battle of 24-70. tamron vc Vs Canon L II

sharpness has never been a problem with the better tamron lenses. AF speed and hit rate have. if it ain't hitting it doesn't matter how sharp it is.

ed rader wrote in post #16419683
sharpness has never been a problem with the better tamron lenses. AF speed and hit rate have. if it ain't hitting it doesn't matter how sharp it is.

My hit rate is high with both however It's probably what I shoot. Portraits and kids. Nothing fast. Maybe I will sing a different tune if I need to do sports more.

Got my 24-70mm f2.8 II couple of days ago and I am impressed. It seems like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I wouldn't use it at f5.6/f8 so probably not an issue for me.

I used to have old 28-75mm f2.8 tamron and it was nice sharp lens, only isse AF was crap. I almost picked newer 24-70mm f2.8 VC for $1000 but all this talk of slower AF scared me so I picked canon for $500 more.

bobbyz wrote in post #16419838
Got my 24-70mm f2.8 II couple of days ago and I am impressed. It seems like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I wouldn't use it at f5.6/f8 so probably not an issue for me.

I used to have old 28-75mm f2.8 tamron and it was nice sharp lens, only isse AF was crap. I almost picked newer 24-70mm f2.8 VC for $1000 but all this talk of slower AF scared me so I picked canon for $500 more.

Hey Bobby, I've made a comparison video using 7D/6D and Tamron 24-70 and Canon 24-105L. I did all kinds of combinations of these bodies and lenses.

I'm sure you've probably seen my post about this video in another thread.

What I found was interesting. Yes, the Tamron is slower to AF than my 24-105L USM (I consider that lens pretty fast).

But it's odd, that while the difference is significant on my 7D, it is quite small on the 6D. Which is good because I use that lens almost exclusively on my 6D

Here's the video if anyone else is interested. It only tests AF lock, not accuracy or anything else.

This video also compares the AF speed of the 7D and 6D (One shot mode)

AF Speed Comparison Video

Nice review. Just in terms of optics the EF 24-70 II is a better fit for me as I prefer to weight the performance more to the wide end than the long and prefer less distortion as well. Per Photozone and this review, the Tamron beats the Canon at 70mm, which is a nice win for Tamron.

I've never purchased - or even considered buying - a Tamron before, but it's disappointing to learn that the AF is not reliable. I guess that's always going to be a potential shortcoming with 3rd party lenses. I know my Zeiss lenses are the absolute worst at AF.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16423227
Nice review. Just in terms of optics the EF 24-70 II is a better fit for me as I prefer to weight the performance more to the wide end than the long and prefer less distortion as well. Per Photozone and this review, the Tamron beats the Canon at 70mm, which is a nice win for Tamron.

I've never purchased - or even considered buying - a Tamron before, but it's disappointing to learn that the AF is not reliable. I guess that's always going to be a potential shortcoming with 3rd party lenses. I know my Zeiss lenses are the absolute worst at AF.

ha ha on the Zeiss. I would not say tamron beats canon at 70. can is sharper in the entire frame at 2.8. visibly so in the center. probably keeps a slight edge even stopped down in the center, though tamron is pretty good at f4. canon's problem is stopped down performance in the corners on the long end, which is of improtance, primarily as a landscape lens, and honestly just disappointing given the price point. I have not done side by side, but I am fairly certain my 24-105 is sharper in the corner at 50 and f5.6-f11 than the 24-70II, and many think thats a dog of a lens (with which I disagree)

There is no comparison B/T the tammy and the canon. I have shot both side by side. Tammy hunts in low light to the point where i find its not a viable option. Im talking 8000 ISO at F/2.5 @ 1/30 and it wouldnt lock. The canon locked all day long.

Pull the files in to 100-150% and the tammy files quickly fall apart compared to the canon. If yopu have a shot that you need to crop heavy on your screwed with the tammy.

No contest at all

what about waiting, im not sure when they would come out with it but didnt canon submit a patent for a 24-70 is 2.8. The 50mm 1.8 is, to be released in 1q 2014.

umphotography wrote in post #16423557
There is no comparison B/T the tammy and the canon. I have shot both side by side. Tammy hunts in low light to the point where i find its not a viable option. Im talking 8000 ISO at F/2.5 @ 1/30 and it wouldnt lock. The canon locked all day long.

Pull the files in to 100-150% and the tammy files quickly fall apart compared to the canon. If yopu have a shot that you need to crop heavy on your screwed with the tammy.

No contest at all

While I do agree that the Tamron is not up to par as the Canon I wouldn't call it like you said.

Who crops 150%? I can crop the Tamron at 2.8 to 100% and get decent files, I just have to work them a little. I also don't see how yours hunts. I've taken a bunch of photos at 12,800-25,600 2.8 1/30-1/60 and it locked quickly every time. This is however using the 6D center point which proves to be excellent.

My experience is this... The Tamron 70-200 is close to the MK2 lens which for my understanding the 24-70II matches what the 70-200 can do. With that being said my Tamron 70-200 kills the the Tamron 24-70, literally kills it, bad. You have no idea how bad. Does that make the Tamron 24-70 a bad lens... no. I wouldn't even compare it to the Canon mk2. It however is an excellent option over the MK1 aside from AF speed. It is a tad slower to focus but my copy (not yours) has proven to be very reliable, accurate and provide me with many many keepers in the lowest of low light and any other light.

The corner performance is where the lens lacks. After reviewing Photozone.de's numbers with all of the lens I've owned and how I've felt they have performed I recommend their MTF numbers over anyone elses. They match my experience with my lenses. I know that for me to feel adequate sharpness the lens has to perform at 3200 or better with their numbers for me to really feel it's tack sharp. The 24-70 matches this in center all but the 70mm 2.8 where it's only 3018. A tad soft for me but 3.2 works out great. Yes, the extreme corners on this lens are plain out soft. Takes F8 and then it's still softer then I'd like. But I'm not using this lens for it's corners either. It's my walk around lens. A damn good one too!

Again, it is no comparison. And I will say this, the Tamron 24-70 is the least sharpest lens in my kit, but it's also my most used lens. I actually enjoy using it. It's not perfect but it provides very nice shots and I got mine $1,000 cheaper than the Canon MK2.

Yes, and no. tammy has focus issues. when it does nail focus, central sharpness is excellent, with its weakness being at 70, where I still consider it good. but yes, in reality, with people moving objects, the percentage of perfectly focused shots is frustratingly low, esp on the long end (I seem to have less issue with it on the wide end)
a well focused shot at 70 2.8 on tamron

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I have the Tamron 24-70 VC, and I agree with the OP (and a review or two out there) that the lens is a bit softer on the long end at 2.8 - stopping down to 3.2 helps quite a bit, but the 2.8 is there if you really need it.

I also found the Tamron needs a bit of AFMA help - at least for my copy I had to set AFMA to -1 for the wide end but +5 to +6 for the long end. Thankfully my 70D can handle this. I also concur that AF is a slower than my Canon lenses (never has a 24-70 II to compare it to).

But, so far I have not had the AF issues others speak of. My number of misses isn't notably higher than with my previous 24-105L or my 70-300L, and low light performance is adequate. In fact, I would say that in marginal light the 24-70 VC was significantly better than the Sigma 30mm 1.4 that I purchased earlier this year, and things have to be really dark (0.5 sec f2.8 ISO 3200) for focus to start hunting.

For *me* the high price and lack of IS of the 24-70 II makes it a non-starter, and I have no regrets with my 24-70 VC purchase. If Canon came out with a fast 24-70 with IS I would think about it - at least until I saw the $3K price tag.

interesting. I have the Tammy for several months now, never had issues with AF in any conditions I use my gear in. I can only compare it with my 17-55 on a 40D, while the Tammy is on my 5D3. The 17- might be a fraction of a sec faster in getting focus, but so far I've never lost a shot of my kids running around and certainly not landscapes/cityscapes, or in studio, even in low light settings. I rarely shoot in really really low light with ISO above 2000 though. In situations that dark I generally don't have my camera in hand, rather a cold drink to enjoy along with the show on stage

If Canon offered IS with their lens I'd have just bought it, but for some odd reason they don't. A zoom w/o IS is a no go for me, with the kids in parks etc I shoot under constantly changing light, bright sun to deep shadow, and switching ISO is often not an option, can't yell "freeze" at them to make everything stop IS/VC saved a ton of shots for me.

I generally don't pixel peep, but do with every new lens just to make sure it's ok, can't find any issues with the Tammy here either. Certainly nothing at all that would justify the nutty price Canon is asking. Feels like 'the same lens' to me, compared with the 17-55. And yes, I know you can't "really" compare these two in a pixel peeping scientific way all that well, but it's not a science project (to me) either.

Another great review here: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=mQSuexEQcgM

My Tamron 24-70 is very very sharp wide open at 24mm and decently sharp at 70mm (I never hesitate to use it at 2.8). AF is very good, I am very satisfied with the accuracy on my 6D.

As for Ed's comment on what real world situation at 1/10. Plenty, you're in a dark church for example. Or a city at night. If I can shoot sharply at 1/10 at a low ISO, why should I shoot 1/50 at a much higher ISO. So just because Canon 24-70 users can't shoot 1/10 doesn't mean that there aren't situations in the real world that would require that shutter speed.
I'm not bashing the 24-70 II. In fact I was tempted to buy one a few weeks ago during the double-dip rebates/prices. I accept it that it is overall a bit sharper and focuses faster than the Tamron. It's just you need to give credit where it's due. VC is useful in a lot of situations.

Having read thedigitalpicture review of 24-70 II, and having looked at his 4 samples. it appears 2 of his 4 were softer in the corners, esp at 50 and 70. If you compare copy 1 to 3 for example at f 5.6, there is a fair bit of difference. I may send mine in for calibration.