Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II USM v. Tamron 24-70 F2.8 SP VC USD

chardog wrote in post #13843076
admit it, you're an L snob

I would take a crop + 17-50 variant any day over a crop + 24-70L... The extra 20mm in the long is not nearly as noticeable as the the 7mm on the wide side. I still have one of my crops, and I'de never put the 24-70 on it. It's so off balanced, and quite frankly, it doesnt produce much better photos if any. I love my 24-70 and all, but it just not very useful for crops. The 17-50 + 70-200 is a MUCH better combo for crops, and the missing gap of 20mm is offset by 7mm on the wide end, which is much much more useful. It's so useful that I rarely used an ultrawide... that money spent on an ultrawide can be used on a fish instead. This is just how I view things.

Nope not an L snob at all, do you see any in my sig? What works for you may not work for me. I shoot sports. I don't shoot landscapes that often or need a wide angle that is always on my camera. 24-70 is the perfect range for me to put on my 60D and shoot basketball from next to the basket. 24-105 was nice but the f/4 isn't enough for me. I never really will need much wider than 24 which is why the 7mm difference to the 17-50 isn't a big deal to me like it is to you. To each there own...

agphotography wrote in post #13843880
Yeah but guys look at the filing date on that patent. It's back in early 2009....

If they are indeed working on something like that, don't you think it'd be ready by now?

...and just because a patent was filed doesn't mean that they'll necessarily release such a lens on the market.

Without trying them hands on the Tamron wins every time for me!

DreDaze wrote in post #13843518
what if it became an f2.8-f4 zoom...i'd think that would be an advancement...

The patent says 3.5-5.6.

agphotography wrote in post #13843880
Yeah but guys look at the filing date on that patent. It's back in early 2009.... If they are indeed working on something like that, don't you think it'd be ready by now?

Doesn't say much. Optical designs don't go out of fashion that quickly.
For example: Canon filed patents for 24-70mm and 24mm f/2.8 lenses in 2009 as well.

Echo Johnson wrote in post #13844615
...and just because a patent was filed doesn't mean that they'll necessarily release such a lens on the market.

Exactly. Only a fraction of them ever become real products.

Anyway, back to topic...

Oh no, the Canon MarkII would have you connecting the hood to the front barrel, like the 24-105L.

I'm happy with results of 28-75 on crop and FF. Don't feel I need the Brick №1.
If new Tammy is optically same or better and price will be kept in reasonable range, I'll take new Tammy, not because of IS, but moisture resistance.
It is no brainier for me, because Tamron offers six years warranty in Canada and Tamron dealers in Canada respect Canadians, but Canon has terribly overpriced almost all of their lenses here.

i voted canon all the way, i am happy with my 24-70 L but if the IQ enhancement for the new mkII is the same as what the 70-200 IS mkII got, then i may consider getting it along with the next gen 5D sometime next year. i do not see the need for IS on this lens and don't know what the big deal is As for the price, the original suggested retails price of the mkI back in 2003 was $2100 and that makes it only $199 more for the mkII (http://www.dpreview.co​m/news/2002/9/29/canon​ef2470l).

regards
bob

Has Tamron released an MTF chart yet? If it can beat this...I'll be impressed: