Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg

I saw this yesterday...It's a great head to head review, although, personally I think they blow out of proportion the AF speed differences. They came up with tenths of a second differences. Also, they are going from infinity to about 4ft away. To me, that isn't a "real world" scenario, or at least a common real world scenario. My 100L is notorious for slow AF, but while it is slow when it is hunting throughout the entire range, it is actually very snappy when locking onto focus points that are maybe 10-15ft apart.

the 24-70 mk2 is about 800 overpriced. It shouldnt be much more than the tamron. It may be the best optically, but you give up stabilization, which is a very expensive feature.... just compared the 70-200 2.8's.... stabilization costs big bucks.

cool comparison.

Charlie wrote in post #15085317
the 24-70 mk2 is about 800 overpriced. It shouldnt be much more than the tamron. It may be the best optically, but you give up stabilization, which is a very expensive feature.... just compared the 70-200 2.8's.... stabilization costs big bucks.

This is essentially what I've said in the past, but I nearly had my head taken off lol People will always argue that IS isn't necessary in this focal range, and my argument is that it isn't necessary in any focal range. More useful in telephoto, sure, but still very useful in the standard zoom range.

As much as I'd LOVE to bite on the 24-70II, my gut tells me that it isn't the best all around option. Usually I can convince myself to go for the latest and greatest, but I'm having a very difficult time doing that in this case.

I'm was ticked at Canon for not adding IS to this lens. Waited two years. I thought I could never live without it but so far mounted on my new 5D3 I have yet to see a non usable image that was clearly my fault. I'll just have to be careful with shutter speeds when shooting in low light.

Over priced. Yep but it is worth it to me. I hate changing lenses in the heat of the moment.

I'm a long time Canon user and don't really want to put the company down. However when I really think about it, it seems many times they are just a step away from producing an uber brilliant product. I wonder if they do this just to keep us wanting for more so we cough up the cash when the next release comes out. They have a great market share and have me in the game. Next release in a few years. 24-70 with IS. Gonna have to come up with another $2000. Great future revenue stream.

I like these guys, Looks like i'll be watching more videos from them.

I thought the Tamron was 28-75. At least, mine is. Have they brought a new one out?

digital paradise wrote in post #15085535
I wonder if they do this just to keep us wanting for more so we cough up the cash when the next release comes out.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I 100% believe this is exactly what Canon is doing. It wouldn't tick me off as much if they did these releases every couple years, but instead, it takes far longer than that for them to release an updated version. I would have been readily wiling to pay up to $3k if they had simply added IS to this current 24-70II. Overpriced still? Yes probably, but with a super sharp lens edge to edge, f/2.8, and IS, what else could you realistically ask for in a lens?

I did all my film photography with lenses up to 210 without IS and handheld. Rarely had a problem. Above 210 (I had 400 and 600) I used a tripod.

peterbj7 wrote in post #15085600
I thought the Tamron was 28-75. At least, mine is. Have they brought a new one out?

yes