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

[Jim O]

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.

Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.

Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.

I would send it into Tamron. Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.

 

[candyman]

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.

Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.

I would send it into Tamron. Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.

+1 for the service

 

[Jim O]

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.

Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.

I would send it into Tamron. Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.

+1 for the service

All well and good but this seems to be an inherent problem with this lens and this body (at least) that has been seen frequently enough and not addressed by Tamron with a firmware upgrade. I saw one review where the person sent it in three times, and finally the peripheral points were "close" but the center point was now off. I saw multiple other reports of multiple trips to so-called "excellent" Tamron service. Read through the entire thread that I linked. I know this lens has a six year warranty but...

Anyway, before I send it back for a refund I am going to test a bit with just the cross-type sensors enabled. Perhaps I can live with those results. I am impressed with the lens... when it focuses properly.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.

Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.

I would send it into Tamron. Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.

+1 for the service

All well and good but this seems to be an inherent problem with this lens and this body (at least) that has been seen frequently enough and not addressed by Tamron with a firmware upgrade. I saw one review where the person sent it in three times, and finally the peripheral points were "close" but the center point was now off. I saw multiple other reports of multiple trips to so-called "excellent" Tamron service. Read through the entire thread that I linked. I know this lens has a six year warranty but...

Anyway, before I send it back for a refund I am going to test a bit with just the cross-type sensors enabled. Perhaps I can live with those results. I am impressed with the lens... when it focuses properly.

Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum

 

[Jim O]

Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum

I agree that actions are better than words.

Please do not take this the wrong way as you do seem to be a person of great integrity, but you have a contractual arrangement with Tamron of Canada according to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475, the terms of which are not made known (nor do I necessarily think they should be). I am certainly not suggesting that you are biased in your equipment review, especially in light of the fact that you bought this lens seemingly prior to this contract being signed, but you can't be considered completely impartial either. I think this is a fair assessment and again, I hope you are not offended.

I did more tests using the central point as a control and the outer rows of cross-type AF points for testing. Same wall, tripod, settings. All at f/2.8. Farther distance. Different time of day so different lighting.

The middle AF points in each outer column of cross-type AF points were tested. Multiple shots of each were taken. The attached are "typical.

Interestingly, the left side is close to the center in sharpness, while the right was consistently off. Neither was as bad as the outermost points.

I will give Tamron service a shot. I'll call tomorrow and arrange it.

More to follow...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum

I agree that actions are better than words.

Please do not take this the wrong way as you do seem to be a person of great integrity, but you have a contractual arrangement with Tamron of Canada according to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475, the terms of which are not made known (nor do I necessarily think they should be). I am certainly not suggesting that you are biased in your equipment review, especially in light of the fact that you bought this lens seemingly prior to this contract being signed, but you can't be considered completely impartial either. I think this is a fair assessment and again, I hope you are not offended.

I did more tests using the central point as a control and the outer rows of cross-type AF points for testing. Same wall, tripod, settings. All at f/2.8. Farther distance. Different time of day so different lighting.

The middle AF points in each outer column of cross-type AF points were tested. Multiple shots of each were taken. The attached are "typical.

Interestingly, the left side is close to the center in sharpness, while the right was consistently off. Neither was as bad as the outermost points.

I will give Tamron service a shot. I'll call tomorrow and arrange it.

More to follow...

Your point is well taken. I can safely say in this, however, that I am using a retail copy of the lens that I did purchase myself. This is not a perfect lens, and Tamron is not a perfect company, but I also use this lens more than any other in my fairly extensive kit. I'm glad you are going to try the service option, particularly if you like the lens overall. I'd be interested in hearing how your service experience went.

I guess my point above was that both reviews and, in particular, internet forums, love to have something to complain about. It rarely accomplishes anything, though, and I would say that from your signature you probably agree.

 

[Ewinter]

Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.

 

[Jim O]

Your point is well taken. I can safely say in this, however, that I am using a retail copy of the lens that I did purchase myself. This is not a perfect lens, and Tamron is not a perfect company, but I also use this lens more than any other in my fairly extensive kit. I'm glad you are going to try the service option, particularly if you like the lens overall. I'd be interested in hearing how your service experience went.

I understand that and even pointed it out. I will of course be following up on this.

I guess my point above was that both reviews and, in particular, internet forums, love to have something to complain about. It rarely accomplishes anything, though, and I would say that from your signature you probably agree.

Hahaha. Seriously, my best laugh of the day. It's a variation of what Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain said:

Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Here's another corruption/variation of it that I like:

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

 

[eml58]

I agree with most, excellent review.

And I'm a Fan of your Photography, what your able to pull out of the 6D is in many respects quite amazing, your an accomplished Photographer.

But, considering the articles/threads started by yourself regards the Tamron Lens versus the Canon Lens, it might in future be relevant to start by stating that you do have a Tamron interest, as you pointed to in this post.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475

I mention this due mainly to the thread you started regards "is the Canon 24-70f2.8 L II worth the extra Money", this thread went up only a few days after you mentioned the above interest/contract with Tamron.

I feel it's relevant because I think it makes a difference to how Readers appreciate the review/comments made when it's known that the reviewer does have an arrangement with the manufacturer of the equipment being reviewed.

It doesn't in any way invalidate your review or comments, but it does allow readers to put things more into perspective, I do hope you take this Positively, as mentioned, I liked and appreciate this review & your Photography.

 

[verysimplejason]

I agree with most, excellent review.

And I'm a Fan of your Photography, what your able to pull out of the 6D is in many respects quite amazing, your an accomplished Photographer.

But, considering the articles/threads started by yourself regards the Tamron Lens versus the Canon Lens, it might in future be relevant to start by stating that you do have a Tamron interest, as you pointed to in this post.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475

I mention this due mainly to the thread you started regards "is the Canon 24-70f2.8 L II worth the extra Money", this thread went up only a few days after you mentioned the above interest/contract with Tamron.

I feel it's relevant because I think it makes a difference to how Readers appreciate the review/comments made when it's known that the reviewer does have an arrangement with the manufacturer of the equipment being reviewed.

It doesn't in any way invalidate your review or comments, but it does allow readers to put things more into perspective, I do hope you take this Positively, as mentioned, I liked and appreciate this review & your Photography.

I think Dustin got the contract from a magazine in conjunction with Tamron after he published the results. The thing is, he didn't make any contact with Tamron at least by default, not until he had already published his review. We can safely say he isn't biased during the release but technically may have been afterwards. Right?

 

[Jim O]

I agree with most, excellent review.

And I'm a Fan of your Photography, what your able to pull out of the 6D is in many respects quite amazing, your an accomplished Photographer.

But, considering the articles/threads started by yourself regards the Tamron Lens versus the Canon Lens, it might in future be relevant to start by stating that you do have a Tamron interest, as you pointed to in this post.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475

I mention this due mainly to the thread you started regards "is the Canon 24-70f2.8 L II worth the extra Money", this thread went up only a few days after you mentioned the above interest/contract with Tamron.

I feel it's relevant because I think it makes a difference to how Readers appreciate the review/comments made when it's known that the reviewer does have an arrangement with the manufacturer of the equipment being reviewed.

It doesn't in any way invalidate your review or comments, but it does allow readers to put things more into perspective, I do hope you take this Positively, as mentioned, I liked and appreciate this review & your Photography.

I think Dustin got the contract from a magazine in conjunction with Tamron after he published the results. The thing is, he didn't make any contact with Tamron at least by default, not until he had already published his review. We can safely say he isn't biased during the release but technically may have been afterwards. Right?

I apologize to you Dustin if I've opened a can of worms. I believe that your integrity is untarnished but full disclosure is always warranted.

It seemed to me that the contract came after reviews of two zooms. Dustin likes Tamron lenses, Tamron likes his reviews and probably liked the images that he produces with their lenses, hence their "match".

Imagine your physician really believes a cholesterol lowering medicine is the best. He prescribes it a lot, and talks it up because of the great results he's seen. The pharma company that manufactures the drug notices and invites him to do a clinical study using his patients. All above board. Consent, openness, etc. Part of the grant for the study includes a small annual stipend for your physician. Now you come along with high cholesterol unresponsive to diet, exercise, weight loss, etc, and your doctor, who really believes in this medicine, recommends you start taking it, but does tell you about alternatives. He also discloses to you that he has a financial arrangement to do this clinical study. Isn't that ok? After all, he prescribed this drug extensively before he had the arrangement. If I trusted my doctor, I'd go with what he recommends.

Dustin uses his full, real name here, unlike most users, myself included. He's not going to tarnish that over this arrangement. It can't be worth that much.

 

[eml58]

I apologize to you Dustin if I've opened a can of worms. I believe that your integrity is untarnished but full disclosure is always warranted.

I dont think you have Jim O, I think the comments made about "full disclosure" by myself, yourself & others have been all meant in a positive & helpful manner, my comments were meant to assist after reading some of the negative comments made to Justin re his Thread on the "is the Canon 24-70f/2.8 L II worth the extra Money", I felt he had been poorly dealt with by some of the Posters. I was simply offering some advice, Positive advise, it can be taken as such, or simply ignored, as long as it's offered in a clearly positive manner.

And it's not difficult to work out my own full name, it's on most Images I've Posted here at CR.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks to everyone for the nice feedback. For those of you who are interested, here is the order of events regarding my "integrity and Tamron" 8)

1) This review was published after I purchased a retail copy of the lens. As I disclosed in the review, I actually returned my first copy of the lens because I felt the VC wasn't within spec. It was replaced with the copy that I currently own and love.

2) I approached Tamron about doing a review of the 70-200 VC lens. They loaned me a retail copy of the lens to review, but stressed that they wanted my unbiased opinion. The link to my review is on the Tamron Canada website, but if you read that review, you will find that I am as transparent about its flaws as I am about its strengths.

3) I have now entered into a contractual relationship as a blogger with a photo magazine in Canada that is, I believe, sponsored by Tamron and is somehow connected with this website as well. I have complete liberty about what I write about and how I write it, but they do supply me gear and I am compensated for my articles. I will continue to write in as unbiased a way as possible...but there is that.

4) I am certainly not biased against Canon. One of my images has been used in advertising for the 6D and I was nicely compensated for that, but it again was after my article on why I chose the 6D over the 5DIII and not even chosen for that. I'm not sure that Canon is even aware of that article.

I was actually very surprised over the ire I received on that other thread that a couple of you referenced. But, it is an internet forum, not a professional environment...

All of this doesn't stop me from loving a lens that produces clarity like this...


The Ghosts of Parliament Hill by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.

Thanks for the nice feedback. I would agree that under your set of circumstances that the Tamron should be plenty, and you will also have the opportunity to use the Tamron when/if you need the VC in certain situations. Sounds like the best of both worlds, to me. I would be interested in hearing your opinions when you can compare both side by side.

 

[Jim O]

Just a follow up on my situation. Before I arranged to ship the lens back to Tamron I re-tested the body with another lens, just to make certain that it wasn't the camera.

I used my 85/1.8 at 2.8 on the same brick wall from a slightly greater distance. Not surprisingly, all focus points worked well and produced nice sharp images. So clearly it is the lens, not the camera.

I can post screenshots of the RAW files if anyone wants to see.

My lens is in the hands of UPS and should be at Tamron USA in two days. They have a three business day turnaround so I should know more by the beginning of next week.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just a follow up on my situation. Before I arranged to ship the lens back to Tamron I re-tested the body with another lens, just to make certain that it wasn't the camera.

I used my 85/1.8 at 2.8 on the same brick wall from a slightly greater distance. Not surprisingly, all focus points worked well and produced nice sharp images. So clearly it is the lens, not the camera.

I can post screenshots of the RAW files if anyone wants to see.

My lens is in the hands of UPS and should be at Tamron USA in two days. They have a three business day turnaround so I should know more by the beginning of next week.

Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.

 

[Ewinter]

Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.

Thanks for the nice feedback. I would agree that under your set of circumstances that the Tamron should be plenty, and you will also have the opportunity to use the Tamron when/if you need the VC in certain situations. Sounds like the best of both worlds, to me. I would be interested in hearing your opinions when you can compare both side by side.

I would love to let you know. I don't get to use the mkII that much (the mk1 is my daily carry, which is why I want to get an upgrade) but I can get them side by side. I believe the Tamron is the best lens for ME in this situation- the company MKII is great but I'm happier with the Tamron (as long as the focus speed isn't slow. I doubt it is, it wasn't when I used one on the Nikons)
I'm also lucky to get the chance to compare it on the 1DX and the 5dIII- I'll post my findings.
I was on the fence, but after seeing your images I have no qualms. I find the mkI focuses very quickly but is so mediocre in resolution I hate it. And it's so large.
Anyway, enough rambling
-Elliot

 

[Jim O]

Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.

I did call and I spoke with someone in their service department. He did not offer that type of information but neither did I specifically request it. He did seem confident that the issue could be resolved with repair or replacement.

The lens serial # is 038xxx. I can provide the exact serial number to you privately if you wish.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.

I did call and I spoke with someone in their service department. He did not offer that type of information but neither did I specifically request it. He did seem confident that the issue could be resolved with repair or replacement.

The lens serial # is 038xxx. I can provide the exact serial number to you privately if you wish.

Jim, I don't need the serial number, but I'm glad you know it so you can tell if you get your lens back or a replacement.