Who sold his Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and why ? Return to 35 1.4 Art?

isvein wrote in post #17869601
Not very fast :P
But I aslo do not know how slow AF is then people says the AF is slower than say Nikon :P

it's probably microseconds if I had to guess. Had the canon 24-70, 70-200's and tamron equivalent, and if I had to guess, about 10-20ms slower in grabbing focus, assuming it's a fairly long rack. If the images in range already, you probably cant tell them apart. It's an ultrasonic motor, so it's not exactly slow, probably like comparing a mustang to camaro type deal. That said, the tamron 70-200 was better than the 24-70 in the long end. The 24-70 got a little weak wide open on the 70mm side, where the 70-200 felt strong every focal length.

yes I guess it makes an difference if you shoot sports or birds.

The key thing to remember is that Canon don't publish the specs of their AF system, which means all third-party lens manufacturers have to resort to reverse-engineering the signals from the bodies.

No matter how good they get at it, they'll never do it as well as Canon will. They get damn close but generally you just have to accept that third-party lenses will never focus as accurately/reliably/qu​ickly as Canon ones will.

Looks like I will go for the tamron 24-70.

If you don't like it you can return it

elitejp wrote in post #17874595
If you don't like it you can return it

I wish it worked like it here in Norway, but most stores does not have an deal like that unless you ordered it online.

Same where I am. I dont think you will be dissapointed

I shoot events & weddings (occasionally do portraits).

I use crop. For most events and outdoor ceremonies (or ceremonies in large churches) I have a 70-200 on my primary and the sigma 18-35 on my secondary. The 70-200 is used 90% of the time here.

When we move inside or it is a smaller event - The Sigma 18-35 goes on the primary and the 50 on the secondary. The 18-35 is used for 99% of the shots here. I use the 50 when I know I have room for it. For me, a zoom is a MUST for an event or reception. I can't zoom with my feet when there are chairs, tables, pillars, decor, and people everywhere.

I use the Sigma 18-35 mostly in the 24-35 range. That's on crop; so closer to "38.4-56" for you. If it were me, I would HAVE to use the 24-70 if I were on FF like you. I hate switching cameras a lot. Moments that last microseconds don't wait for you to switch cameras. You may be able to get by with the 35 + 50 or another combo, but you will definitely miss moments.

If you are worried that you will miss your bokeh on the faster primes, remember it's not about you. The B&G would rather you capture a moment using a zoom with less impressive (yet still attractive) bokeh than to capture the moment after the moment with a prime and awesome bokeh.

I guess that is MY argument for using zooms at a wedding or event. Posed shots at an event, use whatever.

This, as usual, is just MY personal opinion and preference.

Yeah, good post, that's pretty much my philosophy too.

So far it looks way more sharper than my old Nikon 50 1.4G did wide open, even if this is 24mm and 2.8.
(the 50mm is not that great at 2.8 ether)
100% zoom screenshoot from lightroom

It would be hard for me to get rid of the 24-70 zoom because its perfect for outdoor ceremonies and receptions. Personally, I find the f/2.8 to be somewhat limiting for indoor, dimly lit venues. Not so much because of needing to bump up ISO for proper exposure, but because the lens doesn't have a 1.4 - 1.8 aperture to help gather light for fast, accurate focusing.Maybe the Canon MKII is better with this, but still I don't know if I can justify the price difference.

I use my 35A for the bridal prep time and late in the reception for dance floor candids. It works extremely well for that. Otherwise, it feels a bit too wide for speeches, father-daughter/mother-son dance and first dance. Even at ceremonies, I feel like I'm being intrusive with a 35. I'm thinking a 50mm prime will offer better flexibility. I considered swapping the 35A with the 50A, but ultimately I ended up purchasing the 50 STM today. If things work out with that focal length, I'm sure I'll find myself owning a 50A in the future.

sounds like a good plan especially since the price of the 50 is so cheap

So far, my tests with the Tamron 24-70 matches up with what others says and what dxomark shows.
at full open at 70, its less sharp than on 24 full open.
But I got it for the 24-50 range, if I first need 70, I can just put on my 85 1.8 instead.

My Tamron 24-70 is a perfect performer and I even tested it to a 24-70II. The Canon focuses faster when doing extreme racks but the VC is very helpful. Opposite zoom doesnt' bother be because I'm a smart guy and can remember which way to go. I kept the Tamron in the end and it's been great.

Typically the 24-70 is my bounce flash birthday setup as in this photo. I suppose birthdays are like events but I typically use the zooms for the bounce flash. For some reason I don't like bounce flash setup w/ primes. This photo only suffers from lack of processing and a small bit motion blur when zoomed in.

The point?... technically not the best photo... small bit motion blur maybe front part of face out of focus a tad.... NOBODY CARED when I posted it for friends and family to see.... everyone loved her expression of receiving her gift. That is all that matters! Same for bride/groom stuff. capture the moment no matter what... I'd lean toward zooms for weddings even though I prefer primes.

For weddings I'd only recommend the best gear... get the Canon IIs.

I had my Tammy 24-70 VC for about 3 hours before I decided to sell it. Range is too limited, size is too big, aperture is too slow. At f/2.8, my 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 STM and 85 1.8 are all sharper, smaller, and can go faster if I have the need. Nothing wrong with the lens; it just isn't for me.