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

arentol wrote in post #14243093
I don't really consider the bar to be set that high by the 24-105. It is very good for a 4xZoom, but it is also a pretty old design that doesn't hold up well against newer designs. Even the old Tamron 28-75 is as arguably as good or better at all shared focal lengths. It is hard to imagine this new Tamron lens would be optically worse than the 28-75.

That being said, real-world testing is called for. But I have no doubt it will do well as long as it doesn't have any production issues like Tamron has had on occasion in the past.

I have a hard time taking this post seriously. 'An old design'? I can think of a dozen lenses designed in the 1970s and 1980s that blow away most of what is made today. And comparing the 28-75 to any L lens, especially the 24-105 is laughable. This is probably going to bring out the 28-75 fans again but I don't like that lens and the variance in copies is extreme.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14240211
I wish I could but being in Australia makes this too expensive an exercise. Return shipping is fairly expensive, but it's the 15% tax that prevents me doing it

Sunthing Productions wrote in post #14241583
The tax isn't refundable?

Are you from Australia? I have never heard of tax being refundable! Is this something you know or can anyone else chime in here??

That would be amazing news for me

arentol wrote in post #14243093
I don't really consider the bar to be set that high by the 24-105. It is very good for a 4xZoom, but it is also a pretty old design that doesn't hold up well against newer designs. Even the old Tamron 28-75 is as arguably as good or better at all shared focal lengths. It is hard to imagine this new Tamron lens would be optically worse than the 28-75.

That being said, real-world testing is called for. But I have no doubt it will do well as long as it doesn't have any production issues like Tamron has had on occasion in the past.

Sold my 28-75 and got the 24-105 ... no comparison ...

Tsmith wrote in post #14243986
Sold my 28-75 and got the 24-105 ... no comparison ...

This is a little cryptic due to the rolled eyes. Care to clarify a bit?

Mookalafalas wrote in post #14244135
This is a little cryptic due to the rolled eyes. Care to clarify a bit?

28-75 often times misfocused, not very sharp until f/3.5, focus hunted sometimes and was slow, cheaply built too (but I knew that upon purchasing).

24-105 (cost more indeed) way better built, IS, sharp at f/4, fast AF and beautiful color reproduction.

Tsmith wrote in post #14244970
28-75 often times misfocused, not very sharp until f/3.5, focus hunted sometimes and was slow, cheaply built too (but I knew that upon purchasing).

24-105 (cost more indeed) way better built, IS, sharp at f/4, fast AF and beautiful color reproduction.

That's a good summation in a nutshell.

I was never fully happy with the 24-105, sure its a really versatile lens, but the IQ just never struck me as amazing. Not to mention I hate having only f/4 to work with, especially when I love thin DoF.

However, I think I will be interested in picking up a Tamron 24-70 when it comes out and test it side by side with the L and go from there.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14245185
I was never fully happy with the 24-105, sure its a really versatile lens, but the IQ just never struck me as amazing. Not to mention I hate having only f/4 to work with, especially when I love thin DoF.

However, I think I will be interested in picking up a Tamron 24-70 when it comes out and test it side by side with the L and go from there.

The f/4 limitation is certainly a valid complaint but I shot three different copies of the 24-105 and you couldn't tell the images from them apart. For someone who leans on the PJ side of the spectrum it was a perfect walkaround lens on FF and the 1D series. I had two copies of the 24-70 and the only difference in my tests was the extra stop on the 24-70.

Back to the Tamron 24-70 I've now seen some good images of it and it appears to be the best built Tamron lens to date. Its weight falls between the new Canon 24-70 and the old version. The MTF charts look promising so I think it's going to be a good lens. We'll have to wait until it hits the streets to see how good.

K6AZ wrote in post #14245506
The f/4 limitation is certainly a valid complaint but I shot three different copies of the 24-105 and you couldn't tell the images from them apart. For someone who leans on the PJ side of the spectrum it was a perfect walkaround lens on FF and the 1D series. I had two copies of the 24-70 and the only difference in my tests was the extra stop on the 24-70.

Back to the Tamron 24-70 I've now seen some good images of it and it appears to be the best built Tamron lens to date. Its weight falls between the new Canon 24-70 and the old version. The MTF charts look promising so I think it's going to be a good lens. We'll have to wait until it hits the streets to see how good.

Mind posting some shots? Im really curious on how it looks!

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14245682
Mind posting some shots? Im really curious on how it looks!

Someone posted a link, not sure which thread it was but apparently it was someone in Korea that had one. If it's not back a few pages in this thread check the other threads about this lens, I didn't save it.

Whacky wrote in post #14163963
They should trickle out a few more sample photos, or some more info to keep up the interest. Otherwise, I might just have to drop some dime on an old 24-70 mk I to have.

Who knows, I might even like it enough to keep it when the Tamron comes out.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14243985
Are you from Australia? I have never heard of tax being refundable! Is this something you know or can anyone else chime in here??

That would be amazing news for me

Sorry, I'm from the states, I just thought it was odd that tax wasn't refunded when you return a product. That's how it is here.

Tsmith wrote in post #14244970
28-75 often times misfocused, not very sharp until f/3.5, focus hunted sometimes and was slow, cheaply built too (but I knew that upon purchasing).

24-105 (cost more indeed) way better built, IS, sharp at f/4, fast AF and beautiful color reproduction.

My post was in response to a post about the IQ of the 24-105, not about its focus accuracy, or its build quality. Pay less than half as much, you don't get the same build quality and AF, but you do get some very comparable IQ, which is what counts the most to many people.

How is the IQ of the 24-105 at f/2.8 again? How about f/3.5?

Nothing to say on that? Yeah, that is what I thought. Don't bring up a "weakness" in a lens when the other lens can't even enter that race. That is a losing proposition.

You have to compare them starting at their shared focal lengths, F/4 and above, and the Tamron is just as sharp at F/4 as the 24-105, at least according to photozone.de. I am sure other reviews agree as well. The color on the Tamron is great too, you won't win that point anyway as it is too subjective a subject.

K6AZ wrote in post #14243952
I have a hard time taking this post seriously. 'An old design'? I can think of a dozen lenses designed in the 1970s and 1980s that blow away most of what is made today. And comparing the 28-75 to any L lens, especially the 24-105 is laughable. This is probably going to bring out the 28-75 fans again but I don't like that lens and the variance in copies is extreme.

Bringing up other lenses is not a valid argument so I will ignore that.

The 24-105 was released in 2005, which doesn't make it all that old, but when you look at the lenses Canon has released in the last 3 years, or is soon to release, it is clear they have made considerable advancements in the last 7 years and could certainly turn out a much better 24-105 today if they chose to. That is what I mean by "old design". Throw in how much more competitive the major 3rd party manufacturers have become in the last 3 years, and it is clear that any lens design over 5 years old is likely to be overtaken considerably soon.

At to the 28-75 specifically... see my last post. It was about IQ, and the 28-75 IQ is comparable to the 24-105 over their shared focal range. That is really not arguable at all. It has other issues, but the IQ is comparable.

arentol wrote in post #14245854
How is the IQ of the 24-105 at f/2.8 again? How about f/3.5?

Nothing to say on that? Yeah, that is what I thought. Don't bring up a "weakness" in a lens when the other lens can't even enter that race. That is a losing proposition.

LOL ... your input is humorous ... ... better than my copy of the Tamron at those apertures and last time I checked f/3.5 vs f/4 isn't anything earth shattering. What good is an f/2.8 lens if its weak at its wide aperture. IQ compared the 24-105 provided better results with out all the other
short comings you wanna ignore.

Sunthing Productions wrote in post #14245784
Sorry, I'm from the states, I just thought it was odd that tax wasn't refunded when you return a product. That's how it is here.

No worries thanks anyway I am going to look into it now cheers