Can the new Tamron 24-70 with VC come close to Canon 24-70 MkII??

[carlc]

I was very disappointed to learn that the new Canon 24-70 MkII would not have IS (and the price) so my question is can the Tamron come close to the new Canon version?

I am so happy with the new Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS MkII. The IS is wonderful and I want to replicate it with my 24-70 purchase. I realize the Tamron model has not been introduced or reviewed, however I am not familiar with Tamron and curious if they can produce a high quality lens in the ballpark with the new Canon 70-200?

There is a huge difference in the IS results between my 24-105L and my 70-200 f2.8 MkII (camera shake). The tech at Canon explained that the IS in the new 70-200 is a better quality and the latest design. So my next question is-- does this new IS version exist or planned (rumored) in any future Canon mid-range zoom lenses?

 

[SpareImp]

I hope it will – just because it’s cheaper – but it probably won’t. There’s another post about this on the forum with MTF-charts. I think the conclusion was that it’s better than the first Canon, but won’t beat the MkII.

I’m waiting for this lens as well, or at least the reviews, because I would have to sell my 24-105mm f/4 and I’d like to know how the Tamron compares. Sample photos (borrowing Maculosas link from the other thread): http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70135411814

 

[dswatson83]

If it is even close to the 1st Canon 24-70 it will be my next lens. I really need a wider IS lens for video (and the many photo uses) and wanted a f/2.8 for normal use. Without the tamron, i'd be buying the 24-105 & 24-70 which is out of my price range and probably stupid. If it has reliable focus and an IQ close to the 1st Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 or Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS, I will be purchasing immediately. Even though I tend not to do close ups with a 24-70mm lens where focus would be critical. I mostly use the 70-200 f/2.8 for that. God I hope this Tamron is a decent lens as there are really no other options.

 

[SpareImp]

I bought the 24-105mm for its wide angle, so the extra 35mm at the tele end doesn’t compete with the Tamrons f/2.8 for me. I also find I have to stop it (the Canon) down to about f/8 to come close to the sharpness I’m used to from fixed focal lengths – but I might just have a bad copy.

Anyway, I also found some more interesting details about the construction of the lens here (this might have been posted before): http://www.tamron.com.au/di24-70_a007.html

It does seem like they know what they’re doing, and they are marketing it as the world’s first 24-70mm with VC, so they’re aware of the potential.

 

[birdman]

I had the 17-50/2.8 on my 40D--excellent! I had the 28-75 on my 5d2--a little better than average.

To quote my wedding photographer uncle: "The reason you buy Canon L glass is not JUST for its sharpness. See, feel how tight and sturdy this 28-70L is. After years of usage you need it to stay tight. The off-brands (his word choice) are not built near as good. You end up buying two lenses over time when you could have bought the much better made Canon to begin with. Oh, and they retain their value so much better."

Everything Tamron screams CHEAP MADE to me, with the single exception of their 100mm macro. The Tokinas are Mercedes Benz compared to Tamron. And Sigma seems to make a much better lens. But Tamrons still look like dollar store equipment. Sorry if that offends anyone...

 

[birdman]

And another thing: There is simply no earthly way it has better IQ than the new $2,000 24-70 L. Have you seen the charts on that thing? It is very disappointing that it has no Image Stabilization. Embarrasing, really.

My preference: 24-70L ver. II > 24-105L > Tamron 24-70 VC > 24-70 ver. I > 28-70L > Tamron 28-75

 

[cliffwang]

And another thing: There is simply no earthly way it has better IQ than the new $2,000 24-70 L. Have you seen the charts on that thing? It is very disappointing that it has no Image Stabilization. Embarrasing, really.

My preference: 24-70L ver. II > 24-105L > Tamron 24-70 VC > 24-70 ver. I > 28-70L > Tamron 28-75

I believe the mark II is $2500, not $2000. People compare this lens with mark I not, mark II because they are in different price range. The more important thing is people are looking for VC(IS) feature.