictions.

I purchased this lens in February based on reviews when I owned only 650D with kit lens 18-135 IS STM (Rebel T4i). I wanted a standard zoom to slowly prepare for purchase of 6D. Initial experience was excellent. Better image quality, better colors, better DOF ... Two weeks after the purchase I noticed that my battery in the camera gets discharging even when the camera was turned off. I found that this was a common issue of the first generation when used with newer Canon bodies (650D and 6D). I took the lens back to retailer and I made a serious mistake. I let them to repair the lens because I wanted to keep it instead of requiring money back. Retailer first didn't want to believe that such problem is even possible but I referenced several reports from Internet. It took 4 weeks to get my lens back. It was "repaired" in local service center. Repair report scared me - VC was replaced and CPU reprogrammed but the issue disappeared.

I used the lens with my 650D quite happily since that. Some of my images had a really bad focus but I thought it was my mistake (I started with photography in November 2012). Two weeks ago I bought 6D. While it make my 70-300L even much better lens than it was with 650D it also made Tamron completely useless with aperture less than 5.6 or 8 (depending on distance). My Tamron has a terrible back focus on the longer end. When I made a test myself it had 10-12 cm back focus when shoting from 1.5m distance wide open. FoCal was not able to fix this issue. It predicted that necessary AFMA setting would be at least -36.

I don't understand how could I not notice this on 650D. Somehow I believe that it is not pure back focus issue because in such case all of my photos taken with 650D wide open would have to be out of focus but only some of them really are. It looks like a serious AF inconsistency. I took the lens to service center on Monday. I skipped the retailer to make this quicker. When I saw the service center (the only one authorized for warranty Tamron repairs in my country) it just made my frustration bigger. Somehow I don't trust them and I really don't believe that they are able to make any serious repairs of such complicated thing correctly (understand reliably in the long term). I will see. I'm also very curious if they can fix the problem in claimed "3 days" promoted in the whole Europe.

While I still believe that this can be a wonderful lens my copy is definitely not that one and I don't believe that just fixes in local service center will change that. I live in a small country where only few Tamron lenses are sold and the support is equivalent to the size of the market. It also means that available lenses are probably all from the first bad series. I know another owner who uses this lens on 5DII and he also complains problems with inconsistent focus.

My another problem is with VC. I'm not able to get what is claimed in tech specs. 3 stops? No way. My real world experience is 1/30s shutter speed on 70mm to get a sharp image. When I go with 1/20s it will be blurred when 1:1 zoomed. That is more like 1.3 stop but I have similar problem with all my lenses so it can be just in my technique.

My opinion about Tamron is so far: You get what you have paid for. You can get a great lens for a great value if you are ready to suffer initial fight to get a good copy but you must live in the big market handled directly by Tamron because otherwise you can have a hard time to get replacement easily (my case). It is lottery. I personally don't like to be QA/QC, especially if I pay for that.

Canon's MkII costs 105% more in my country and it lacks IS. It is a big price difference but if it saves you from this madness it probably worth the money. I would never admit it before but my problems and big satisfaction with 70-300L (even used!) changed my mind.

We have a proverb: "I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product". More and more I think if this wasn't the case? I'm deciding to go a hard way and try to use warranty to get my money back because my lens doesn't meet specs. If I get money back, sell 650D and its kit lens, I will need just few hundred bucks more to get Canon's MkII. I will miss VC a lot but it is just only 1.3 stop at the moment. On the other hand I wanted to use money from 650D and kit lens to acquire 100L.

I will see how my lens performs once it is returned from the warranty repair. Somehow the issue described by Roger from LensRentals would make my decision (and warranty claim for money back) much simpler.

 

[J.R.]

Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.

3rd party manufacturers like Tamron are at the disadvantage because they have to fight a bad reputation, esp. if releasing a quality lens like the 24-70/2.8. If a Tamron breaks, surely the cheap quality is to be blamed, if a Canon breaks it's really, really bad luck and could happen to anyone.

Sure, but straight out of the box the lens should function as claimed. Tamron hasn't "earned" the bad reputation for nothing.

I won't say that I've not had problems with Canon, but the problems with the third party lenses have been (a) more frequent, and (b) are compounded by lack of customer support because (usually) Canon and the third party manufacturer blame each other and refuse to take responsibility for the problem.

I'm am comfortable giving my lenses and bodies to Canon for calibration ... I'm not too sure about Tamron.

 

[syder]

Bought one from a bricks and mortar store (in case I wanted to exchange copies). Its a fantastic lens. Very sharp, IS works really well. Absolutely no problems so far (and a 5 year warranty if I do)...

I've also used the Canon 24-70 2.8 marks I and II, and I prefer the Tamron to both. While the Canon Mark II is a little sharper, I'm happy to trade a very small amount of sharpness for the benefits of IS (most of my paid work is video, where for anything that isn't on a piece of grip equipment IS is needed). The Canon Mark I is noticably less sharp (there's a bigger difference between the Canon mark I and the Tamron than there is between the Tamron and the Mark II).

 

[J.R.]

If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite. He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered. He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?). He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number. Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

 

[J.R.]

If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite. He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered. He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?). He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number. Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

Ok ... if you really want to rub it in ;D

 

[Random Orbits]

If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.

Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...

Not quite. He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered. He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?). He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number. Anyone want to bet that Tamron didn't hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?

+1, and it still performed poorly in AI Servo.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I imagine a few people have wondered when I would weigh in, since many of you have read my review of the lens. First, I did return my first copy of the lens. The IQ was great, but I didn't feel the VC was working within spec. The online retailer I purchased from had no problem with this and had me my new copy within a week. My second copy has been superb. I was worried after that first copy, but am I ever glad that I stayed with it and got that second lens. It is my most used lens, and is an incredibly useful tool that keeps impressing me with great results.

It's interesting to me that everyone here has fixated on Bryan's QC issues (thanks to whomever brought up Roger's update that the newer copies of the lens have been very reliable and that the lens has done well) and few people seem to have noted that the Tamron essentially keeps up with the image quality of the 24-70II - a lens considered to be the finest zoom lens to date. Ummm, that ain't so shabby for a lens that costs half as much and adds a killer feature in the VC. I do find the AF slower than L series USM, and I would agree that it wouldn't be a great sports choice because of that. I have taken thousands of pictures with the lens, though, including a lot of time sensitive event work, and I haven't noticed the inconsistent focus that Bryan reported. I have used the lens on a 60D, 5DMKII, and two 6D bodies. I just shot a golf tournament and business mixer a week ago, and was consistently impressed when I zoomed in 100% in LR and saw all of the shots so beautifully sharp. In fact, I came home from the same event and decided to run AFMA on my 85mm f/1.8 again because I was disappointed on the focus in some of its shots.

In all fairness, though, I haven't shot a lot in AF Servo mode. I primarily shoot One Shot mode for most of my work. Because of the slightly slower acquisition time of the AF, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't excel in AF Servo mode. You have to consider the style of shooting that you will primarily do.

As far as optical quality, however, Roger's conclusions are that their copies of the Tamron are far more consistent than the MKI of the Canon 24-70.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Wide open, 70mm, taken with ambient light in the church I pastor sitting in her mother's lap. This is the kind of results that I am used to getting from this lens:


Timeless by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a 100% crop from the image above - this is straight from camera with no PP other conversion from RAW to jpeg.

 

[RLPhoto]

It looks like I won't be getting a 24-70 for awhile now...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else). People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience. Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems. I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals. It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet. It was a result of a poor design. Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies.

This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues. They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.

 

[sdsr]

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else). People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience. Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems. I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals. It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet. It was a result of a poor design. Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies.

This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues. They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.

I didn't say that initial problem was obscure. As of December, lensrentals reported "no new problems". Perhaps someone who's interested in buying one should ask them for an update.

 

[aznable]

I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses

That's the whole problem with the third party lenses with too many bad copies. Reportedly, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is the only exception.

To be frank the only reason I've not got the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is that it is not yet available in a brick and mortar store where I live. I've had too many bad experiences with third party lenses and never buy them if they cannot be returned if I don't like them.

for what i know even the 70-200 os from sigma hasnt too many problems; you can buy from amazon and get a replacement if you dont like

 

[Ladislav]

I have this lens. My experience is full of contradictions.

I purchased this lens in February based on reviews when I owned only 650D with kit lens 18-135 IS STM (Rebel T4i). I wanted a standard zoom to slowly prepare for purchase of 6D. Initial experience was excellent. Better image quality, better colors, better DOF ... Two weeks after the purchase I noticed that my battery in the camera gets discharging even when the camera was turned off. I found that this was a common issue of the first generation when used with newer Canon bodies (650D and 6D). I took the lens back to retailer and I made a serious mistake. I let them to repair the lens because I wanted to keep it instead of requiring money back. Retailer first didn't want to believe that such problem is even possible but I referenced several reports from Internet. It took 4 weeks to get my lens back. It was "repaired" in local service center. Repair report scared me - VC was replaced and CPU reprogrammed but the issue disappeared.

I used the lens with my 650D quite happily since that. Some of my images had a really bad focus but I thought it was my mistake (I started with photography in November 2012). Two weeks ago I bought 6D. While it make my 70-300L even much better lens than it was with 650D it also made Tamron completely useless with aperture less than 5.6 or 8 (depending on distance). My Tamron has a terrible back focus on the longer end. When I made a test myself it had 10-12 cm back focus when shoting from 1.5m distance wide open. FoCal was not able to fix this issue. It predicted that necessary AFMA setting would be at least -36.

I don't understand how could I not notice this on 650D. Somehow I believe that it is not pure back focus issue because in such case all of my photos taken with 650D wide open would have to be out of focus but only some of them really are. It looks like a serious AF inconsistency. I took the lens to service center on Monday. I skipped the retailer to make this quicker. When I saw the service center (the only one authorized for warranty Tamron repairs in my country) it just made my frustration bigger. Somehow I don't trust them and I really don't believe that they are able to make any serious repairs of such complicated thing correctly (understand reliably in the long term). I will see. I'm also very curious if they can fix the problem in claimed "3 days" promoted in the whole Europe.

While I still believe that this can be a wonderful lens my copy is definitely not that one and I don't believe that just fixes in local service center will change that. I live in a small country where only few Tamron lenses are sold and the support is equivalent to the size of the market. It also means that available lenses are probably all from the first bad series. I know another owner who uses this lens on 5DII and he also complains problems with inconsistent focus.

My another problem is with VC. I'm not able to get what is claimed in tech specs. 3 stops? No way. My real world experience is 1/30s shutter speed on 70mm to get a sharp image. When I go with 1/20s it will be blurred when 1:1 zoomed. That is more like 1.3 stop but I have similar problem with all my lenses so it can be just in my technique.

My opinion about Tamron is so far: You get what you have paid for. You can get a great lens for a great value if you are ready to suffer initial fight to get a good copy but you must live in the big market handled directly by Tamron because otherwise you can have a hard time to get replacement easily (my case). It is lottery. I personally don't like to be QA/QC, especially if I pay for that.

Canon's MkII costs 105% more in my country and it lacks IS. It is a big price difference but if it saves you from this madness it probably worth the money. I would never admit it before but my problems and big satisfaction with 70-300L (even used!) changed my mind.

We have a proverb: "I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product". More and more I think if this wasn't the case? I'm deciding to go a hard way and try to use warranty to get my money back because my lens doesn't meet specs. If I get money back, sell 650D and its kit lens, I will need just few hundred bucks more to get Canon's MkII. I will miss VC a lot but it is just only 1.3 stop at the moment. On the other hand I wanted to use money from 650D and kit lens to acquire 100L.

I will see how my lens performs once it is returned from the warranty repair. Somehow the issue described by Roger from LensRentals would make my decision (and warranty claim for money back) much simpler.

Just to continue my experience ...

I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.

I'd try some FoCal testing at intermediate focal lengths. If AFMA is set to W = 0 and T = -13, the camera will do a simple linear regression to apply AFMA at intermediate focal lengths. So, for example when you're zoomed to 35mm, an AFMA of -3 will be applied, and at 50mm the AFMA will be -7. If those values are far off of what FoCal determines for those intermediate focal lengths, you might consider another try at service. Personally, my Canon 24-70/2.8L II needs W = 0 and T = 5, and the intermediate focal lengths fall right on the regression line. If that wasn't the case, I'd have exchanged the lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.

I'd try some FoCal testing at intermediate focal lengths. If AFMA is set to W = 0 and T = -13, the camera will do a simple linear regression to apply AFMA at intermediate focal lengths. So, for example when you're zoomed to 35mm, an AFMA of -3 will be applied, and at 50mm the AFMA will be -7. If those values are far off of what FoCal determines for those intermediate focal lengths, you might consider another try at service. Personally, my Canon 24-70/2.8L II needs W = 0 and T = 5, and the intermediate focal lengths fall right on the regression line. If that wasn't the case, I'd have exchanged the lens.

I'd also AFMA your Canon lens. It is always possible that the camera is off somewhat.

This is one of the issues a buyer faces with a 3rd party lens. Is it the lens, the camera body, or both. You can't send both to either manufacturer and ask them to make it right, no matter which has the issue.