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

[Ceece911]

Can't wait for this lens to be out for about a year. I'm always able to find a good price on used/like new Tamron lenses.

[Jahled]

I'm glad Tamron have done it, simply because no one else has yet, and I should imagine has put a hole in the dam. But it's really not going to shake the pillars of heaven with it's image quality or construction is it?

One reason I have a Canon 24-70L as opposed to a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, besides owning FF bodies, is it's built like a brick, and the amount of situations I find myself in where i'm extremely grateful for gear that can survive a bash is more frequent than out of the blue. I had an adult jaguar head charge into my 16-35L a month or two ago. Sent me flying!

[BrickR]

I'm a fan of Tamron, the 28-75 is my workhorse, the 70-300VC is my outdoor goto lens, will end up with a 17-50 if I sell my kit lens with my T2i. Waiting for USD on the 70-200 even if it doesn't get VC. I've been pleased with the optics and price of Tamron.

BUT: PLEASE Tamron, make sure your 24-70VC is good right out of the gate! First runs of the 17-50VC were reviewed as soft and it got a bad rep right off the bat, and that rep persists to this day even though the later runs were reported as being sharp.

[mag10]

Originally Posted by Cesium

Your 24-105 on FF is the functional equivalent of the 17-55 you miss. Except it's wider, longer, can do shallower DOF, has weather sealing, better build.... etc. etc.

Not really - you're missing one major difference - f2.8 vs. f4. Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-105 L, but I really miss having that extra full stop.

By the way, perhaps it's because I'm a relative novice to photography, but can someone explain how the 24-105 at f4 can offer shallower DOF compared to the 17-55 f2.8? I've always heard that the lower the f-number, the shallower the DOF....

[1Tanker]

Originally Posted by Jahled

I'm glad Tamron have done it, simply because no one else has yet, and I should imagine has put a hole in the dam. But it's really not going to shake the pillars of heaven with it's image quality or construction is it?

One reason I have a Canon 24-70L as opposed to a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, besides owning FF bodies, is it's built like a brick, and the amount of situations I find myself in where i'm extremely grateful for gear that can survive a bash is more frequent than out of the blue. I had an adult jaguar head charge into my 16-35L a month or two ago. Sent me flying!

Generally, Tamron,Tokina, and Sigma lenses are built better/tougher than EF-s lenses, though a step down from most L's. So.. taking the price into consideration, it's a fair tradeoff.

@mag10

By the way, perhaps it's because I'm a relative novice to photography, but can someone explain how the 24-105 at f4 can offer shallower DOF compared to the 17-55 f2.8? I've always heard that the lower the f-number, the shallower the DOF....

They're comparing the 24-105 on ff, vs the 17-55 on crop. FF offers shallower DoF.

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by mag10

By the way, perhaps it's because I'm a relative novice to photography, but can someone explain how the 24-105 at f4 can offer shallower DOF compared to the 17-55 f2.8? I've always heard that the lower the f-number, the shallower the DOF....

Crop factor affects effective DoF as well because of...Well lets just say "Complicated stuff"

In practical terms, 17-55 f/2.8 on APS-C behaves like a 28-80 f/4 on 35mm Full Frame in terms of depth of field

You can "achieve shallower DoF" using the 24-105 by using 105mm f/4 because the longer focal length will compress the background more... But thats really not entirely correct because you're using 105mm vs using 80mm on the lens

If you take two cameras, a 5d2 with a 24-105 f/4L IS @ 80mm and f/4 and a 7D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS @ 55mm f/2.8 you will have pretty much exactly the same image from a DoF and composition standpoint....

Larger aperture only means less depth of field when comparing on the same format... Technically we APS-C users need f/2 zooms to get the results f/2.8 delivers on a FF dSLR..

Apologies if i mangled my explanation, i havnt slept well

[mag10]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

Crop factor affects effective DoF as well because of...Well lets just say "Complicated stuff"

In practical terms, 17-55 f/2.8 on APS-C behaves like a 28-80 f/4 on 35mm Full Frame in terms of depth of field

You can "achieve shallower DoF" using the 24-105 by using 105mm f/4 because the longer focal length will compress the background more... But thats really not entirely correct because you're using 105mm vs using 80mm on the lens

If you take two cameras, a 5d2 with a 24-105 f/4L IS @ 80mm and f/4 and a 7D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS @ 55mm f/2.8 you will have pretty much exactly the same image from a DoF and composition standpoint....

Larger aperture only means less depth of field when comparing on the same format... Technically we APS-C users need f/2 zooms to get the results f/2.8 delivers on a FF dSLR..

Apologies if i mangled my explanation, i havnt slept well

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

[mike cabilangan]

oh wow. VC + USD.

considering the latest canon rumor has the 24-70L II without IS (also with 82mm thread) ... i might get this one from Tamron! let's show Canon how we like stabilization on the 24-70 by buying the tamron!

IMO, the tamron won't be expensive enough to use a protective filter on as well, so the 82mm filter is meh for me

[1Tanker]

Originally Posted by mike cabilangan

oh wow. VC + USD.

considering the latest canon rumor has the 24-70L II without IS (also with 82mm thread) ... i might get this one from Tamron! let's show Canon how we like stabilization on the 24-70 by buying the tamron!

IMO, the tamron won't be expensive enough to use a protective filter on as well, so the 82mm filter is meh for me

CPL, ND?

[mike cabilangan]

Originally Posted by 1Tanker

CPL, ND?

not for my usage

CPL/IR/etc. is when i break out my 17-40UWA

[phreeky]

Awesome. I was wondering what Tamron have been working on, I was originally suspecting a 70-200 F/2.8 USD VC, but they've (rightfully) decided it's a saturated market and focused on something where there is no real alternative. Good on 'em.

[dsit995]

I just wish they announced this lens on a Monday and it was on the shelves on Tuesday....

Im terrible at waiting

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by 1Tanker

CPL, ND?

For CPL/ND use if you're really serious about landscapes and such you should look at the Lee-sorts of filter systems with the big glass plate filters and that, Which easily adapt to 82mm for very low cost (And can also be used on 77mm filter lenses..)

I really dont think the 82mm filter thing is the kind of issue it was back in the film days where i had for example a minimum of 5 filters for each lens (UV, CPL, 812 Warming, a Flourescent > Daylight adjustment filter and a Tungsten > Daylight adjustment filter..)

These days you're at most going to have two filters for a lens, ND and CPL.... GND filters and such you're better off with the Lee system VS a threaded circular because you can adjust where the transition occurs in the composition....

Also as i said above, 82mm seems to be the new 77, A lot of lenses are using this filter size, So the prices will likely come down if this keeps happening/filter sharing wont be as big of an issue because you'll have more 82mm lenses

[mike cabilangan]

from recent previous tamron lens announcements, how fast do they deliver from the time of announcement?

[lets learn]

Actually how good is the Tamron Lens, I found a guy locally that wants to sell his in perfect condition for 380, is that a good price?