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

kcbrown wrote in post #13916457
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.

I did a homer Simpson DOH!!! I put that up there real quick and didn't realize the Canon was f/4.... lol I loose.

Even matched at f/4 where the Tamron is stopped down, it isn't as sharp at any focal lenght. lol

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

davidc502 wrote in post #13916481
I did a homer Simpson DOH!!! I put that up there real quick and didn't realize the Canon was f/4.... lol I loose.

Even matched at f/4 where the Tamron is stopped down, it isn't as sharp at any focal lenght. lol

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Yea, that Tamron is crap... at least on those charts.

"THAT" Tamron is crap and is high unlikely to have any bearing on the new 24-70 VC.

Why do people insist on comparing a much older lens (28-85) to a newer one (24-105)????

Ironically this will be the same case with the new Tamron lens and the current 24-70L ha

mafoo wrote in post #13916517
Yea, that Tamron is crap... at least on those charts.

Even with those results one can still get sharp pictures. Yes, the charts are an indication to the lenses performance, but still doesn't mean it can't shoot really good pictures.

Did you look at the sample pictures it produced. They are good photos. Also, these charts were done on a Full Frame Camera... The center of the frame is very sharp and APS-C users would be very pleased.

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …ctures.aspx?Equ​ipment=366

Or this review....

http://www.photozone.d​e …tamron_2875_28_​5d?start=1

davidc502 wrote in post #13916584
Even with those results one can still get sharp pictures. Yes, the charts are an indication to the lenses performance, but still doesn't mean it can't shoot really good pictures.

Did you look at the sample pictures it produced. They are good photos. Also, these charts were done on a Full Frame Camera... The center of the frame is very sharp and APS-C users would be very pleased.

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …ctures.aspx?Equ​ipment=366

Or this review....

http://www.photozone.d​e …tamron_2875_28_​5d?start=1

I could not figure out how to DL the sample images. All I could see was the web size. That doesn't really tell you much.

Anyway, I hope the new Tamron is great. I just made reference to how poorly that lens seemed to fair in those charts. I have looked at those charts many times while looking for lenses... never seen one so poor at the edges (something that like you said, people with a crop sensor might not mind)

mafoo wrote in post #13916656
I could not figure out how to DL the sample images. All I could see was the web size. That doesn't really tell you much.

Anyway, I hope the new Tamron is great. I just made reference to how poorly that lens seemed to fair in those charts. I have looked at those charts many times while looking for lenses... never seen one so poor at the edges (something that like you said, people with a crop sensor might not mind)

On the photozone review it has full sized images to download. From the link you will need to just click on the next page to see the downloadable full sized images.

Drewc2010 wrote in post #13914482
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?

I don't think you're getting it. The 28-75 is soft wide open. I would suggest comparing it to the 24-70 or the Canon 17-55 if you want to do direct comparisons. The 24-105 is still sharper at f/4 than the 28-75 at f/4.

While changing over from Nikon to Canon I was looking for a cheap fast zoom and tried one of these as well as asking for and getting samples from several people offering them for sale. To my eyes it only became acceptable at f/5.6. It's a very old design and from the days when Tamron was really lagging. I know some want to think a $450 lens is just as good but from my experiences it wasn't. And no amount of posting cropped JPGs with the EXIF info removed is going to change my opinion.

chantu wrote in post #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 (not 2). If so, I'll "downgrade", to Tamron at get "IS".

Because people keep bringing up the 28-75 and what a great lens it is. It isn't, not wide open which is the point of buying a f/2.8 zoom.

patliean1 wrote in post #13915196
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 kind of body are you using? I assure you I could put my 24-105 on my 1D4 and have absolutely no issue shooting a wedding. That's why the 24-105 is usually on that body, I can get relatively clean shots at ISO 6400 so f/4 is no issue at all.

And one more on the 28-75. I promise this will be my last post on the 28-75 unless another person pops up in this thread saying the 28-75 is 'just as good' as the 24-70. That's the whole point here, hoping Tamron has improved and that this lens can actually compete with the 24-70L which the 28-75 obviously can't.

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

K6AZ wrote in post #13917083
And one more on the 28-75. I promise this will be my last post on the 28-75 unless another person pops up in this thread saying the 28-75 is 'just as good' as the 24-70. That's the whole point here, hoping Tamron has improved and that this lens can actually compete with the 24-70L which the 28-75 obviously can't.

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

But this isn't an updated version of the 28-75 is what we are saying. We can pull up all this info on the 28-75 but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about a new Tamron lens they announced that they have never had so all the talk about the 28-75 sharpness is irrelevant to this thread IMO

Drewc2010 wrote in post #13917099
But this isn't an updated version of the 28-75 is what we are saying. We can pull up all this info on the 28-75 but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about a new Tamron lens they announced that they have never had so all the talk about the 28-75 sharpness is irrelevant to this thread IMO

Have you read this thread from the beginning? The 28-75 got drawn into it when at least two people made comments along the lines of the 28-75 being just as good as the 24-70 and they hoped this lens was the same with the VC.

K6AZ wrote in post #13917113
Have you read this thread from the beginning? The 28-75 got drawn into it when at least two people made comments along the lines of the 28-75 being just as good as the 24-70 and they hoped this lens was the same with the VC.

Well I'm glad you had no choice but to correct the world that a $450 consumer lens wasn't as good as a professional L lens that cost 3x the price. NOW I know!
I'll check Flickr now and take note of how soft the 28-75 is in real world use!

BrickR wrote in post #13917183
Well I'm glad you had no choice but to correct the world that a $450 consumer lens wasn't as good as a professional L lens that cost 3x the price. NOW I know!
I'll check Flickr now and take note of how soft the 28-75 is in real world use!

I'd be happy if the thing was never mentioned here. It doesn't measure up to a lot of lenses, not just the L. But obviously since you have it in your gear list it's wonderful.

Sorry people but if this nonsense in continued in this thread I will continue to respond to it.

Mine is great but that's pure luck of the draw. I got a sharp copy that likes my body. A bad copy or a great copy that didn't like my body and I'd have a different view I'm sure, but that's simply acknowledging that not every 28-75 is the same, or the same on every body. I can easily believe there are 2 folks who's Tams are just as good as a 24-70...that lens on that body.

Just poking some silly fun