My one week experience with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC

I just held and used the Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC (my dad's on his Nikon D90). The 24-70 is much larger than I expected and build quality is quite nice. It is actually quite intimidating. It's not a lens I would purchase myself (I don't need a general zoom on a DSLR). The 70-200 on the other hand is a beast. The construction is outstanding. I just don't like the hood (feels and looks cheap) and everything is reversed (zoom ring rotation etc).

I don't know if it was fault of the body or the lens, but the 70-200 failed an extremely task of focusing on a relatively large subject, a blue flag flowing with the wind that filled maybe 30% of the frame on top of the garage with a very cloudy sky as the background. It did, however, search for focus again and achieved focus very quickly. I repeated this test and it did the same thing every time, but I focused on a few other subjects at various distances and it was quick and accurate. Strange.

I am partially glad I didn't like the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC a lot, because I have already decided (and placed a $500 deposit on) a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II It sure is a LOT of cash, but a 70-200 is one of very few lenses where I believe little to no compromise should be made (for my use).

Charlie wrote in post #16708025
I've owned mine for nearly two years now, should be broken at this point

I guess I "lucked out", but either way, got 4 more years. With canon, I'de be out of luck and out of pocket.

Love the VC, and wish my canon primes had VC/IS. If you feel that you need a top notch canon L zoom to capture photos, then more power to you. I prefer a stabilized lens, and canon can't compete in that sense. Glad there's an alternative.

And you my friend...I never said that all Tamrons will fall apart. Hope yours doesn't. My story was and is totally anecdotal in nature. It's just one story. Let's see what lens rentals has to say about them in due time (so far what little they've had to say hasn't been real positive). I would say there has been a substantial amount of negative info on them. I bought the lens for it's VC and IQ. I do miss the vibration control! Now I really have to watch my shutter speed on the Canon.

I have owned many Canon lenses and two Tamrons. The only lenses requiring repair trips have been both the Tamrons. When all is said and done, (love cliches!) maybe there's a reason Canon is soooo much more expensive...

I bought the same lens a few years back. While the image quality was ok, the build quality was disappointing. I had the lens 3 weeks before it failed. I sent t it back to Tamron under the warranty . They fixed it and returned it to me. I sold it immediately after and bought the Canon 24-105 and have had no problems since.

Bakewell wrote in post #16708465
Let's see what lens rentals has to say about them in due time (so far what little they've had to say hasn't been real positive).

Funny you mention. I discussed with him when my element came loose and he said he hadn't seen that in a while.

cameraguy1972 wrote in post #16708491
I bought the same lens a few years back. While the image quality was ok, the build quality was disappointing. I had the lens 3 weeks before it failed. I sent t it back to Tamron under the warranty . They fixed it and returned it to me. I sold it immediately after and bought the Canon 24-105 and have had no problems since.

A few years back? When did this lens come out? It's been out for that long? Man, time flies!

I thought the loose front element was only an early production issue.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16708758
I thought the loose front element was only an early production issue.

It was....along with the battery drain issue. I think they've both been rectified.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16708758
I thought the loose front element was only an early production issue.

It was but mine situation was unique.

Thanks for taking the roundabout way of calling me an idiot. If Tamron lenses have focused in the Nikon direction for years, it can't have been for more than a few years, as my 70-200 focuses the Canon way. I guess most people reviewing this lens are photographers so the focus direction is less of an issue, which is probably why they didn't mention it in any of their reviews. But being a videographer this is a huge deal, especially since all of my cinema lenses focus in the other direction. I've found the direction feels natural on this lens when I focus with my right hand, though that in itself feels a bit awkward as I'm accustomed to using my left.

areins wrote in post #16709899
Thanks for taking the roundabout way of calling me an idiot. If Tamron lenses have focused in the Nikon direction for years, it can't have been for more than a few years, as my 70-200 focuses the Canon way. I guess most people reviewing this lens are photographers so the focus direction is less of an issue, which is probably why they didn't mention it in any of their reviews. But being a videographer this is a huge deal, especially since all of my cinema lenses focus in the other direction. I've found the direction feels natural on this lens when I focus with my right hand, though that in itself feels a bit awkward as I'm accustomed to using my left.

Well you just brought up a good point. Videographers that use cables to focus/zoom. I could see how that can get confusing.

Bakewell wrote in post #16707946
You seem to take it personally whenever someone says something negative about the Tamron. Why?

I think the issue here are certain members who say carp like "it's a bargain lens for those who can't/won't pony up for the lens they really want."

In my case I wanted a lens with IS/VC, and Canon has chosen not to provide that option. The Tamron was an easy choice. And if the rumored Canon 24-70 2.8 IS comes out at say $2800, the Tamron will still be the easy choice.

ed rader wrote in post #16707636
it's a bargain lens for those who can't/won't pony up for the lens they really want.

The one I really want doesn't exist.

cdifoto wrote in post #16710065
The one I really want doesn't exist.

Life is often like that.