LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 06:37   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
KenjiS
Cream of the Crop
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
20,002 posts
Buffalo, NY
[MORE/SHARE]

http://nikonrumors.com ...bilization-announced.aspxexternal link

Yep, finally here! No price announced

Sounds like a lens many folks have wanted.. Provided the AF works well and the IQ is just as good as the old 28-75, this should be a fantastic lens...

And probubly pretty affordable, Tamron's pricing has always been nice and easy on the wallet

Post #1, Feb 06, 2012 06:37:38


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 5D Mark III, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Deviantartexternal link
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
SchnellerGT
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2007
585 posts
Washington, DC
[MORE/SHARE]

Yeah, I just saw this on Nikonrumors. Wow. What a bomb shell.

I am hoping we'll have pricing/availability/r​eviews of this Tamron vs. the new 24-70L by June. I need to buy one by June...

Post #2, Feb 06, 2012 06:43:18


Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 2.8L II [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][​FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][F​ONT=Tahoma]| Canon 40mm Pancake | Canon EF 85 1.8 USM | Canon EF 135 F2L USM | Canon Speedlite 430 EX
Buyer Feedback for "SchnellerGT" (Fredmiranda)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
20,002 posts
Buffalo, NY
[MORE/SHARE]

SchnellerGT wrote in post #13833603external link
Yeah, I just saw this on Nikonrumors. Wow. What a bomb shell.

I am hoping we'll have pricing/availability/r​eviews of this Tamron vs. the new 24-70L by June. I need to buy one by June...

Hopefully! Tamron usually ships fast

Though they do point out its a prototype...

Im honestly expecting this around the $800 mark given Tamron's pricing schemes and such...Their 28-75 for example is around $400 or so last i checked.... Even double the cost of the original 28-75 is fair because of the upgrades to AF, the wider focal length and most likely better optical performance of this puppy.. $800 still makes it less expensive than Canon or Nikon's 24-70 by a considerable margin, and less than the 24-105 or 24-120s as well...

Only downside is the 82mm filters..Im thinking thats the cost for putting VC in one of these lenses...

Admission, im not the largest fan of Tamron, especially not the old 28-75, But I have appreciated some of their newer lenses (The 60mm macro and the 70-300 zoom come to mind) and i gotta say i am expecting good things from it

Post #3, Feb 06, 2012 06:48:53


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 5D Mark III, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Deviantartexternal link
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
46,087 posts
Land of Short Skirts and Anime Fantasies
[MORE/SHARE]

huwaaa...how could Tamron make such a fast lens small and light with VR to boot and Canon/Nikon can't? :lol:

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC :D

Post #4, Feb 06, 2012 06:51:25


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
clione
Member
Joined Jan 2012
38 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Looks nice. Can't wait to see the price, but I'm not liking the 82mm thread size.

Post #5, Feb 06, 2012 06:51:53




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
clione
Member
Joined Jan 2012
38 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

monk3y wrote in post #13833631external link
huwaaa...how could Tamron make such a fast lens small with VR to boot and Canon/Nikon can't? :lol:

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC :D

hopefully this will put pressure on canon and Nikon to make their own sooner

Post #6, Feb 06, 2012 06:54:49




LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Take that Canon and NIkon! I can't believe it took so long for a stabilized FF standard f2.8 zoom and that Tamron of all companies was the first.

Post #7, Feb 06, 2012 06:55:58


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
46,087 posts
Land of Short Skirts and Anime Fantasies
[MORE/SHARE]

clione wrote in post #13833641external link
hopefully this will put pressure on canon and Nikon to make their own sooner

yeah I just saw its 82mm but still..the weight and length of the lens is smaller and lighter than both the Canon/Nikon equivalents. :D

Post #8, Feb 06, 2012 06:56:14


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
20,002 posts
Buffalo, NY
[MORE/SHARE]

monk3y wrote in post #13833631external link
huwaaa...how could Tamron make such a fast lens small and light with VR to boot and Canon/Nikon can't? :lol:

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC :D

The Canon and Nikon ones are shortest at their longest focal length, the Tamron and Sigma are shortest at their shortest focal length, thats why....But thats also why the Canon and Nikon can use their very spiffy integral-body hoods that do a nicer job of protecting the lens from damage dust and etc

Its not really small, I think thats deceiving, its an 82mm filter size! So its fatter around than the Nikon/Canon most likely, and is probubly more a short squat fat fellow like the Sigma 24-70 HSM...

Post #9, Feb 06, 2012 06:58:12


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 5D Mark III, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Deviantartexternal link
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
46,087 posts
Land of Short Skirts and Anime Fantasies
[MORE/SHARE]

tkbslc wrote in post #13833645external link
Take that Canon and NIkon! I can't believe it took so long for a stabilized FF standard f2.8 zoom and that Tamron of all companies was the first.

their technology in making the 18-270mm PZD lenses could have help them with the size and weight of this lens :D

check the dimension comparison between the old 18-270mm and the new 18-270mm PZD... the new one is very small.
http://www.tamronlensr​eview.com ...n-18-270mm-vc-pzd-previewexternal link

Post #10, Feb 06, 2012 06:59:10


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
20,002 posts
Buffalo, NY
[MORE/SHARE]

monk3y wrote in post #13833647external link
yeah I just saw its 82mm but still..the weight and length of the lens is smaller and lighter than both the Canon/Nikon equivalents. :D

The cost will likely be almost a grand less than the Canon/Nikon as well...

I think you can easily get a 82mm filter or two for that....

Also a lot of lenses now are moving to the 82mm filter size, meaning that 82mm filters might start getting less expensive as they are sold in higher quantities....

Post #11, Feb 06, 2012 06:59:25


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 5D Mark III, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Deviantartexternal link
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
46,087 posts
Land of Short Skirts and Anime Fantasies
[MORE/SHARE]

KenjiS wrote in post #13833653external link
The Canon and Nikon ones are shortest at their longest focal length, the Tamron and Sigma are shortest at their shortest focal length, thats why....But thats also why the Canon and Nikon can use their very spiffy integral-body hoods that do a nicer job of protecting the lens from damage dust and etc

Its not really small, I think thats deceiving, its an 82mm filter size! So its fatter around than the Nikon/Canon most likely, and is probubly more a short squat fat fellow like the Sigma 24-70 HSM...

but still..it has VC, I thought once you add VC to a 2.8 lens it would become massive... well look it is still lighter than both Canon/Nikon 24-70mm :D

Post #12, Feb 06, 2012 07:00:37


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
46,087 posts
Land of Short Skirts and Anime Fantasies
[MORE/SHARE]

KenjiS wrote in post #13833658external link
The cost will likely be almost a grand less than the Canon/Nikon as well...

I think you can easily get a 82mm filter or two for that....

Also a lot of lenses now are moving to the 82mm filter size, meaning that 82mm filters might start getting less expensive as they are sold in higher quantities....

yeah... I guess of course people could argue about the build quality for the price difference hehe :D

Post #13, Feb 06, 2012 07:02:04


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
KenjiS's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
20,002 posts
Buffalo, NY
[MORE/SHARE]

monk3y wrote in post #13833663external link
but still..it has VC, I thought once you add VC to a 2.8 lens it would become massive... well look it is still lighter than both Canon/Nikon 24-70mm :D

Weight comes down to build in this case, Canon and Nikons are built like bloody tanks, This is not...The Sigma 24-70 HSM is similar in size from the looks..the Sigma is actually a hair lighter, by about 30g...the Canon is 120g or so heavier than it...the Nikon is 70g heavier... So im not convinced its really all that "OMG LIGHT!"

VC doesnt add as much size and weight as most people expect i think, the 17-50 VC isnt much bigger than the 17-50 non-vc, the Sigma 17-50 OS isnt much bigger than the 18-50 f/2.8, and the difference in size and weight in the 70-200 families in Canon isnt significant

VC/IS/OS/VR systems are only a set of small diameter lenses usually near the rear of the lens, they're not very big, nor very heavy..the mechanism for the gyros and the actual motor to move the lenses around would add girth, but not much weight....

Post #14, Feb 06, 2012 07:04:27


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 5D Mark III, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Deviantartexternal link
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

KenjiS wrote in post #13833653external link
Its not really small, I think thats deceiving, its an 82mm filter size! So its fatter around than the Nikon/Canon most likely, and is probubly more a short squat fat fellow like the Sigma 24-70 HSM...

It's not too small, but that link did list specs:

Filter size: φ82mm
Length: 108.5mm*
Entire Length: 116.9mm*
Diameter: φ88.2mm
Weight: 825g*


Canon 24-70L: 83.2mm x 123.5mm, 950g 77mm filter
Tamron 28-75: 73x92mm, 510g 67mm filter

Post #15, Feb 06, 2012 07:05:32


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
254,734 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00098 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
1191 guests, 851 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is greeman5639

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.