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

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #14379294
I don't see why 24-70L II can sit at that price point even due to inflated currency readjustment and it does not have IS.

I really want to see what is it going to deliver, i wonder is it going to disappoint us or surprise us.

Isn't $2299 the suggested MSRP?

Street price, they better be realistic and bring it to around $1599.... or less

What are the chances Canon went back to the drawing board and added IS?

pepeto2001 wrote in post #14379745
Looking at those results, I cannot see any reason for choosing the tamron over the canon 24-105 f4....

For a all around les I would agree, but if you need to shoot indoors a lot I'd go with the Tamron or the Canon 24-70 f/2.8.

KHAWACHEN wrote in post #14379854
Isn't $2299 the suggested MSRP?

Street price, they better be realistic and bring it to around $1599.... or less

What are the chances Canon went back to the drawing board and added IS?

I'm thinking $1999.00 < street price

pepeto2001 wrote in post #14379745
Looking at those results, I cannot see any reason for choosing the tamron over the canon 24-105 f4....

Well if being as sharp at 2.8 compared to 4.0 isn't reason enough... then yeah, I guess.

Weird thing though, Tammy doesn't get much sharper at 4.0. *shrug* I guess it's good enough at 2.8 already

And yeah - corners could be better, but frankly I don't care about corner sharpness on this one that much. It's not a landscape lens

bomzai wrote in post #14380081
Well if being as sharp at 2.8 compared to 4.0 isn't reason enough... then yeah, I guess.

Weird thing though, Tammy doesn't get much sharper at 4.0. *shrug* I guess it's good enough at 2.8 already

And yeah - corners could be better, but frankly I don't care about corner sharpness on this one that much. It's not a landscape lens

From what I can tell they are sharp enough so one has to pixel peep to see the difference.

bomzai wrote in post #14380081
Well if being as sharp at 2.8 compared to 4.0 isn't reason enough... then yeah, I guess.

Weird thing though, Tammy doesn't get much sharper at 4.0. *shrug* I guess it's good enough at 2.8 already

And yeah - corners could be better, but frankly I don't care about corner sharpness on this one that much. It's not a landscape lens

well, if you use a 24-70 as a walkaround lens, it may matter

even if you don't use it for landscape shots, i am a bit annoyed by onion bokeh on portrait or close shots...

montroyal wrote in post #14380270
well, if you use a 24-70 as a walkaround lens, it may matter

even if you don't use it for landscape shots, i am a bit annoyed by onion bokeh on portrait or close shots...

I am highly interested in this lens because it looks sharper than my Canon 24-70 MK1. I just wonder how many % of the photos will get onion bokeh from this lens.
Sharpness is more important for me. I believe I can use lightroom to remove the onion bokeh. Anyway, that's just me.

cliffwang wrote in post #14380517
I am highly interested in this lens because it looks sharper than my Canon 24-70 MK1. I just wonder how many % of the photos will get onion bokeh from this lens.
Sharpness is more important for me. I believe I can use lightroom to remove the onion bokeh. Anyway, that's just me.

Just imagine shooting a wedding with this lens though. All the outdoor shots, with shallow DOF and specular highlights, and any indoor shots with lights, candles, reflections in the background. That could make for A LOT more work in post.. repairing onions on 1/2 your shots.

montroyal wrote in post #14380270
even if you don't use it for landscape shots, i am a bit annoyed by onion bokeh on portrait or close shots...

True, but luckily onions are situational, have circular shapes and don't have to have any detail in them -> 1 second per onion in post (so you're okay unless you are shooting OOF christmas tree or sun through closed blinds). Could I do without it - sure, would I pay this price for extra center sharpness - you bet!

1Tanker wrote in post #14380587
Just imagine shooting a wedding with this lens though. All the outdoor shots, with shallow DOF and specular highlights, and any indoor shots with lights, candles, reflections in the background. That could make for A LOT more work in post.. repairing onions on 1/2 your shots.

it doesnt show up easily.... You have to actively look for it. You can actively look at the "best bokeh" thread and find these onion rings. You have to look through real world samples to determine how much of an issue it is. The highlight has to be pretty spectacular for it to show up.

1Tanker wrote in post #14380587
Just imagine shooting a wedding with this lens though. All the outdoor shots, with shallow DOF and specular highlights, and any indoor shots with lights, candles, reflections in the background. That could make for A LOT more work in post.. repairing onions on 1/2 your shots.

I got your point. However, I am not a PRO. I just want a good lens for my family. Looks that shouldn't be a problem for me.
If I was selling photos, I would go with Canon 24-70mm MK2 for sure; even the MK2 costs 2400. Honestly, I don't really like my Canon 24-70mm MK1. Some of my photos taken by 7D + 17-55mm are sharper than the photos taken by 5D2 + 24-70mm L. This is a big reason I am so interested in Tamron 24-70mm VC.

I tried it today in the store and it was pretty nice, along with it's build and shape. I was getting clear shots at about 3 to 4 stops under with the VC. They definitely got a winner on their hands. Ill probably pick one up soon after I read up on some more testing.

this shot at the mall with a lot of lights at night:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/charlie617/6994​816942/

round bokeh, no onion

probably among the worst offender:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/charlie617/6994​817816/

if you were to print this 8x10, they'll show up, not sure how bothersome it will be. To recreated it, you basically need to go in all the way and get the thinnest DOF you can from this lens. Any thinner, and it's not showing up in a meaningful way.

So to cap it up, if you shoot really thin DOF and print large those same prints often, then this can be a big deal.... otherwise, it's a pretty big mountain from a molehill at this point.

^^^Those look good to me....Cute kids...The onion is overblown, it's "flowering", so to speak..:p........If some folks like the lens...leave them be.... I say, .....others won't...No big deal, you don't like onions, start steppin'.... Arguing with someone about bokeh is futile, bokeh is subjective when it comes to what you personally like....Some people like smooth as silk Sigma bokeh, others prefer the hectic erratic style....Others start out liking one kind then there taste changes....To each there own...It's all based on artistic value that can't really be measured....

All I want to know is...How is the AF, head to head with the brick????

I managed to capture this guy with the fast AF

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR