Review/Impressions of Tamron 24-70mm G2 (2nd edition)

Hi,

This lens for Canon is now available. If they have fixed the "onion" bokeh and slow AF (in low light), this lens seems it would be a worthy alternative to the Canon/Sigma 24-70's. Anyone venture to get this lens?


http://www.canonrumors​.com …di-vc-usd-g2-at-bh-photo/

Who gives a poop about the onion bokeh... the mk2 does it too under certain conditions.

I've had this lens for approximately 10 days now. I've owned both the G1 and G2 version. G2 is much quieter and has 5 stop stabilization. It has a better build quality and has a much nicer "look" to it. AF is quicker and time will tell if it holds up better then the G1 AF.

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18454030
I've had this lens for approximately 10 days now. I've owned both the G1 and G2 version. G2 is much quieter and has 5 stop stabilization. It has a better build quality and has a much nicer "look" to it. AF is quicker and time will tell if it holds up better then the G1 AF.

Yes, I had the G1 but sold it because the AF tended to hunt (on a 5dmk3) in low light and even had focus errors occasionally. Not really a fair comparison, but my Canon 16-35 f4 IS focused so much faster and accurately than G1. So, it seems you have a 16-35 f4, how does the G2 compare against this lens?

It seems very close to the 16-35...certainly better than the G1 but it's hard to beat the Canon lens on a Canon body..

Talley wrote in post #18453857
Who gives a poop about the onion bokeh... the mk2 does it too under certain conditions.

I recall folks were all over this when the G1 came out. This was not much of a real issue for me in a practical sense.

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18454440
It seems very close to the 16-35...certainly better than the G1 but it's hard to beat the Canon lens on a Canon body..

This is nice to know. I wouldn't expect any 3rd party to beat a native lens in AF.

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18454440
It seems very close to the 16-35...certainly better than the G1 but it's hard to beat the Canon lens on a Canon body..

Just to clarify this a little. When the new focus point is "very close" to the previous point the lens jumps right to the new FP, however, when the in focus point area changes substantially the G2 tends to "jump" twice to the new point.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …sample-gallery/8441359954

DPR posted sample page...

isn't this a poor example of the starburst? The 16-35 2.8 III is much cleaner.

ya I'm see no improvements on the IQ deparment from the VC original model. Looks like I'm on the outlook for a mk2 now.

Talley wrote in post #18455036
https://www.dpreview.c​om …sample-gallery/8441359954

DPR posted sample page...

isn't this a poor example of the starburst? The 16-35 2.8 III is much cleaner.

it really depends on the intensity of the lightsource, midday sun, that actually looks pretty good. Even voigtlanders can have bad stars in harsh daylight, and they generally have the best sunstars out of any lens made. I think V1 had worst sunstars, well at least from an image I have on the wall, it's kind of lame.

the canon 16-35 any version, and 24-70 any version, have pretty good sunstars, but you have to stop down kind of deep to get them. Voigtlander stars are amazing at f5.6 already.

I had the first version of this lens. I was completely unimpressed by: focus speed, focus accuracy, focus consistency in low(er) light, IQ, and the slightly jumpy VC. I liked the 28-75 better; at least it could focus. If I do actually buy a G2, it will be from a retailer that offers a 14-day (or so) return privilege.

I had the 28-75, and still have the 17-50 Tamron. At least they can focus accurately.

true. the best lights stars often come down to precise timing but that said you'll have a hard time beating the 18-point star of an L len like the 24-70L II or any of the 16-35s.

FYI, here's a youtube video comparing the G2 vs Art. A battle of the 3rd parties.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=efRzdYkgbn4

So far so good for the Tamron...part 2 should be the interesting video!