Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures

Status
Not open for further replies.
photogaz said:
Nice review. Very informative.

I got mine yesterday. It's as good as everyone says. Sharp sharp sharp.

Can I ask you, what processing do you do on your photos? Lightroom or via PS actions?

I always start in Lightroom 4. I shoot RAW and convert to DNG in the first stage. I try to do a lot of my processing in Lightroom for one primary reason - every time I go into Photoshop (I have CS5) or Alien Skin Exposure 4 (a favorite program of mine), my file turns into a TIFF (even if I flatten the image before returning to Lightroom) and takes up up 5x the room. I use around 30GB of storage a month (before backups) as is, so if I do too many PS edits that can balloon to 60GB pretty quickly.

I only do edits in Photoshop if I need layering or to use luminosity masks.
 
Upvote 0
I think I'd prefer it to the Canon Mark I version, but resale value will be a lot less.
I've owned a number of Tamron Lenses, including the 200-500, and they were definitely not spectacular. I've considered buying this one, but I'm concerned that f/2.8 is not fast enough for my extreme low light work.
 
Upvote 0
I really enjoyed your review. It was personal, balanced, thrustworthy and informative. I had hoped that more of the pictures would be able to open in larger versions to get a real feel for the lens. The onion I think I see in other pirctures as well (the bottle in the upper right corner, and in the large beautiful shot you have of a field with flowers in it). However, although I read that it is supposed to be conventional wisdom that this is a bad thing, for me I don't find it unappealing at all, and would even argue that it might add a touch of extra texture to the shots.

Looking forward to your next review!

G.
 
Upvote 0
Quasimodo said:
I really enjoyed your review. It was personal, balanced, thrustworthy and informative. I had hoped that more of the pictures would be able to open in larger versions to get a real feel for the lens. The onion I think I see in other pirctures as well (the bottle in the upper right corner, and in the large beautiful shot you have of a field with flowers in it). However, although I read that it is supposed to be conventional wisdom that this is a bad thing, for me I don't find it unappealing at all, and would even argue that it might add a touch of extra texture to the shots.

Looking forward to your next review!

G.

Thank you very much for the nice feedback. Others have requested larger images in the gallery next time as well, so I will certainly keep that in mind. This is my first go at a review of this length and depth, so I will hopefully improve with time.
 
Upvote 0
Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.
 
Upvote 0
robbymack said:
Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.

That seems to be a conclusion that many have drawn. The Canon is better...but not $1000 better. That being said, I've got some pretty nice glass in my bag and yet have been quite impressed with the quality of what I can get with this lens. I've got a wedding next weekend and will give an update on how it performed for that.
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
robbymack said:
Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.

That seems to be a conclusion that many have drawn. The Canon is better...but not $1000 better. That being said, I've got some pretty nice glass in my bag and yet have been quite impressed with the quality of what I can get with this lens. I've got a wedding next weekend and will give an update on how it performed for that.

Great! Don't forget to report back to us please ;)
 
Upvote 0
I found this pretty cool: I had stopped down for this shot (f/8), and I normally wouldn't even get this flare effect from the lens except that I was using a cheaper, uncoated circular polarizer (I have no collection of filters in this size and still need to invest in a quality circular polarizer). Anyway, despite the flare pattern, I really like how that the aperture is clearly very round even stopped down three stops. The flare pattern is much nicer for it.


A Walk with a Friend by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
 
Upvote 0
A couple of things for those interested in the lens:

1) I did an AFMA on the lens with my 5DMKII the other day, and ended up dialing it in at +5. Very happy with the result. I did the 135L, 40mm pancake, and Tamron 70-300 VC at the same time.

2) I took the lens out in fairly extreme weather the other day for the first time. Fairly heavy rain, cold, fog, etc... The lens performed very admirably and I felt confident in the weathersealing. Here are couple of the results from that outing:


Must I Go Alone? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


What Waits Beyond? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

3) Finally, this is the second copy of the lens I am using. I exchanged the first copy after testing revealed some concerns over the VC functioning up to spec. I have been really, really pleased with the second copy and feel that it resolves better at infinity than the first copy, making it a better option for landscape.

I like the lens more and more as I use it. This weekend's wedding will be interesting: I am the officiating minister, my wife and I are also singing during the ceremony, and I am the official photographer (I guess I am the Walmart of weddings ;D) I have had to subcontract the ceremony to a second shooter. This is going to be a long day, but the Tamron will get its first wedding action since I purchased it a month ago.
 
Upvote 0
Love both of those shots. That makes me feel better about the lens, if you've taken it out into the cold, fog, rain and it performed well. I'm getting a copy from LensRentals, and I should have a chance to MFA it before I use it tomorrow evening when I'm shooting the technical show for a dance performance, and then Friday for the actual performance.
 
Upvote 0
Ok, so rented the lens from LensRentals, first shots with it tonight. I was shooting the technical/test performance for a burlesque holiday show. Small space (bar performance area), lighting was mostly small spots, so pretty bad most of the time, and then a bit too bright over part of the image some of the time. All in all, very challenging lighting. I'm downloading the images as we speak, but here are my first impressions based off of what I saw on the back of the camera (5d3, MFA via FoCal, +14 wide, -1 tele).

The VC (image stabilization) works well. Did a few test shots at 1/10 sec f/2.8 and zoomed in some on the camera, looked quite good, although I haven't extensively tested it yet.

So, for starters, the zoom ring is nice and wide, but reversed from what I'm used to. It's at the far end of the barrel, and you rotate to the left to zoom out, not to the right like the rest of my Canon lenses. The focusing ring is fairly narrow, but the grip is quite good. It's right where I'm used to resting my fingers when I'm holding the camera, and I suspect I might have confused the lens as it thought I was trying to do FTM, when I was just resting my fingers or accidentally shifted it trying to zoom in/out.

The focusing is a bit slower than the L lenses I've used (24-105, 135, 17-40, rented 14L, 24-70L v1, 70-200 2.8 IS v2). Not bad really, but not snappy like I'm used to. I shot most of the night in AI-Servo, since they were dancing and moving all around. As I said the lighting was quite challenging, but even when the AF points I was using was over the subject in decent lighting, I always felt like I had to wait a second or two for the camera to lock focus and start tracking. Quite annoying actually, and nothing something I'm used to. Part of it may have been, as stated above, my fingers rested right on the focusing ring so I may have confused it.

Otherwise, based off of the back of the camera, IQ seems pretty good, bokeh is nice, and colors are good. Seems sharp, although some of the shots the focus was off and I suspect it's because the AF motor couldn't keep up, or the AF on the 5d3 couldn't keep up, or whatever it was that made the AF seem to hesitate. I'll have more to say on this after I finish downloading the shots from tonight, and tomorrow night during the actual performance, and then process through everything.

Leaving aside the IQ, if I can't figure out the AF in this kind of lower light, I might have to not get this lens, which would make me sad as this is exactly the environment I'd use this in. I'll try using my 24-105 briefly in the same lighting conditions to see if it shows similar hesitation, and if so it's the camera/lighting, and not the lens and I'll have to test out in other dim lighting conditions.
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
OK, as promised, here is a blog post about using the lens in a wedding photography environment.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/12/a-wedding-photographers-look-at-the-tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd/

Thanks Dustin! That is one thing I noticed as well about it, it's heavy!

I haven't had a chance to get up many photos from my time with it, but I'll put some up this weekend (I hope). The 2nd night shooting with it went better on the AF I think, but it was still quite challenging. Unfortunately I didn't have a chance to try out better lighting conditions (You think your lighting was bad? Try ISO 6400, f/2.8, and being 1/60-1/125 with dancers moving all around and a few, seemingly almost random 'spot' lights. I'd have killed for the lighting you shot with). So, I'm not feeling as bad about the AF, and I'll probably get this lens in the next couple of months.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.