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

Mike, that is a fantastic write-up. Thanks for sharing it.

thanks for the analysis arentol. Quite frankly, I would be happy if the Tamron is on par with the L mark 1. I am very happy with the performance of the L1, and dont see the need more much improvement. A slight improvement plus VC and size reduction is all I can ask for. It would be nice if it could shave another 100g, but being shorter and not having to zoom out at 24, makes it a winner for me.

Thanks for the analysis!

arentol, great summary; thank you for that. It just convinced me to pre-order. I'll return the Canon right after my wedding.

arentol - thanks for your take on the charts. This is much appreciated!

Please everyone just keep in mind that the entire comparison is technically invalid (except for the Canon to Canon part). Different Manufacturer = different MTF methodology = non-comparable MTF charts. So if you are ultimately unhappy with your purchase please do not blame me.

arentol wrote in post #14216002
Please everyone just keep in mind that the entire comparison is technically invalid (except for the Canon to Canon part). Different Manufacturer = different MTF methodology = non-comparable MTF charts. So if you are ultimately unhappy with your purchase please do not blame me.

Regardless, thanks for the time and effort to put this together!

Good news is that this will be out and well used before the mkII comes out so if the tam vs mkI comparisons hold up, probably would be reasonable to assume tam vs mkII would be the same and I would assume the price of the brick is going to fall very fast, especially since a lot of people will buy simply for the IS (edit: I mean VC)

arentol wrote in post #14216002
Please everyone just keep in mind that the entire comparison is technically invalid (except for the Canon to Canon part). Different Manufacturer = different MTF methodology = non-comparable MTF charts. So if you are ultimately unhappy with your purchase please do not blame me.

I agree, however, you can be certain that Tamron has a few copies of the Canon 24-70 MKI sitting around which they may have tested against their MTF methodology. I'm guessing they were aiming to match or exceed its performance, plus include VC. Hopefully they can deliver a product that will meet the expectations set by their MTF charts.

This lens is tempting me, but for around $1300 it is quite a bit of money and not sure if I want to let go of my 24-105L for it.

lilkngster wrote in post #14216039
Regardless, thanks for the time and effort to put this together!

Good news is that this will be out and well used before the mkII comes out so if the tam vs mkI comparisons hold up, probably would be reasonable to assume tam vs mkII would be the same and I would assume the price of the brick is going to fall very fast, especially since a lot of people will buy simply for the IS (edit: I mean VC)

Yeah, just earlier today I saw the thing on Canon Rumors that the II had been pushed back. That could be huge for Tamron if this thing tests well.

I just bought the Tamron 28-75 new for my newly acquired 5D2 then I heard about this. Wondering if I should return it before my 30 days are up and get this one instead.

^---Yes.

Also, I like where this topic is going. A lot of REAL feedback and comments, rather than mindless drivel. This lens seems very, very tempting. I'll be interested to see the real world shots once it's released. All you pre-order people gotta do us well with samples when you get it.

arentol wrote in post #14215692
Overall results? The Tamron should fall almost dead in the middle between the two Canon lenses on FF, and is actually very close to the Canon L II on Crop, especially at 24mm.

Looking at the stuff, not running numbers, but it looks like that's pretty right on....here's my guesses...

1. Canon's f/8 stuff on their MTFs can be fairly fudged. (Not that that has anything to do with this though).

2. There aren't any Tamron stopped down results on the MTF so it's hard to judge much.

3. The bokeh on the Tamron will likely be nicer than the Canon mark 1 L at both ends of the zoom range, especially near the edges. The graphs are smooth without a lot of weird dips and direction changes. S/M lines are close together at both ends for both contrast and sharpness.

4. It's not going to match up to the mark 2, but will probably be very similar or the same in the center of the frame. The Tamron may be way worse on the corners at f/8, or may be better--not enough info to tell. The L mark 2's MTFs are crazy good for a standard zoom.

5. It looks better than the Nikon, but that could just be due to Nikon being more honest than Canon with their MTFs, lol.

There's a lot that MTFs don't tell us...for example:

It looks like the tamron won't have the Canon L mark 1's very nice pseudo macro maximum magnification of ~.3. The Tamron's claim is .2x.

The Tamron might also have horrible lateral or long. CA and the Canon may be superlative in that area, etc. We also don't know about distortion. Or flare. AF speed likely won't be as fast as the Canon either, Tamron's USD is good but not a match for the fastest USM drives.

The other question is: centering issues due to the VC? What if it's difficult to get one with all the corners sharp? Etc.

cory1848 wrote in post #14216814
I just bought the Tamron 28-75 new for my newly acquired 5D2 then I heard about this. Wondering if I should return it before my 30 days are up and get this one instead.

I'd say it depends on how much you paid. The lenses are in a different price bracket and the used price of the 28-75 won't likely be impacted much. The lens isn't in anyone's hands yet either (well other than people in other countries evidently), so everything we read/see is theoretical.

If your 28-75 is working great, don't mess with a good thing. If you don't like it, then by all means.

woos wrote in post #14217356
I'd say it depends on how much you paid. The lenses are in a different price bracket and the used price of the 28-75 won't likely be impacted much. The lens isn't in anyone's hands yet either (well other than people in other countries evidently), so everything we read/see is theoretical.

If your 28-75 is working great, don't mess with a good thing. If you don't like it, then by all means.

Paid retail $499. I wanted the ability of returning it if it was a soft copy so that is why I bought new. Just received it yesterday and I haven't even had a chance to use it yet.

At $1300 for the 24-70, I don't think I can afford that right now anyways. Was hoping it would have been released at the $900-$1000 range.