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

That's right. I'm perfectly happy with the 24-105 with IS. If this new Tamron is soft at f/2.8 there is no point in it.

K6AZ wrote in post #13913642
That's right. I'm perfectly happy with the 24-105 with IS. If this new Tamron is soft at f/2.8 there is no point in it.

Thats exactly what it is going to come down to for me...if I can't use it at f/2.8 I won't be buying this.

It's a totally different design than the 28-75 so I'm hoping it's usable at f/2.8. Now if they would hurry up and get the thing into distribution.

even if it was less sharp at 2.8, i'd rather have the option to use an unsharp 2.8 than be limited to a very sharp f/4.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #13914235
even if it was less sharp at 2.8, i'd rather have the option to use an unsharp 2.8 than be limited to a very sharp f/4.

If that rocks your boat but some of the samples that were sent to me at f/2.8 shot with the 28-75 I wouldn't put on FB. I much rather shoot a sharp lens at f/4, bump the ISO, and deal with the noise PP.

K6AZ wrote in post #13914270
If that rocks your boat but some of the samples that were sent to me at f/2.8 shot with the 28-75 I wouldn't put on FB. I much rather shoot a sharp lens at f/4, bump the ISO, and deal with the noise PP.

But you have to remember that f/4 on an f/4 lens is wide open (where a lens tends to be softer) and f/4 on a f/2.8 lens is actually stopped down...which will make the f/2.8 sharper at f/4 than the other option. If that makes any sense?

Drewc2010 wrote in post #13914387
But you have to remember that f/4 on an f/4 lens is wide open (where a lens tends to be softer) and f/4 on a f/2.8 lens is actually stopped down...which will make the f/2.8 sharper at f/4 than the other option. If that makes any sense?

Except that the 24-105 is sharper at f/4 than the Tamron 28-75 at f/2.8. Some lenses are tack sharp wide open, examples would be the 24-105, Tokina 12-24mm II, all the Sigma macros, all of the Canon macros with the exception of the 60mm, and I could go on.

K6AZ wrote in post #13914421
Except that the 24-105 is sharper at f/4 than the Tamron 28-75 at f/2.8. Some lenses are tack sharp wide open, examples would be the 24-105, Tokina 12-24mm II, all the Sigma macros, all of the Canon macros with the exception of the 60mm, and I could go on.

Right but you can't compare and say that the 28-75 isn't sharp at f/2.8 when looking at the 24-105, you have to compare the 28-75 at f/4 to see which is sharper...make sense?

K6AZ wrote in post #13914421
Except that the 24-105 is sharper at f/4 than the Tamron 28-75 at f/2.8. Some lenses are tack sharp wide open, examples would be the 24-105, Tokina 12-24mm II, all the Sigma macros, all of the Canon macros with the exception of the 60mm, and I could go on.

1. The new Tamron 24-70 VC is suppose to be a new design specifically aimed at Canon's 24-70L. We probably can't compare Tamron's old 28-75 to Canon's newer 24-105L

2. Yes, lenses typically are sharper stopped down than they are wide open. I suspect the new Tamron 24-70 VC will be sharper at f/4 than the 24-105L wide open at f/4. BUT...we haven't even seen sample images or charts so truthfully this is just mere blind speculation.

3. I personally would rather take a "soft" shot at f/2.8 than be unable to even get the shot at all at f/4. For wedding shooters, F/4 just wont cut it especially if the ISO is already boosted to the limit. We are talking about a lens capable of gathering TWICE as much light.

I really hope Tamron wins with this lens and start their own "Lux" branding like Sigma

What's all this comparison of Tamron 28-70 @f2.8?? Totally irrelevant. The 24-70 f2.8 will be a new design, and hopefully match the quality of the canon 24-70 Mk 1 (not 2). If so, I'll "downgrade", to Tamron at get "IS".

[QUOTE=chantu;13916114​]What's all this comparison of Tamron 28-70 @f2.8?? Totally irrelevant. The 24-70 f2.8 will be a new design, and hopefully match the quality of the canon 24-70 Mk 1[QUOTE]

LOL! Yeah, its all in good fun though. Speculation and guesses keep the thread lively.

Besides, I'd bet anyone the 28-75 is sharper at 2.8 than the 24-105 is at 2.8

K6AZ wrote in post #13913759
It's a totally different design than the 28-75 so I'm hoping it's usable at f/2.8. Now if they would hurry up and get the thing into distribution.

Agreed, and if it isn't sharp at f2.8, this lens will be a bust.

there's no reason for tamron to undercut anyone with this. the reason you undercut is you have an equal or inferior product, and at least on paper this is totally isn't.

if you are tamron you don't put all your resources to develop an IS version of the (almost) most sought-after lens just to undercut everyone else. makes no sense from the profit-making pt of view. you're out to make the most profit, which is not always equal to # of units sold.

there is no reason for tamron not to charge at least as much as canon's version I. lots of folks are still going to skip over canon's version I even if they charge $1400 for this.

consider nikon's (remember people! there's a nikon version!) charging for at least $1800 right now, even at $1500 nikon people would still go nuts for it.

no reason to worry about sigma's and other 3rd parties' offerings, as none of those have IS and the "1st party" influence.

of course if the optics is crappy...then all bets are off.

[QUOTE=BrickR;13916165​]

chantu wrote in post #13916114
Besides, I'd bet anyone the 28-75 is sharper at 2.8 than the 24-105 is at 2.8

I'll take that bet. See below...
http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

davidc502 wrote in post #13916441
I'll take that bet. See below...

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Ooops. You lost the bet. Pay up!

That comparison shows the 24-105 at f/4 versus the 28-75 at f/2.8, but the bet was for the 24-105 at f/2.8.