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

http://nikonrumors.com …bilization-announced.aspx

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

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...

SchnellerGT wrote in post #13833603
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

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

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC

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

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

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC

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

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.

clione wrote in post #13833641
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.

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

btw, I am a huge fan of Tamrons VC

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...

tkbslc wrote in post #13833645
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

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-preview

monk3y wrote in post #13833647
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.

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....

KenjiS wrote in post #13833653
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

KenjiS wrote in post #13833658
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

monk3y wrote in post #13833663
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

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....

KenjiS wrote in post #13833653
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