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

Talley wrote in post #18457492
They didn't fix anything they made it shinier and prettier with really good VC.

It's really a VC vs. IQ debate

I'm sure you understand this term...hogwash!

Talley wrote in post #18457492
They didn't fix anything they made it shinier and prettier with really good VC.

It's really a VC vs. IQ debate

That's not necessarily true. Just because the quantity of elements is the same, that doesn't mean there isn't a different manufacturing process to better the IQ in that element pattern. There has to be something different to produce sharper corners.

Well it's true

ma11rats wrote in post #18457503
That's not necessarily true. Just because the quantity of elements is the same, that doesn't mean there isn't a different manufacturing process to better the IQ in that element pattern. There has to be something different to produce sharper corners.

Aren't the MTF scores the same too?

You know what changed...

...build quality = better quality control = less copy to copy variation = sharper corners overall for most lenses.

there I said it.

Talley wrote in post #18457321
https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

I dunno... seems the mk2 beats it up pretty bad.

Wow, Tamron looks outright blurry at 70mm f2.8 (my most important setting) in comparison with 24-70ii. Very disappointing, looks like similar or worse than G1. Canon is in a league of its own and, surprisingly, a good value as a prime killer. I wonder how the colors compare. 24-70ii has undeniable L prime like colors with very high levels of saturation which makes it easy to process raw files and push the colors (especially with skin tones) to the extremes when desired. My experience with any non-L lenses including the uber sharp EF 35mm F2 IS, colors fall apart rather quickly with those. My experience with Tamron G1 was that the colors in raw were actually quite good and better than average but not much further could be done with them without looking cartoonish. This is the reason I stick to L-lenses. IMO, 85mm 1.2 has the most pronounced 'L-colors' of all, see example with pushed colors below. We can talk about build quality, weather sealing, AF speed, aperture, but to me, the single most important difference that helps to justify the price is intense color rendering of L-lenses vs. anything else.

Talley wrote in post #18457492
They didn't fix anything they made it shinier and prettier with really good VC.

It's really a VC vs. IQ debate

I watched DA's review. Incremental IQ improvement. Better AF. It needed both. Pass.

Talley wrote in post #18457504
Well it's true

Sounds like "Alternate Facts" to me...

don't forget I had the tamron zoom trinity and two copies of the VC.

Incremental at best. It's still the 24-70 I will end up with the G2 because I never really had any complaints with the original VC. Always liked it's IQ but the warm color cast I've grown away from liking it. I think from the color/contrast I'd be much happier with the mk2

I keep telling myself "I need the VC" but honestly I probably don't need it.

One of the main things I'm doing right now is owning/testing the 16-35 F4 IS vs the 2.8 III. The III doens't really offer up much on the IQ department... it's barely better than the F4 and AF are the same however the 2.8 does indeed make a pretty substantial difference with bokeh quality...

...just trying to determine if it's really "worth it". I'm not a guy who buys the best just because... I look at money first. 200/2 probably going out the door after this baseball season.

Talley wrote in post #18457718
don't forget I had the tamron zoom trinity and two copies of the VC.

Incremental at best. It's still the 24-70 I will end up with the G2 because I never really had any complaints with the original VC. Always liked it's IQ but the warm color cast I've grown away from liking it. I think from the color/contrast I'd be much happier with the mk2

I keep telling myself "I need the VC" but honestly I probably don't need it.

One of the main things I'm doing right now is owning/testing the 16-35 F4 IS vs the 2.8 III. The III doens't really offer up much on the IQ department... it's barely better than the F4 and AF are the same however the 2.8 does indeed make a pretty substantial difference with bokeh quality...

...just trying to determine if it's really "worth it". I'm not a guy who buys the best just because... I look at money first. 200/2 probably going out the door after this baseball season.

The 24-70ii goes on the used market for as low as 1200, pretty darn good deal. Sony version will cost me 50% more, so will only buy when absolutely needed. Making due with small primes.

Dustin Abbott's part 2 review of the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens...

https://www.youtube.co​m …Dk&feature=em-uploademail

Looks good...but please don't let facts get in the way! I like the "ART" designation on the Sigma better!

It helps my monitor at work is a calibrated 4K display

I can't wait for Tamron to release the G6 version

How fun! Who says trolls are newbies? Talley's been here almost as long as ... "some others"!
Hmmm...

exact same optics.

the original can be had for 700 new from tamron, the g2 is 1200 and the premium doesnt seem worth it to me. Used copy of G1 can be found for 4-600.....