Previous news story    Next news story

Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom

By dpreview staff on Feb 6, 2012 at 16:34 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Tamron has announced a 24-70mm F2.8 zoom for full frame cameras that features inbuilt optical stabilisation - a first in this class of lens. The SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD, to give it its full name, also incorporates an Ultrasonic Silent Drive motor for autofocus, which allows full-time manual focus. The lens is moisture-resistant, and features a circular aperture diaphragm for the attractive rendition of background blur. It will be produced in Canon, Nikon and Sony mounts, with price and availability to be confirmed at a later date.

Press release:

 Tamron develops full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in image stabilization – SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007)

With class-leading resolution and Tamron’s proprietary VC (Vibration Compensation)

February 6th, 2012, Saitama, Japan - Tamron Co., Ltd., a leading manufacturer of optical equipment, announced the development of the SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007), a full-size high-speed standard zoom lens equipped with VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive), with resolution at the top of its class.

The price and availability of the SP 24-70mm will be announced at a later date.   

Product Features

  1. A full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in VC ( Vibration Compensation). Even when shooting in low-light conditions with a slow shutter speed to render sharpness, Tamron’s acclaimed VC allows for stable handheld camera work, to more fully enjoy the benefits of this high-speed zoom lens.
  2. Uses special high-grade glass in the three LD elements, three glass molded aspherical lenses, one hybrid aspherical lens and two XR (Extra Refractive Index) glasses, delivering top-of-the-class quality images suited to this high-grade lens. Using a rounded diaphragm, the lens achieves gorgeous blur effects. This rounded diaphragm retains a nearly circular shape even when taken two stops down from its fully open state.
  3. Features Tamron proprietary USD ( Ultrasonic Silent Drive) to power a speedy AF drive together with a continuous manual mechanism.  
  4. This high-speed standard zoom lens has a wide-end focal length of 24mm that expands the photographic area.
  5. The lens adopts the new technology including the latest optical design, VC ( Vibration Compensation) image stabilization and USD ( Ultrasonic Silent Drive), all in a lighter and more compact package.
  6. Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent water from penetrating the lens.

Specifications:

Model A007 
 Focal length 24-70mm
 Maximum aperture F/2.8 
 Angle of view (diagonal) 84°04’ -34°21’ (for full frame 35mm format cameras)
60°20’ -22°33’ (for APS-C format cameras)
 Lens construction 17 elements in 12 groups
 Minimum focus distance 0.38m (15.0 in) 
 Maximum magnification ratio 0.20x
 Filter size 82mm 
 Length 108.5mm* 
 Diameter 88.2mm
 Weight 825g* 
 No. of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded diaphragm) 
 Minimum aperture F/22
 Standard accessories  Flower-shaped lens hood
 Compatible mounts  Canon, Nikon, Sony**

* Length and weight values given are for the Nikon mount
** The Sony mount does not include VC, because the body of Sony digital SLR cameras includes image stabilization functionality. The product name for Sony cameras is “SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di USD” without the VC designation

270
I own it
85
I want it
16
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 191
12
easyliving
By easyliving (Mar 25, 2013)

Sorry, does it communicate distance infos to Canon and Nikon bodies, to obtain more precise exposure with dedicated flashes?

0 upvotes
johnmcpherson
By johnmcpherson (Nov 19, 2012)

Everyone is so hung up on technology these days...

Don't loose sight of the what the technology is for, to allow you to 'see' and record what you see.

If you cannot see the best technology is useless.

Remember, it's not about the camera...

0 upvotes
TigrouMeow
By TigrouMeow (Apr 8, 2012)

Amazon Japan: This item will be released on April 26, 2012.

0 upvotes
thegoldenhand
By thegoldenhand (Apr 6, 2012)

bhphoto has it on preoder for $1299. i am a bit disappointed in the price. but i guess since its on preorder bhphoto just put the msrp there. hopefully once the stocks come in it starts to level off around $1099 or best case $999.

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (Apr 6, 2012)

@ Eric Sorenson from what I read on Adorama, the Tamron only seems to be priced about $100 less than the canon version, however its about $300-400 less than the Nikon version

0 upvotes
canderanet
By canderanet (Mar 7, 2012)

I mean for my pentax k5

0 upvotes
canderanet
By canderanet (Mar 7, 2012)

I've bought tammy 18-250mm and 70-200mm for myentx k-5 and planning to keep buying tammy lens. But after this news telling that no pentax mount for this 24-70mm lens, that mean tammy force us to buy sigma? Is that right?

0 upvotes
Eric Sorensen
By Eric Sorensen (Feb 18, 2012)

I might just have to sell my old tyme EF 24-70 and pick this one up (if it's even the least bit sharp). I really need IS, and that new canon 24-70 is way too much.

1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Feb 17, 2012)

I cannot understand why neither Nikon nor Canon make an IS 24-70mm or 24-85mm lens. IS is absolutly necessary for video. Canon have the 24-105mm f4 but it is softish and loses 2 and a half stops in the corners at f4.

Why a company that does not make DSLRs, let alone HDSLRs is the only one to do an IS 24-70mm is just crazy- like going to a hospital with no beds, or making a car with three wheels.

Next we'll discover that the D800 does not provide peripheral illumination correction for video, and that the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II is yet another dud.

But I bet that this is mostly plastic! and that IQ is not any use on 35MP because the lens droops as it extends, like a cheesy Nikon unmentionable.

It is difficult to realise that these design choices are all made to frustrate us, and get us to pay out for the next programmed "improvement" Duh!!

0 upvotes
Vicariousgeorge
By Vicariousgeorge (Feb 12, 2012)

82mm filter?!?!

You can't really tell from the picture, but that is a gigantic lens.

1 upvote
fpl1966
By fpl1966 (Feb 11, 2012)

unfortunately, as far I understood, it is not internal fucusing (front lens rotate). Make a bit annoyng using filters as C-PL I think. Not a big issue, you can live with it.

0 upvotes
moesi
By moesi (Feb 12, 2012)

The lens hood would appear to mount to the end of the lens in a fashion that requires the filter ring not to rotate (they note it's a "flower" hood, so not universal in how it must be on the lens). The 28-75mm f2.8 was similar. The barrel extends, but does not rotate and I suspect the same will be true of this lens. It may also be that the front does not extend at all, given that they have called it water resistant. That would be an obvious weakness if it does (and easier to seal if it doesn't).

Plus, you can see that the manual focus ring is near the back of the lens, just behind the gold colored band, which leads me to believe it is internally focused. If the front rotates during AF, you usually rotate the front to focus manually.

0 upvotes
tastop07
By tastop07 (Feb 12, 2012)

Dear fpl1966 & moesi,
1)I 'm sure for the same (non-rotating front element - ideal for C-PL) because of the strong theory about the flower-shaped lens-hood & besides i own the model A005 (70-300mm VC USD) and they have almost the exact same look(the front element of A005 does not rotate).
2)I disagree with your theory (internal focusing & water-resistance) cause otherwise why would a lens need the "lock" button (i suspect to lock the lens at 24mm in order not to extend by it's own weight as you carry it - don't forget 82mm filter means extra weight like 825gr in total !!!). And in addition to the water-resistance matter i believe that the secret is behind the words "moisture-resistance". For me this phrase tells me that only light drops of water can keep out from the inner parts of the lens !!!
And definitely it's a Full TimeManual (focus) lens !
Also see:
http://www.tamron.com.au/di24-70_a007.html

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Feb 10, 2012)

Lens request for Tamron: The Sony R1 has a 14.3-71.5mm F2.8-4.8 zoom lens (equivalent to 24-120mm). I'm willing to carry around a little more weight if you can give us 1.5 crop users something like a 16-85mm F2.8 or even a 16-105mm! I don't mind an 82mm or larger filter size if it means I can get such a lens =)

Another idea...how about a 17-55mm F1.8? I always wish I could have the F1.8 that primes offer, but I can't stand not being able to zoom! How come there aren't any zooms brighter than F2.8?

Maybe these lenses would cost $3000. Oh well. It's fun to dream =)

0 upvotes
Michael Knight
By Michael Knight (Feb 9, 2012)

I wonder, why the Sony mount removed the VC.

I understood that Sony has in-body IS. but I doubt the cost difference between Canikon mount vs Sony mount. if that's the case, can't Tamron put the VC on the Sony mount?

Imagine, IS on both body AND lens. users will gain more than 4 stops!! how come no manufacturer is doing this?

0 upvotes
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (Feb 9, 2012)

Because the two VR systems will, when working simultaneously, actually crate MORE vibration! Same reason you don't want to use VR when the camera is on a tripod.

1 upvote
Leok
By Leok (Feb 9, 2012)

Wow where can I get one?

Since switching to Nikon (from Pentax) to get FF I've really missed having VR in my short lenses. I'll use it a lot, it allows low light shooting without a tripod - even the mighty D700 does have noise at high ISOs

0 upvotes
CraigHarris
By CraigHarris (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm struggling to believe the attitude of most people's responses - how can anyone think IS is useless? People seem to be slagging off scenarios without actually encountering them and comparing the image quality with and without IS for a given situation.

The 1 over focal length rule is an absolute bare minimum which I don't like being close to as it's not good enough, to get away with 1/70th at 70mm you have to hold the camera extremely still ... almost everyone should see a better image at 1/200; however IS allows sharp photos at 1/10th meaning the photographer can concentrate on the content of the image and not worry about other factors that might kill the photo quality.

IS can make a massive difference in many situations - what I really want is Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L with IS, but they clearly aren't going to bothering offering it which means I then need to carry a 24-105 f/4L IS plus a selection of primes for when f/4 is not fast enough.

I eagerly await the review of this lens.

0 upvotes
mungozan
By mungozan (Feb 8, 2012)

There is the IS new Canon 24-70 should have had.

4 upvotes
davidodd
By davidodd (Feb 7, 2012)

Honest question. Why would you need IS on a fast lens with a max reach of 70mm? The extra weight etc is significant for limited utility? How many would want to shoot <1/70 for portraits etc?

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (Feb 7, 2012)

Take a look at the comments on here regarding Canon's update of their 24-70 2.8 without IS. Find other forums discussing it too.

Wedding and event photographers want 24-70 2.8 with IS. It's something that's been discussed for years...though I personally can take it or leave it, others have waiting a long time.

Unfortunately Tamron's AF is slow; at least that's been my experience.

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Feb 7, 2012)

I have shaky hands. So for me shooting at 1/focal length sometimes means blurry shots. Additionally, it would be nice to be able to shoot 1/50 @ 70mm and still get a tack sharp shot.

0 upvotes
moesi
By moesi (Feb 12, 2012)

@cordellwillis; Tamron has only had a couple lenses with the newer USD focusing system (such as the 70-300 f4-5.6 USD VC). My experience with those lenses is that they are nearly as good as the Canon/Nikon lenses. The difference is negligible enough that it is difficult to tell the difference.

The Tamron VC system is really fantastic. If the optics are as good as the 28-75mm f2.8 (I think they will actually be better), then this should be a great lens. Hopefully it isn't too expensive, but how much different is it to make than the 70-300 VC USD? That one runs a very reasonable $450 or so.

1 upvote
inasir1971
By inasir1971 (Mar 28, 2012)

You need IS if you want to take shots at low shutter speeds. My Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (comparable to 24-88 FF) easily allows me to take shots at or below 1/15 second which is what you need with no flash at reasonable ISO's. It is far better than my 24mm 1.4 because of the very shallow DOF at f/1.4.Without IS what you could have shot at ISO 1600-3200 would need ISO 6400-12800 where noise starts to be a factor.

IS is the norm in this focal length range on virtually every crop factor camera - it hasn't made it to full frame because of the increased size for full frame (note that the Tamron is an 82mm lens) and hence weight and complexity.

0 upvotes
David Emery
By David Emery (Feb 7, 2012)

I guess '82mm is the new 77mm' (largest filter size...) :-)

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Feb 7, 2012)

825g ouch!

1 upvote
Pete Mc
By Pete Mc (Feb 7, 2012)

My advice would be try before you buy.

I bought the 18-270mm with VC only to find it was much sharper with it turned off. The first one I received I thought might be faulty, but the replacement was exactly the same. You get amazing specifications on Tamrons, but unfortunately the results aren't equally impressive.

2 upvotes
astrocrab
By astrocrab (Feb 7, 2012)

this is because of camera settings. VC is powering on during shooting so it makes picture blurred. VC must be turning on _before_. now i have very useful VC in still and especially in video mode.

0 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Feb 8, 2012)

My 18-270 was a dog. Soft throughout its entire range with or without stabilization, even micro-adjusted. Even my "kit" Canon EF 28-135mm was a lot sharper.

Sold the Tamron and bought a EF 24-105mm f/4L - *fantastic* lens!

The whole experience soured me on ever trusting Tamron as a brand again.

The new Canon 24-70 is stupid-expensive but if its *actually* as sharp as the MTF charts imply I may have to get one...seriously.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Sassylass
By Sassylass (Mar 1, 2012)

Thanks for mentioning that factor! I've been debating about what to do w/mine for that very reason. I'll run out & try it w/VC off, or it's going back while under warranty to have it checked out!!

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 7, 2012)

Oooo... well... Canon... is here: BUT NO IS!!! on the 24-70 zoom!!!???

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS

:P

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Feb 7, 2012)

The first 24-70 to have image stabilization ......will nikon and canon follow.....

1 upvote
Zebooka
By Zebooka (Feb 7, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS

0 upvotes
Argote
By Argote (Feb 7, 2012)

Sony has had IS on the Carl-Zeiss 24-70/2.8 SSM for a couple of years now...

1 upvote
MSTR Photography
By MSTR Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't know about Canon, but Nikon has a patent on file in Japan for this lens. However, I see three problems with this lens. One is the filter size - 82 (ugh!). Two focusing speed with Tamron will not compete with Canon, Nikon, or Sony. Three and worst of all, external focusing.

0 upvotes
tastop07
By tastop07 (Feb 13, 2012)

Dear MSTR Photography,
1)The new Canon 24-70mm also has 82mm filter.
2)Did you try the AF speed of new A005(70-300mm VC USD)?
I have one and in practice is very quick (running through the whole scale at 70mm takes about 0.7 of a second !!!)
Believe me !
3)It depends on why someone wants this lens. Do you really want to shoot outdoors when raining. Besides Tamron says that this is a moisture-resistant lens, so some light rain won't hurt the lens...a tempest though eh...well that's another story !!!

0 upvotes
KetanJ
By KetanJ (Feb 7, 2012)

$600? Welcome to papa

2 upvotes
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (Feb 7, 2012)

oooops 82mm filter tilt no good waste of money the filter will kill you trust me i know i sell them ................

1 upvote
DWR0082
By DWR0082 (Feb 7, 2012)

Sentences are your friend. While not ideal this + 82mm filter is still going to be way less than a Nikon 24-70.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 7, 2012)

Geez, how many filters do people still use? I had a bunch of filters back in the film days, but the *only* round filter I use these days in the digital age is a polarizer. I don't think an 82mm filter size is as big of an issue as some people seem to think it is.

2 upvotes
CraigHarris
By CraigHarris (Feb 8, 2012)

Compared to prices of lenses an 82mm UV is not that bad.
The only other round filter of use these days is a CPL, and ND, ND Grad & CPLs can easily be used in square format and an 82mm adaptor for such is a mere $10

1 upvote
BayAreaHair
By BayAreaHair (Feb 27, 2012)

I suspect the larger filter size is to get better edge sharpness for Full Frame camera's. DX camera's only use the center portion of the lens. However, us Full Frame users uses the whole lens and if making the lens wider give me better edge sharpness as did the Canon 24-70 F2.8II then so be it.

0 upvotes
Len_Gee
By Len_Gee (Feb 7, 2012)

Could be a killer lens for both Crop Sensor and FF cameras..
Who wants a Canon dated 24-70 L with no IS?
Canon better get off it's ass and put out the 24-70L IS sooner than later.

2 upvotes
Zebooka
By Zebooka (Feb 7, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS
HAHA :)

0 upvotes
Mr Fartleberry
By Mr Fartleberry (Feb 7, 2012)

Nikon announces 36MP. Canon pro users stuck with their new "magic pixels" for several more years.

1 upvote
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (Feb 7, 2012)

What does that have to do with this lens from Tamron?

0 upvotes
astrocrab
By astrocrab (Feb 7, 2012)

nikon's 25'000 ISO in boost vs canon's 200'000 ISO in boost. i agree.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Bgn007
By Bgn007 (Feb 7, 2012)

This lens is for full-frame cameras, i.e. for serious photographers that have invested over $2K in their camera boddies alone. And no serious photographer wants to compromise the IQ for a few hundred dollar cheaper lens.

This lens better be good, otherwise nobody will buy it.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
astrocrab
By astrocrab (Feb 7, 2012)

i have tamron 28-75 2.8 (FF) on 7D (crop) and i must say lens worth it's money

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Feb 7, 2012)

Looks great.
I had the 28-75 and though it was sharp the FOV at 75mm was more like 60mm.

Hopefully this one answers that problem.

1 upvote
Anfernee Cheang
By Anfernee Cheang (Feb 7, 2012)

Nice Tamron. 82mm filter definitely will cost more, by I think I can expect better border performance from this design.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Feb 7, 2012)

Kudos Tamron! I hope it is optically sound!

2 upvotes
Ben Tomohiku
By Ben Tomohiku (Feb 7, 2012)

Nice replacement of 28-75!

2 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (Feb 7, 2012)

Now if Nikon would make a 24-85/2.8-4 AFS VR (and way way better than the old 24-85/2.8-4D) I'd be set.

1 upvote
tastop07
By tastop07 (Feb 13, 2012)

...and maybe to win the lottery !!! (no offense !)

0 upvotes
ChipperGuy
By ChipperGuy (Feb 7, 2012)

Long over due, with or without VC. I agree disappointed that the Pentax mount is missing - but then I can't remember when I was last asked for a new Pentax mount lens :(

Now to see what Tamron has in store for the m43 mount....

1 upvote
locke_fc
By locke_fc (Feb 6, 2012)

No Pentax mount? That's disappointing, Tamron

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Feb 7, 2012)

no, offense but pentax doesn't have much of a future

1 upvote
Zebooka
By Zebooka (Feb 7, 2012)

Pentax is no longer producing main stream cameras. See Q and K-01 and all colorish Kore-Ja-Naj "cameras". Toys for Japan teens, nothing more. Bad QC. Lots of problems...
It is sad, but it's a competition market.

0 upvotes
fberns
By fberns (Feb 7, 2012)

Pentax promised more new cameras (DSLRs) this year.
I wish they would do better on the markets, they produced some great cameras.

0 upvotes
Argote
By Argote (Feb 7, 2012)

Could be because this focal range is more suited to Full Frame cameras while Pentax only does APS-C (and Medium format).

0 upvotes
ManixM
By ManixM (Feb 6, 2012)

Yihaaa - I am numer 100.
It is my day - I will buy a lotto coupon.
Merry X-mas.

0 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (Feb 6, 2012)

I look forward to owning this lens, but I don't look forward to playing lens lottery.

0 upvotes
AppleboyJR
By AppleboyJR (Feb 6, 2012)

how much will it cost?

0 upvotes
T34
By T34 (Feb 6, 2012)

Well, so you think this lens will be the equal of a Nikon or Canon 24-70mm f2.8? Guess again! You get what you pay for in Life, Tamron lenses are Junk! For every Ten they make, maybe your lucky enough to get one that's actually sharp, the rest will be soft. Don't waste your money!

0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Feb 6, 2012)

You may be confusing Tamron with Sigma...

7 upvotes
Steven
By Steven (Feb 6, 2012)

Tamron is far from junk. There 28-75 Di is a very sharp lens and one of the best bang for buck lens.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 6, 2012)

Nikkor is junk.

0 upvotes
antares103
By antares103 (Feb 7, 2012)

Generalizations are junk.

14 upvotes
ChipperGuy
By ChipperGuy (Feb 7, 2012)

Tamron does well in the limited offerings, many feel the 28-75/2.8 is worthy of the Nikon and Canon offerings. Having owned the Canon version of the Tamron, it was well worth the savings over the Canon version.....

1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Feb 7, 2012)

Everybody please send me your junks. I need them :-)

1 upvote
gonzalu
By gonzalu (Feb 7, 2012)

Junk is Junk :P

0 upvotes
Ben Tomohiku
By Ben Tomohiku (Feb 7, 2012)

well, it gives people who couldn't afford an N or C 24-70 a very good choice. Choosing Tamron or Sigma has always been a budget choice. You will get what you pay for, so don't blame off brands. I meant, why not? Having one more budget choice is always a good thing, isn't it?

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Feb 7, 2012)

Sorry T34 you confused Sigma with Tamron. Sigma is always a lottery. Tamron just like Tokina is much more solid

2 upvotes
DWR0082
By DWR0082 (Feb 7, 2012)

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 begs to differ. Sharpest zoom I've ever used and I got it for only $375 a couple years back.

0 upvotes
Ben Tomohiku
By Ben Tomohiku (Feb 7, 2012)

Agree with Nekrosoft, lots of sigma fast prime lens have shift focusing problems.

0 upvotes
CraigHarris
By CraigHarris (Feb 8, 2012)

If you actually bothered trying them before writing them off, you'd find that Canon's cheaper lenses are far lower quality than 3rd party lenses.

The appeal for this lens though is that there isn't a Canon equivalent!

0 upvotes
Klarth
By Klarth (Mar 17, 2012)

Another man's junk...

But i agree that Sigma QC is deplorable.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
NovemberSun
By NovemberSun (Feb 6, 2012)

Refreshing to see some genuine competition rolling out finally

2 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Lens makers, I want something with more range! How come the Fuji X10 can have a 28-112mm F2-2.8 while larger sensor shooters are stuck with lenses like this 24-70 that only zooms less than 3X? Is it because it will be too big? I would LOVE to have a 24-120mm F2.8 with VR. A lot of people liked the 28-105mm F2.8, and with today's technology, I would think that more could be done. With more cameras supporting in-camera lens distortion correction, I'm excited about the future of lenses.

0 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (Feb 6, 2012)

The X10's lens is a 7.1-28.4mm f/2.0-2.8.
If you want to compare that to a lens on "full frame", this can be done, but not by multiplying only one set of those numbers.
The X10's lens is equivalent in angle of view, depth of field control and ability to capture total number of photons per time to a 28-112 f/8.0-11.0 lens on "full frame".

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 6, 2012)

Nonsense. That is photographic folklore, combined with urban legend.

Truth is, an F2.8 lens is an F2.8 lens. Image circle is another story.

Who would be idiotic and desperate enough to spend two bits and an apple on a zoom lens that can open up to F8 or F11, anyhow?

0 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (Feb 7, 2012)

No, it's completely true - everything I said. I said "number of photons" - not "density of photons".
It's simple physics, but I have realised by now that people are very reluctant to accept it. They will rather believe that they get a "28-112 f/2.0-2.8" lens. Strange though that their "28/2" shots do look nothing like a real 28/2 looks on "full frame". Wonder why that is... ...well, if you understand what I said in my first post, you won't need to wonder any more.

Generally, I would not buy an F8 to F11 zoom lens - which was exactly my point. Such a lens can be very compact, though - so it's not as "idiotic" as you might think.

1 upvote
ChipperGuy
By ChipperGuy (Feb 7, 2012)

In the end it is what people will be willing to spend. And carry around. I remember when the 28-105/2.8 was around. It was a great lens, but did not sell well due to the size and cost at the time.

0 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm afraid you ARE mistaken. The amount of light captured by say one f/2 lens is similar to all f/2 lenses (well for the most part, actual transmission may vary), what you're thinking of is DOF.

As the exit pupil (actual focal length / f number) decreases in size, the DOF increases, which is where that whole equation came from. As far as the amount of light captured, it stays the same. It is unaffected by focal length (Which is essentially the only different between the Fuji lens and full frame lens)

If what your saying is true, then the f/2.8 aperture of a Canon 400mm f2.8 captures ~30 times more light than the Canon 14mm f2.8, and we all know THAT isn't true…

0 upvotes
JensR
By JensR (Feb 7, 2012)

The light densities (photons per area and time) of all f/2 lenses are the same - but I never said anything else.
But an f/2 lens on "full frame" will cover roughly twice the area than f/2 on APS-C with that same photon density, so it captures twice the number of photons per picture and unit of time.

Hence, your 400/2.8 and 14/2.8 example is just not what we are discussing. As they both project onto the same sensor, they of course project the same number of photons per time and image _as_well_as_ same number of photons per area and time.

Your reasoning that focal length is the only thing different is incomplete. It is quite clear that the aperture diameter (in mm) is different as well. Which brings us back to my original point.

1 upvote
TTMartin
By TTMartin (Feb 29, 2012)

Remember the f/2 is a ratio of the true focal length. So with the tiny sensor of the Fuji X10 the true focal length of the lens is only a few mm. So the lens opening is half of that. Given the monster depth of fields tiny lenses have to start with, the Fuji X10 really not that impressive, nor does it's technology translate well to larger lenses.

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (Feb 6, 2012)

Sign me up. The real question is will this put any pressure on Canon to finally update the now-ancient 24-70L

5 upvotes
taylorzhang
By taylorzhang (Feb 6, 2012)

this looks just right, hope it's a bit lighter

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Feb 6, 2012)

Ive been shooting the Nikkor 24-70 for almost 3 years, i dont think ive ever needed IS/VR once. If you are shooting under 1/60, youre going to get motion blur from your subject... so, nice sharp background and blurry subjects.

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

I shoot a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 on a DX body, and I know I could benefit greatly from VR. Video shooters could also benefit from VR.

5 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Feb 6, 2012)

I agree with Jogger. I have the Canon 24-70mm and I've never needed IS. It's looking like the Canon 24-70mm II will not have IS and I'm glad. Of course everyone else is complaining about it.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Feb 6, 2012)

If you don't like VR just switch it off. Duh!

8 upvotes
footdoc66
By footdoc66 (Feb 6, 2012)

Not a matter of switching it off, it's a matter of paying for something you don't want or need.

2 upvotes
questionlp
By questionlp (Feb 7, 2012)

Adding to footdoc66, is the extra weight and 82mm filter size worth it if one doesn't need VR/IS?

For me, I'll stick with faster primes that don't weight down the camera as much.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
davidbindle
By davidbindle (Feb 7, 2012)

I've definitely wished I had IS a few times. Whether it be some posed wedding pictures where the subjects are not moving, or taking some lower light scenics in the canyonlands of Utah. We can't always have tripods with us, especially when carrying a baby back pack. I have both the older 28-70 2.8L and the somewhat newer 24.70 2.8L and the 5DMkII and 60D. I use IS all the time with my 70-200 2.8L IS at 70mm (well, throughout the range...) Someone else pointed out... it is nice to have in video mode as well. I say well done Tamron... now I just hope the quality is right up there. I doubt it would be sub $1K though... or does someone know this.

2 upvotes
mwirayudha
By mwirayudha (Feb 7, 2012)

Sometimes we don't need that shallow dof. That's where VC come in handy...

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (Feb 7, 2012)

FYI.. not all subjects move.

4 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Feb 7, 2012)

Is there a bit of sentimentality speaking there?

0 upvotes
questionlp
By questionlp (Feb 7, 2012)

There's a reason why there are as many kinds of lenses as there are styles and schools of photography. I have several lenses that have VR/IS and use them when I need reach (70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-300mm VR). For the 24-70mm focal length range, I just can't justify the size, weight and cost... with or without VR/IS.

I don't use fast primes only for shallow DOF or for nostalgia; instead, I like to travel as lightly as possible and it fits the photography that I do.

0 upvotes
CraigHarris
By CraigHarris (Feb 8, 2012)

Some subjects don't move; others can be frozen with flash ... plus when shooting in dark rooms, I'd rather have 1 tiny bit of motion blur in the frame than the whole photo destroyed by camera shake.

IS isn't needed all the time, but there's a switch to cover than ... then when conditions require such you can still take great photos :)

0 upvotes
TTMartin
By TTMartin (Feb 29, 2012)

@Dan - it wasn't the need for VC that made your shots blurry, it was the awful slow hunting autofocus system that Tamron lens has. Hopefully, Tamron's SLD will perform as well as Canon's USM and Sigma's HSM.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Feb 6, 2012)

I hope the VC doesn't interfere with the quality, the way it did with the 17-50mm VC compared to usual versions. If so it makes a lot more sense than the Canikon versions, weighing almost as much, but offering much better low-light capabilities.

I know from the Tamron lenses I have (non-VC 17-50mm, 90mm macro) that they can make incredible lenses when they put their minds to it. I also dont hear as much about quality variation as with Sigma, it seems that what you see is what you get. I'm actually thinking this could hint at to an even better version of the 17-50mm as well.

2 upvotes
Photogaz
By Photogaz (Feb 6, 2012)

How many stops is the IS? Don't Tamron mention these things in their press release?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Feb 6, 2012)

Expect 2 - 3 eV. 4 eV is except some longer telephotos from Nikon/Canon just wishful dreaming.

0 upvotes
Photogaz
By Photogaz (Feb 6, 2012)

That's great but why is only ever Canon state their stops?

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (Feb 7, 2012)

In a lot of ways I would say to mention the number of stops for IS is marketing.

0 upvotes
CraigHarris
By CraigHarris (Feb 8, 2012)

Whilst 4 stops would be awesome, 2 stops would be enough to make a difference; I think they should publish this information, but I'm happy to wait for a review for such as I won't consider a purchase without reading in-depth reviews anyway.

0 upvotes
Bjorn_L
By Bjorn_L (Feb 6, 2012)

Looks like a real winner based on specifications. The proof will be how it preforms optically. if it as good as their 28-75 f2.8 I am interested.
If I could wish for two things only it would be a little higher magnification, 1:2 instead of 1:5 and of course 85mm on the long end. But as is, it is interesting enough to make me want to learn more about it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 6, 2012)

Absolutely brilliant. I am sure this lens is gonna be a major seller for Tamron.

1 upvote
R Valentino
By R Valentino (Feb 6, 2012)

There are Pentax users?

0 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Feb 6, 2012)

Have you ever thought about applying to work in the camera department at Best Buy? I think it'd be a good fit for you.

6 upvotes
grahamdyke
By grahamdyke (Feb 6, 2012)

1. Tamron stopped making lenses in Pentax mount over two years ago. The last one they did was the 10-24.
2. Pentax don't have a FF camera, so don't need FF lenses.
3. Pentax SR is in body, so don't need VC.
4. All The Tamron VC and Sigma OS lenses are inferior optically to their non VC/OS predicessors.
5. This will NOT be as good optically (IQ) as the existing Tamron 28-75 FF lens, which is now 8 years old.
6. It will carry a 50% price premium over the Tamron 28-75.

3 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Feb 6, 2012)

I think you mean that Tamron has stopped RELEASING new Pentax lenses. They still make and sell a variety of lenses for Pentax.

Just because a lens supports FF, doesn't mean APS-C users won't want to buy it. The Tamron 28-75mm is a good example.

True, we don't need VC (thanks Pentax!), but lens makers are starting to include it on a lot of lenses. Luckily, SR can be disabled in the body and/or the lens.

IQ is yet to be determined. Canon and Nikon make some stabilized lenses with excellent IQ, so it can certainly be done.

All that being said, there are reasons I would consider replacing my 28-75mm with this lens:

1. This lens has silent focusing. May also be quicker (That's yet to be seen.)

2. At the wide end, 24mm provides much more flexibility than 28mm on an APS-C camera.

3. According to the press release, this lens has a "moisture-resistant construction". If true, then that would make it an excellent match for Pentax DSLR's, several of which are weather-sealed.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (Feb 6, 2012)

Pentax will re-badge it as they did on Pentax DA 18-250 ?

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Feb 6, 2012)

Probably no, cause today Pentax isnt yesterday Pentax. Not sure where Ricoh make their lens, but I think that will be source of current Pentax lens.

Tho considering their A12 module, why not..

0 upvotes
Luis Fonseca
By Luis Fonseca (Feb 6, 2012)

Thanks Tamron, you just made me go Sigma. Thanks Sigma for your K-mount lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Feb 6, 2012)

Once again, Pentax users get snubbed. Oh well, I guess I'll just use my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 forever, and keep looking to Sigma when I want to burn some cash.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 6, 2012)

I don't think it is a snub as much as a business decision based on projected sales. They didn't make it for Olympus or Sigma SA either.

0 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Feb 6, 2012)

I'm quite sure the Pentax DSLR user base now is significantly larger than it was several years ago when Tamron made lenses for Pentax. If there were sufficient numbers back then to justify supporting K-mount, then why have they started to pull back recently?

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 191
12