what is wrong with the tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc?

I did a search and there are more threads about an non-existing canon 24-70 f2.8 is lens than a tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc, which has been available for quite sometime. There isn't even a lens sample thread for it. This lens is supposed to be a game change, but why is there a lack of interest? Is there something fundamentally wrong with it that I am not aware of? I m looking to pick up this lens as a replacement to the 24105 f4. It will be used on a FF and 1.6x crop body. My main concern is sharpness at f2.8, which I am getting mixed reviews on. I am hoping someone here have real world experience with it and can shed some light.

I ask myself the same question. What is wrong with it? There must be something because if not, it would be the solution to the IS vs f/2.8 dilemma of the Canon 24-105 and Canon 24-70.

A lot of snobbery in the fullframe elite! Red ring or nothing. However I think Tamron will still sell a lot of it because the quality is really up par the Canon 24-70.

The main thing to remember is that the tamron is less sharp on the wide end while being sharper on the long end than the canon. The tamron also have VC and is half the price. Build quality and autofocus are the same.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14940209
..... Build quality and autofocus are the same.

Funny, the main negatives I've been seeing against the Tamron has been those exact two topics. I would be thrilled to find that a competitor was able to essentially produce and sell a lens for 1/2 the price of a Canon lens, AND keep it on par with the lens costing twice as much. Common sense tells me that is impossible...but would love to be wrong.

Edit: Sorry, had the Sigma 24-70 in my head for some reason. As for the Tamron, I thought it was the poor edge sharpness, and even poor mid-frame sharpness that was the big drawback.

Plenty of "Canon or go home" folk 'round these parts. IQ seems quite decent from what I've seen. Was considering it for a while but decided to spring for some primes instead.

There is a sample thread on it.

Right here.

My friend has one for his D7000. It's sharp as a tack and has great color and resolution. There is an occasional issue with "onion bokeh" in certain conditions that has gotten way more bad press than it deserves. It's really nothing and easily correctable.

I was going to sell my 24-105 and buy a Tamron 24-70, but the bottom fell out of the 24-105 market when Canon practically forced people to buy one in order to get a 5D MkIII right after it came out. Now the used market is flooded with them. I refuse to give away the 24-105 just to raise cash for the Tamron. The difference is not that important to me. But the lens itself seems like a winner, and at half the cost of the Canon that has no IS, I can't see why any non-pro would go for the Canon. I have yet to see tests that show the IQ to be worth the huge price difference.

The big difference may only be in build quality. I haven't used the Tamron, so I can't speak to its build quality. But it does come with a 6 year warranty as opposed to Canon's one year warranty.

ThatNikonGuy did a 9-video in-depth comparison between four 24-70 lenses, including the Tamron, here:

http://www.youtube.com …t?list=PL029043​243BB9DB72

One video is devoted to the Tamron's vibration control. Convinced me to get the Tamron, once I get around to getting a 24-70.

Outside of the center frame, I'm not liking the sharpness comparison...and stopping down doesn't look to improve the results.

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

The main Tamron 24-70 VC thread:

You can read my personal thoughts on the lens here.

mannetti21 wrote in post #14940464
Outside of the center frame, I'm not liking the sharpness comparison...and stopping down doesn't look to improve the results.

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

Yes, there's a slight difference in sharpness, but on a crop it would be much less noticeable and in your actual images, probably not at all. Even Bryan (the guy who runs that site) will often say that the minor differences in sharpness you see in his tests rarely are visible in final images. I think the difference between the Canon and the Tamron can be classified as minor. Check out the non-L 70-300 and the 70-300L at 300mm and you'll see a major difference in sharpness.

The difference in the two lenses comes down to this. The Canon has better build quality and very slightly better IQ. The Canon has no IS (which, granted, is not that big of a deal with a lens this wide). The Tamron has excellent IQ in its own right and is still a well built lens. The IS could come in handy for very low light shots, as you can essentially handhold at 24mm and 1/5 second. The Tamron has a 6 year warranty vs one year for the Canon. The Canon is about $1000 more. Whether it's worth that increase or not depends on the buyer's available cash and need for critical sharpness across the image.

Just gonna follow.

I played with the Tamron for an afternoon on my 7D and a 5DIII from my local camera shop and it's not a bad lens at all.

I consider VC a nice to have but not essential for the 24-70 range. My problems with the Tamrom were AF speed which was much slower than my 15-85 and color/contrast which I considered average at best. Corner sharpness was fine on my crop body due to the smaller image circle, but a tad soft on the 5DIII I was using, I didn't really notice the "onion bokeh" that everyone seems to complain about.

Overall, it's a good but not great lens but the price was definitely attractive. Personally, if the reviews continue to be positive, I'll be getting the Canon.