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

K6AZ wrote in post #14053326
And grab the ankles. I sure hope this Tamron is a good lens.

yeah ... i hope this lens is as good as the 28-75

:p

i don't have a 28-75. i'm just yanking your chain.

:p

So I have never owned a Tamron lens. But for those that have, based on their previous products, what do people think might be the biggest downfall of this offereing?

The biggest issue is that it doesn't say Canon on it. I have two and am very happy with them. I am a hobbyist so take that into account. I find the quality per dollar to offer a better value.

yes. ^ that would be the biggest issue. i've had the 17-50VC. i have to admit the gnawing feeling in the subconcious: "this isn't the canon, therefore it's not as sharp, yada yada yada"

i have to tell myself again that i wasn't willing to spend twice for the canon version, and this was good enough.

Whacky wrote in post #14053495
So I have never owned a Tamron lens. But for those that have, based on their previous products, what do people think might be the biggest downfall of this offereing?

We won't know until it's out and people have had a chance to shoot it. Recent Tamron lenses have been pretty good.

I had the 17-50, both versions, and the 28-75. I thought all were excellent. Those had an older style of AF that some complained about, but supposedly the updated version is top notch. Center sharpness in all is comparable to the Canon equivalents, but the outer edges are not, although stopping down helps. Bokeh is OK, but not as good as Caonon's, same goes for color/contrast. Build quality is not as good, but is still plenty good enough for anybody except full time journalists or people who like to slap their equipment around, IMO.

Whacky wrote in post #14053284
I'd love to see this lens come much less than the $1000 mark. Frankly, I agree that it really has to in order to make a dent in the sales. You'd be hard pressed to convince me to go Tamron for 1000 bucks, especially considering the time-tested Canon Mk I is available used for roughly the same price. Especially considering other features such as 'L' lens build quality, weathersealing, etc.

However, I gotta admit, I'm more excited to see what this lens can do than anything else right now.
Couldn't care less about the new Canon MK II. Way outta my price league to give a crap.

This tamron isnt an ordinary one, not on paper at least. it has moisture sealing as well as the L like specs....

Tamron used to be cheap, plastic with slow motorized AF. This new one looks good, I do hope it is as good at the wide end as at the long end....my current 28-75 is great after 50mm but pants for wide.

I picked up the 17-50mm f2.8 non VC Tamron a couple of weeks ago and am really quite impressed with it. Optically it is fine, the AF works and the build quality is much better than the price would suggest. I got it new for around £240. I was a bit nervous, having read some of the posts about it, but I am rather pleased with it.
If the 24-70mm Tamron is better than this and has quick silent AF and VR, it is certainly worth the £1000 being suggested for its sale price.

I gave my 17-50 non-vc lens to my friend when I switched to FF and knew I wasn't coming back. It was an amazing copy and I still miss it.

I'm eyeballing that Tamron 24-70 to go along with a new 5D3 when the time comes!!!

please be amazing please be amazing please be amazing!

How long does Tamron usually take between announcing the lens and releasing it? I can't wait to give them my money for this lens..

cdo221 wrote in post #14056768
How long does Tamron usually take between announcing the lens and releasing it? I can't wait to give them my money for this lens..

There is another thread here where it was reported that the lens should be available in May.

Since they are making a Non-VC for Sony mount it would be interesting if they offered both (VC & Non-VC) for Canon and Nikon. Im still buying the VC lens but for those on a budget they could offer it up a bit cheaper..
And I want to see if the stabilizing system has any effect on the sharpness of the lens (17-50 Vs 17-50 VC comes to mind)

And may sounds great! ill start saving my pennies now...

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge in the matter, but isnt there a lens that Tamrom produced in which the non-VC was widely considered a better, sharper product?

Is it the 17-50 mentioned above?

Either way, Is that the same VC mechanism that is going to be present in the new 24-70?
Why did the VC in that previous product fail to produce sharper images?

Whacky wrote in post #14053495
So I have never owned a Tamron lens. But for those that have, based on their previous products, what do people think might be the biggest downfall of this offereing?

From the Tamrons I owned, AF accuracy was their largest problem, the 28-75 and 70-200 I had couldnt focus on anything, were slow to do so, loud, and tended to hunt a lot

HOWEVER, the newer Tamrons are far better in this regard, I'd gladly own the Tamron 70-300 VC for instance if i didnt have my 70-200 f/4L IS...