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

Mine will arrive today. I plan to shoot with it over the weekend. I two work shoots next week as well. I'll post my thoughts/samples after a week of use and will evaluate whether it stays or returns.

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.

F2.8 vs F4 makes a big difference in video, not just lowlight wise, but you get nicer dreamier DOF. For video, the Tamron kicks butt easily. I tend to shoot with a loupe to keep handshake the lowest, and it would be still a tad bumpy with the 24-70L, now with the tamron..... smooth sailing. Tamron will probably offer rebates by the end of year. I think they even have a 100 rebate on this lens now, but you might need to be a student or something not sure exactly. Just noticed the rebate form of the 70-300 when I was looking the other day.

It wont beat the 24-70II optically and I dont care. If the 24-70II had IS for it's current asking price, I probably would have the preorder already, but no IS, no deal. It's a really nice feature, and canon thought it was nice enough for their two new primes..... yet exclude the mark 2.... give me a break canon, enough is enough.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14409536
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.

I noticed the price dropped to €1,002 on Amazon.de today. Which shop do you usually use? Is it a bricks n mortar place or also online?

Marsu42 wrote in post #14405423
I got hold of a Tamron 24-70 in a store today and compared it with some test shots to the 24-105L and the 35L. First off, the rumors seem to be true - there is a larger production variance with Tamron, because it had a healthy frontfocus that is uncorrectable on my 60d. But I could compare the lenses at the zone where the af ended up. If I ever should get the Tamron, its probably best to buy five lenses, test them and return four.

The iq of this Tamron copy is a big letdown, at f2.8 its very underwhelming (even on crop!), and nearing the 24-105 at f4. The 35L in comparison is a class of its own and knocks your socks right off, it's as sharp at f1.8 as the Tamron at f4. VC seems to be ok, but really, at ok indoor lighting and open aperture its "nice to have" but hardly essential - the shake at these focal lengths is very low anyway, except if you're shooting video or handheld hdr. The Tamron af is noticeably slower than the 24-105, but faster than the 35L - someone please try servo af and lots of consecutive shots and tell if the Tamron is precise.

24-105 is super sharp at f4. When I tested my tamron 28-75mm, 24-105 and 35L at f4, it was hard to tell them apart. All this on 5d.

Owain Glyndwr wrote in post #14410152
I noticed the price dropped to €1,002 on Amazon.de today. Which shop do you usually use? Is it a bricks n mortar place or also online?

It's Cyberport - its online, but they've got actual shops in Berlin & other cities. The prices are mostly ok, sometimes there are coupons floating around the net, and you can order things to pick up in the store (at a little higher price than mail-order, but w/o the mail order fee). And when their online system shows they have it available, it's actually correct in comparison to other online shops just fishing for one-time customers.

I buy all my photo & IT stuff there, imho its better service than Saturn & co since they don't have a special "service" center to deal with customers. Like usual I guess you can return everything during 2 weeks no questions asked - and that's a good thing when buying something like Tamron, no need for expensive return packaging. For better photo gear, there's a free 30 day insurance included.

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)

No, it wasn't very scientific, and yes, ideally using a tripod would be the way to do it, but since I don't care that much about the 24-105 and didn't want to spend much time on this I did a semi real-world test instead, and in that test the Tamron came out better, in my subjective opinion.

Honestly, I probably should have done a better job on this test if I was going to do it at all. So I am sorry for not doing so. Lets reduce the take-away from my test down to this:

No determination on sharpness as it wasn't a good enough test.

Determination on IS vs VC, the Canon 24-105 IS (which I tested more this morning in better light to make sure) is considerably less effective than the Tamron 24-70 VC. Tamron = 4 stops with VC. Canon, after further testing this morning = 1 stop, at best. I am thinking there might be something wrong with the IS in this particular lens.

not sure why you would compare the 24-105 to the 24-70 anyhow. It's almost an apples to oranges comparison, since one has longer FL and less aperture. Some prefer the 2.8, and others prefer the FL.

You cant really expect the F2.8 pictures to look like F4 pictures, and by the same token, 70mm is never 105mm.

Charlie wrote in post #14410446
not sure why you would compare the 24-105 to the 24-70 anyhow. It's almost an apples to oranges comparison, since one has longer FL and less aperture. Some prefer the 2.8, and others prefer the FL.

You cant really expect the F2.8 pictures to look like F4 pictures, and by the same token, 70mm is never 105mm.

I agree with everything you are saying here. It is kind of like comparing a 70-200 f/2.8 to a 70-300 f/4-5.6. I see why some people would compare them, but honestly they are very different lenses and there is a whole range of situations where one can not be easily replaced by the other... But someone asked and I tried to help out. Perhaps I should have declined.

Charlie wrote in post #14410446
not sure why you would compare the 24-105 to the 24-70 anyhow.

But you can very well compare them on how they overlap: Is the 70-105 on the 24-105L just "extra" without drawbacks (answer: yes, it even makes the lens sharper @70mm because it's mid-range), and is the f2.8-f3.5 on the 24-70vc just extra (current answer: no, even stopped down to f4 its worse than the 24-105L).

So it's not the obvious decision "zoom range vs. aperture (vs. price)", but unfortunately much trickier than that.

bobbyz wrote in post #14410186
24-105 is super sharp at f4. When I tested my tamron 28-75mm, 24-105 and 35L at f4, it was hard to tell them apart. All this on 5d.

Interesting group to compare. Here is what Photozone.de got for results from those lenses, plus the 24-70L. Full Frame results, F/4, 35mm for the 35L, 40mm for the other lenses, first result is Center at F/4, second is average at F/4, third is center weighted average* at F/4:

35L = 3810, 3281, 3482
24-70L = 3326, 3019, 3142
28-75 = 3324, 2767, 2981
24-105L = 3079, 2783, 2909

As you can see, all these lenses perform very well, but the 35L is in a class of its own thanks to ridiculous center sharpness, and the 28-75 keeps up nicely with the 24-70L in the center but lags well behind in the corners.

Overall when you look at center weighted F/4 results the 35L is the 4th best Canon lens and 8th best overall lens of those tested by Photozone so far. The other lenses are too far down the list to bother figuring out their exact spot.

*Center valued twice as much as borders, borders valued twice as much as extreme (corners).

Marsu42 wrote in post #14410775
But you can very well compare them on how they overlap: Is the 70-105 on the 24-105L just "extra" without drawbacks (answer: yes, it even makes the lens sharper @70mm because it's mid-range), and is the f2.8-f3.5 on the 24-70vc just extra (current answer: no, even stopped down to f4 its worse than the 24-105L).

So it's not the obvious decision "zoom range vs. aperture (vs. price)", but unfortunately much trickier than that.

not really. even if the 24-70L were less sharp than the 24-105mm, I couldnt care. In the end it's not whether or not the 24-105 is the ultimate sharp lens or not, the 24-70L was usuable throughout it's entire focal range, and that's all that matters. If the 24-70L werent useable @2.8, then it would matter, but that's not the case with either 2.8 zooms, tamron or Canon, both completely usable @ F2.8

Charlie wrote in post #14410992
If the 24-70L werent useable @2.8, then it would matter, but that's not the case with either 2.8 zooms, tamron or Canon, both completely usable @ F2.8

... speaking of complicated - if you say "usable", you have to say usable for what export/print size (100%?) and what advantage - bokeh and/or shutter speed, because that's what a f2.8 lens is good for anyway.

Concerning bokeh, the smaller dof on the 24-70vc is certainly an advantage if shooting wide open. That leaves shutter speed - but you can just raise iso on a f4 lens and then apply stronger nr and get the same detail as with a soft f2.8. Other than that, f2.8 ignoring vc isn't such a large difference to qualify for "shooting movement in night". But from what I can tell, the iq of the Tamron is not so good that it would clearly beat raising iso, esp. if looking at the edges on full frame.

arentol wrote in post #14410873
Overall when you look at center weighted F/4 results the 35L is the 4th best Canon lens and 8th best overall lens of those tested by Photozone so far. The other lenses are too far down the list to bother figuring out their exact spot.

*Center valued twice as much as borders, borders valued twice as much as extreme (corners).

What are the three lenses that are better than the 35L at f/4?. 24L II... and the other two?
How do you watch this? you look at it individually or is there a way to look in a group?

Charlie wrote in post #14410122
F2.8 vs F4 makes a big difference in video, not just lowlight wise, but you get nicer dreamier DOF. For video, the Tamron kicks butt easily. I tend to shoot with a loupe to keep handshake the lowest, and it would be still a tad bumpy with the 24-70L, now with the tamron..... smooth sailing. Tamron will probably offer rebates by the end of year. I think they even have a 100 rebate on this lens now, but you might need to be a student or something not sure exactly. Just noticed the rebate form of the 70-300 when I was looking the other day.

It wont beat the 24-70II optically and I dont care. If the 24-70II had IS for it's current asking price, I probably would have the preorder already, but no IS, no deal. It's a really nice feature, and canon thought it was nice enough for their two new primes..... yet exclude the mark 2.... give me a break canon, enough is enough.

I just want to second that. If Canon had released a 24-70 2.8L IS for $2299, I would have pre-ordered as well. The MkII should cost no more than the Nikon at $1900. A $400 difference.

Marsu42 wrote in post #14411156
... speaking of complicated - if you say "usable", you have to say usable for what export/print size (100%?) and what advantage - bokeh and/or shutter speed, because that's what a f2.8 lens is good for anyway.

Concerning bokeh, the smaller dof on the 24-70vc is certainly an advantage if shooting wide open. That leaves shutter speed - but you can just raise iso on a f4 lens and then apply stronger nr and get the same detail as with a soft f2.8. Other than that, f2.8 ignoring vc isn't such a large difference to qualify for "shooting movement in night". But from what I can tell, the iq of the Tamron is not so good that it would clearly beat raising iso, esp. if looking at the edges on full frame.

I've posted 100% crops from both the Tamron and the Canon 24-70L in this thread... the tamron had the canon beat in every scenario, so if you think the tamron is bad, you must also believe the canon is bad. In that case, you're a 24-105 type of guy. Different strokes for different folks.