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

Well, if they're not I suggest you bring it up to them somehow...What a great idea....Guess that's why I'm not an engineer...lol

RDKirk wrote in post #14406894
That's going to be the next frontier that manufacturers will be able to get an advantage over the 3rd parties. We're going to see more and more lens shortfalls being compensated by processing.

Right now it's a manual post-processing task, but as we see, the manufacturers are building "characteristic databases" for their lens lines, and lenses have long reported their identities to the cameras. The obvious next step is for the lenses to report their identities, the camera to look up their characteristics, and then to apply the necessary processing compensation.

Similarly, I expect we will have semi-automated microfocus adjustment: Set the camera to Live View, perform a contast focus on a target and then perform an phase-detection focus (maybe do it a few times at different focusing distances)....the camera will identify the delta and file the information in its database (which we do manually now).

The problem that will be faced by the 3rd parties is that they won't be able to get their lens information into the camera database...unless they also develop firmware hacks.

RDKirk wrote in post #14406894
The obvious next step is for the lenses to report their identities, the camera to look up their characteristics, and then to apply the necessary processing compensation.

I don't think so. You're supposed to manufacture all lens w/o the need of CA to start with, and 0 is supposed to be your median.

Now if the "characteristics" turned out to be +5 for all copies, that means 1) you have a defect and 2) you keep on manufacturing with that defect and not correcting it and thus 3) you screw everybody who has no CA or the end-of-life cameras which will never ever get another firmware update.

It really kinda doesn't make sense to me.

There are few lens/body combinations now already have this technology to correct barrel distortion, pin cushion and etc in the raw file. I think Samsung and Sony NEX both have them.

Besides, Lightroom and PS users have this kind of tech in the software for years. This is just moving it directly into the camera.

I also like the idea of automatic AF calibration. This is similar to automatic computer monitor calibration. Much cheaper to implement good quality if there is an easy way to perform automatic calibration in the field. Zoom lens also tend to drift more overtime. This will further reduce the need to send older lenses in for calibration. Just place a focus target 10ft away, put the lens on and and follow the instruction on the screen.

HyperYagami wrote in post #14407745
I don't think so. You're supposed to manufacture all lens w/o the need of CA to start with, and 0 is supposed to be your median.

Now if the "characteristics" turned out to be +5 for all copies, that means 1) you have a defect and 2) you keep on manufacturing with that defect and not correcting it and thus 3) you screw everybody who has no CA or the end-of-life cameras which will never ever get another firmware update.

It really kinda doesn't make sense to me.

HyperYagami wrote in post #14407745
I don't think so. You're supposed to manufacture all lens w/o the need of CA to start with, and 0 is supposed to be your median.

Now if the "characteristics" turned out to be +5 for all copies, that means 1) you have a defect and 2) you keep on manufacturing with that defect and not correcting it and thus 3) you screw everybody who has no CA or the end-of-life cameras which will never ever get another firmware update.

It really kinda doesn't make sense to me.

1. Lenses already have aberrations.

2. If it were possible to just stop manufacturing lenses with aberrations, it would have been done.

3. And yes, you will have introduced a feature into new camera bodies that the old bodies don't have...but then, they always do that with every new body.

It makes perfect sense to eliminate aberrations far more cost-effectively doing it through digital processing than in lens design. They can never be perfectly eliminated in lens design.

Well my first one is a dud - big front focus on wide end and back focus at tele.

Gonna replace it. Might give Tamron service a chance on second one if it's not gonna cooperate. Have seen good feedback about their service on these boards.

When focused via LiveView it's pretty sweet though and build quality is nice. VC is VERY nice... shame on Canon!

pepeto2001 wrote in post #14403552
You have both 24-105 f4 and tamron 24-70 ...

How do you feel them in terms of sharpness?, which one is better?

So yeah...... Not loving the 24-105 at all. Definitely still selling this thing as originally planned.

Sharpness test results, purely subjective, shots taken in pretty low lighting. I have not MA'ed either lens, and from the looks of things neither ones needs much MA, if any. These are center results only as I didn't have a good place to test corners:

Tamron at F/2.8 - Good at 24mm, about as sharp as the Canon at F/4. Noticeably softer at 70mm, but still pretty good, not as sharp as the Canon at F/4 though.
Tamron at F/3.2 - Significant improvement, especially at 70mm where the difference is massive. At 70mm it now looks a little better than the 24mm results at F/2.8. At both focal lengths it beats the Canon 24-105 at F/4 by a noticeable, but not major, amount.
Tamron and Canon at F/4 - The Tamron is a little bit sharper than it was at F/3.2, and it is now very clearly sharper than the Canon at F/4.
Tamron and Canon at F/5.6 - The Tamron is still noticeably sharper at 24mm, and is itself extremely sharp at both focal lengths. I couldn't get any Canon results at 70mm though because the IS system didn't want to work right.

This is what happened... I did my Canon shots at F/4 using IS to help me use the slow shutter speeds I needed for my shots. It worked well enough to get the job done so I was happy. I then switched over to F/5.6 and it all fell apart.... Kept the shutter speed the same as I had been using at F/4, just changed ISO up a stop, and when I took the first shot (70mm) it had significant motion blur. So I tried again, same thing. Tried at 24mm, same thing. Raised shutter 2 stops to 1/25 and raised ISO to compensate, still motion blur. Turned off IS, no motion blur. Tried 70mm, held very steady without IS at 1/25 and got a shot with less motion blur than with IS on, but too much to do the comparison. Turned IS back on, same motion blur no matter what I did. F/8, same thing. Back down to F/4, otherwise same settings as at f/5.6... And just like my earlier tests at F/4, no motion blur.

I have no idea what is going on. I would be less confused if it happened at F/4 as well. But whatever is happening I don't really care, selling the lens anyway since I never intended to use it.

arentol wrote in post #14408783
So yeah...... Not loving the 24-105 at all. Definitely still selling this thing as originally planned.

Sharpness test results, purely subjective, shots taken in pretty low lighting. I have not MA'ed either lens, and from the looks of things neither ones needs much MA, if any. These are center results only as I didn't have a good place to test corners:

Tamron at F/2.8 - Good at 24mm, about as sharp as the Canon at F/4. Noticeably softer at 70mm, but still pretty good, not as sharp as the Canon at F/4 though.
Tamron at F/3.2 - Significant improvement, especially at 70mm where the difference is massive. At 70mm it now looks a little better than the 24mm results at F/2.8. At both focal lengths it beats the Canon 24-105 at F/4 by a noticeable, but not major, amount.
Tamron and Canon at F/4 - The Tamron is a little bit sharper than it was at F/3.2, and it is now very clearly sharper than the Canon at F/4.
Tamron and Canon at F/5.6 - The Tamron is still noticeably sharper at 24mm, and is itself extremely sharp at both focal lengths. I couldn't get any Canon results at 70mm though because the IS system didn't want to work right.

This is what happened... I did my Canon shots at F/4 using IS to help me use the slow shutter speeds I needed for my shots. It worked well enough to get the job done so I was happy. I then switched over to F/5.6 and it all fell apart.... Kept the shutter speed the same as I had been using at F/4, just changed ISO up a stop, and when I took the first shot (70mm) it had significant motion blur. So I tried again, same thing. Tried at 24mm, same thing. Raised shutter 2 stops to 1/25 and raised ISO to compensate, still motion blur. Turned off IS, no motion blur. Tried 70mm, held very steady without IS at 1/25 and got a shot with less motion blur than with IS on, but too much to do the comparison. Turned IS back on, same motion blur no matter what I did. F/8, same thing. Back down to F/4, otherwise same settings as at f/5.6... And just like my earlier tests at F/4, no motion blur.

I have no idea what is going on. I would be less confused if it happened at F/4 as well. But whatever is happening I don't really care, selling the lens anyway since I never intended to use it.

Doesn't sound very scientific.... sounds like you're battling the IS/VC systems and testing that as opposed to purely lens sharpness... ideally you'd just have the camera on a tripod, at a low iso, in aperture priority... (is/vc off of course)

moda wrote in post #14409052
Doesn't sound very scientific.... sounds like you're battling the IS/VC systems and testing that as opposed to purely lens sharpness... ideally you'd just have the camera on a tripod, at a low iso, in aperture priority... (is/vc off of course)

Agreed.. that's pretty much standard protocol.

1Tanker wrote in post #14409095
Agreed.. that's pretty much standard protocol.

Oh, and focus locked (so theres no shift in dof)

bomzai wrote in post #14408764
Well my first one is a dud - big front focus on wide end and back focus at tele.

You don't seem to be the only one with issues. I've heard that 3rd party lenses drop in price after release, but not *that* quick - in Germany and in the shop I'm usually getting my gear, its price was 1199€ 4 days ago, 1099€ yesterday, 999€ today. And *if* getting a good copy, that's good value after all.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14409536
in Germany and in the shop I'm usually getting my gear, its price was 1199€ 4 days ago, 1099€ yesterday, 999€ today. And *if* getting a good copy, that's good value after all.

Exactly the reason why i am not rushing out to get one. My prediction is it's going to drop below $1k within 3 months.

Honestly it's JUST a Tamron afterall

kin2son wrote in post #14409683
Honestly it's JUST a Tamron afterall

I'm seeing you've got a 35L *and* a 24-105L. Why would you want the Tamron - for video? I'm asking because I'll get the Tamron *or* the 35L *or* the 24-105L for medium zoom range in combination w/ the 100L I've got, too.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14409698
I'm seeing you've got a 35L *and* a 24-105L. Why would you want the Tamron - for video? I'm asking because I'll get the Tamron *or* the 35L *or* the 24-105L for medium zoom range in combination w/ the 100L I've got, too.

well I want to replace my 24-105 as I prefer f2.8 zoom

But I am really hating the onion bokeh

kin2son wrote in post #14409717
well I want to replace my 24-105 as I prefer f2.8 zoom
But I am really hating the onion bokeh

Then you're a clear candidate for the Canon 24-70ii since you have primes for low light - when I first tried the Tamron in the shop, even I thought about getting the Canon successor because I find its essential that a lens is really usable at open aperture ... but when the Tamron keeps going down in price, it might drop to a range where its really a bargain for people on a budget.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14409745
Then you're a clear candidate for the Canon 24-70ii since you have primes for low light - when I first tried the Tamron in the shop, even I thought about getting the Canon successor because I find its essential that a lens is really usable at open aperture ... but when the Tamron keeps going down in price, it might drop to a range where its really a bargain for people on a budget.

Not quite sure about the 24-70II as it's too expensive....

I am in no rush and if Tamron drops ~$900 which imo won't take long I will consider it due to VC.