Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Nov 18, 2012 at 10:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Just Posted: Our samples gallery from the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. The company's latest fast maximum aperture, stabilized standard zoom was announced back in February, but really comes into its own with the recent announcements of more affordable full-frame bodies from Canon and Nikon. We've put together a gallery of images shot in a variety of situations with the Canon EOS 5D Mark III to give a taste for what it can do.

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD preview samples - published 18 November 2012

There are 39 images in the preview samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

270
I own it
84
I want it
16
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 149
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
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Mar 14, 2013)

As an events photographer, I plan to get this for its VC. However, from other forums I have been told that there are some issues with the Optical Stabilizer, anyone with this lens have some thoughts on this? Cheers!

0 upvotes
Johan Huang
By Johan Huang (Dec 9, 2012)

is it just me or this tammy produce more harsh bokeh & less sharp at 2.8 but gone better up.

1 upvote
Airless
By Airless (Nov 27, 2012)

Looks like Tamron just put Canikon's $2000 non-IS zooms out of business!

0 upvotes
Vanellus
By Vanellus (Nov 26, 2012)

By way of further clarification, I have been using a Canon 24-105 L for some time. A great lens but I wanted greater flexibility in low light shooting.

All my cathedral shots are in available light, usually at 1,600 ISO, but no more than that, with as little image manipulation in Lightroom as possible.

For me, the Tamron lens does the business with super colour rendition.

1 upvote
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Nov 25, 2012)

This is too big and heavy for my liking, I'd sooner keep my 24-70L. I used to have a 28-75 Tamron f2.8, and the size, weight and quality were great. The only reason I got the 24-70L instead was the focus was much faster.

I really hope Tamron remake the 28-75 with ultra sonic motor (USD / USM) and leave off the IS. That will make it into a true competitor to the 24-70 f4 IS L, size wise. And it would probably be lighter and less thick. :)

0 upvotes
Vanellus
By Vanellus (Nov 30, 2012)

Err, the Canon 24-70 L is the heavier of the two lenses.

1 upvote
Vanellus
By Vanellus (Nov 24, 2012)

This lens solved a number of issues for me. I'm 76 with arthritis and am passionate about cathedrals. Both are relevant. I had a Canon 24-70 L which was far too heavy for me and was an ergonomic nightmare when attached to my Canon 5D Mk II; together they were badly unbalanced. Now I can shoot free hand in many locations that are inaccessible with a tripod. I don't know that the lens is there as it is so well balanced.

The Tamron is a cracking piece of glass comparing well with my other Canon L Series lenses. Very sharp and together with Lightroom 4.2 most anomalies are easily corrected. Also, the VC is a real bonus; I've only had one dud shot so far from camera shake. I'm getting some great images.

Highly recommended!

1 upvote
cyberstudio
By cyberstudio (Nov 22, 2012)

My only gripe was that the zoom and focusing rings follow Nikon's direction and I am a Canon user. Expensive, but more than fully delivers for its price.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Nov 21, 2012)

Many of the excellent shots have a streak (oil?!) horizontally, in the upper left corner - or is it a lens fault?!

0 upvotes
mblg
By mblg (Nov 21, 2012)

Clean your screen. There is not streak of oil.

3 upvotes
beach bouy
By beach bouy (Nov 21, 2012)

I have one of these, I've done portraits and landscape images. It works great. I've had no trouble on my 7D with 12 fps shooting and VC. I usually use the 12 fps for HDR bracketing. Much better than the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L for sharpness, and just about everything else. Great price. Cant wait to see the 70-200 VC. I hope it keeps up with the quality.

1 upvote
zkool5
By zkool5 (Dec 28, 2012)

Agreed, the Tamron 24-70mm has really outdone Canon's effort with the latter's disappointing $2300+ version. The USD is almost silent, and together with the VC plus the great color & sharpness, I think Canon only has it going for them due to branding.

0 upvotes
zkool5
By zkool5 (Dec 28, 2012)

Agreed, the Tamron 24-70mm has really outdone Canon's effort with the latter's disappointing $2300+ version. The USD is almost silent, and together with the VC plus the great color & sharpness, I think Canon only has it going for them due to branding.

0 upvotes
zkool5
By zkool5 (Dec 28, 2012)

Agreed, the Tamron 24-70mm has really outdone Canon's effort with the latter's disappointing $2300+ version. The USD is almost silent, and together with the VC plus the great color & sharpness, I think Canon only has it going for them due to branding.

0 upvotes
Hannu Liivaar
By Hannu Liivaar (Nov 19, 2012)

Wow, 100+ comments so far, seems a popular unit. Have been using this for more than five months now (first rented for test,,) For me the main reason is the excellent sharpness at F/2.8 @ 70mm.

Vibration Control works fine with videos, does not work fine with fps shooting (I guess the stabilizer has no time to find a "stable" position between shots). Since the FF body is heavy and stable, as well as my hands, the VC is always turned off (except videos). At a positive size, VC works fine at single shot mode (so no continuous).

CA sometimes a problem at corners with high contrast (direct sunlight), even at F/9. Depends on certain situation (angle, subject) though.

Corners are softer than on Canon 24-70 /2.8.

AF is silent, smooth, fast, accurate - could not dream of better.

Glass is so good that it outperforms 21mpix easily. Would like to hear from Nikon D800 users - has anyone had a chance to test this lens with 38mpix?

Other than that, the lens is a real honey.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 19, 2012)

well I am yet to find the zoom lens that give 100 percent edge to edge sharpness when i pixel peep on my d800 when it is wide open . It is a cracken zoom lens though. its always sharp enough that i can print big and the images look good. Thats all i ask of standard zoom because there is not a one of them that is a truly great lens

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 27, 2012)

There are a few D800 / 24-70 VC images around the web, and on Flickr, and they look fantastic. Color and contrast (and likely sharpness) are not quite up the the Nikkor equivalent (wide open I contrast seem less than), but HDSLR shooters, those on a budget, or anyone wanting a great performing zoom need not look further.

0 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Nov 19, 2012)

If I was searching for a full frame all purpose lens, this would definitely be the one.

Is it the best out there? Certainly not.

Is it good enough to produce wonderful images under whatsoever conditions? CERTAINLY YES!

3 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 19, 2012)

I have to say as a portrait photographer who doesnt need a standard zoom except for personal work and on rare occasion. But when I need it I have to have it. this is a really great lens. I use 50mm 85mm primes portrait shoots to do what a standard zoom would. Every now and then I shoot weedings or a corporate event and I have to have a standard zoom. It is really refreshing to not have to pay Nikon 1900 dollars for something I dont use professionaly often. This is a great option as i was unwilling to settle for the poor image quality of the 24-120 f/4 or 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 or espeacially the old sigma that I have had since college.

In the past I have generally held sigma 3rd party lenses in higher regard than Tamron. I have to say this really works to change that. This is a splendid lens that I have already had great success with

Also it is the firs IS wide angle lens I have ever shot. the ability to take hand held workable pictures at 1/10 of a second has some neat applications

4 upvotes
Horshack
By Horshack (Nov 19, 2012)

Here are samples from my Tamron 24-70 on the D800. All the indoor shots were taken at a shutter of 1/13 and all photos are at f/2.8. The full 36MP images are enabled for viewing...

http://horshack.smugmug.com/Other/Tamron-24-70-on-D800/25653517_pc7Qv3#!i=2118494460&k=bxF43Cx

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
chiumeister
By chiumeister (Nov 19, 2012)

thanks for sharing. what color profiles in the D800 did you use? standard, portrait?

0 upvotes
Dodi73
By Dodi73 (Nov 19, 2012)

Wonderful images and composition. More than the lens, I'd envy your eye for Venice...

0 upvotes
Hubert REYNERS
By Hubert REYNERS (Nov 19, 2012)

Is it Venice ? NO, Las Vegas or ... Macao !

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Nov 19, 2012)

More important than examine the IQ of this lens is to analyze its weak internal construction. Avoid it.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 19, 2012)

"Internal construction"?

Three low dispersion LD glass, three aspherical and one hybrid-aspherical element, and two high refractive index (XR) elements, a 9-blade diaphragm, metal mount, made in Japan. It's not a metal tank of a lens like the Canikon version but there's nothing weak about it's construction. It's a solid lens, assembled with tight tolerances.

7 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Nov 19, 2012)

Read Roger Cicala description before say the above. Optical frontal elements fixed with glue!

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 19, 2012)

It's one of the better made Tamron lenses, and it also comes with a 5 year warranty. If you want to avoid it, that's fine, but to recommend to others to do the same because of a personal bias doesn't make much sense. Tons of people have been using Tamron lenses for years without any problems.

8 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 19, 2012)

"Read Roger Cicala description before say the above. Optical frontal elements fixed with glue!"

So??? Watch "Lens Assembly Process", specifically at 2:30-2:40.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/main.html

That's the Canon 500/4L IS, and the lenses are "fixed by adhesives".

5 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Nov 19, 2012)

some cars are glued together - it just comes down to using the right adhesive for the job.

1 upvote
KZMike
By KZMike (Nov 19, 2012)

My experience in aircraft mfg, reinforces what marike6 has said. Glue/Gluing in aircraft mfg/assembly has been used for decades and is becoming more relevant/common as it allows for solid/strong construction/assembly with significant weigh/cost reduction as I expect is the rational for Tamron.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Nov 19, 2012)

LOL!!! avoid because it's glued...LOL!!!

why don't you try screw the glasses together? try it...

2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 19, 2012)

In that case, can I sell you a solid titanium rod with a pinhole opening and a mount machined onto one end? It would be the most robust lens in the world.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 19, 2012)

The guys over at CrisisLab did a comparison video of 4 popular standard zooms - this lens, and the 24-70s from Canon, Nikon and Sigma. It's one of the best (and funniest) comparison videos I've ever seen. Highly recommended.

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/11/canon-nikon-sigma-tamron-24-70mm-lens-shootout/

10 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 19, 2012)

Very instructive video which to me settles the issue (in favor of the Tamron).

Thanks.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (Nov 19, 2012)

too funny. But heart goes out to the fallen lenses. Painful to watch.

0 upvotes
Paul_B Midlands UK
By Paul_B Midlands UK (Nov 19, 2012)

I see this is Tamron’s first lens to feature moisture-resistant construction. Thats great, because my last Tamron died a rapid death in humid conditions in Florida, it got stiff and siezed up and was hopeless. I had it repaired and then a few spec's on rain on the barrel killed it again. So, for me 'moisture proof' is an important improvement. How it compares to e.g. Pentax WR's would be interesting to know. Seems like a very interesting lens for my EOS5 mk3

0 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (Nov 19, 2012)

Where is this in Sony Alpha mount?

0 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (Nov 19, 2012)

according to the PR it does exist: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/tamron/news/new-tamron-sp-24-70mm-zoom-nikon-canon-and-sony

wonder if it has the quiet motor and the Image Stabilisation though

0 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (Nov 20, 2012)

New item, not available yet.

I called Tamron directly and they have no idea when an Alpha mount might be available.

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Jan 31, 2013)

It won't have Image Stabilization.

0 upvotes
Henrikw
By Henrikw (Nov 19, 2012)

I am a wedding photographer and was looking forward to Canon finally releasing a 24-70 IS. I would have bought it at any price. When they screwed us over I decided to sell my old canon 24-70 for this Tamron. Best upgrade I have ever made. The Tamron is noticeably sharper at all focal lengths, a bit wider somehow and the stabilization has saved the day in many low light situations (ie church ceremonies). The vignetting does not bother me – in fact I often add it in post production. I assume tests will show that the Tamron is not quite on par with Canon's new 24-70. However, clients do no pixel peep for sharpness or compare the quality of bokeh. Being able to get a shot a non is lens can't, is more important.
I sincerely hope people with common sense will ignore Canon's overpriced 24-70 mk2 for this great Tamron lens - teach them a lesson for not listening to customer demands.

6 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 19, 2012)

Yeah I keep wondering what the hell Canon was thinking. If Tamron can make a 24-70 f/2.8 with VC Canon damn well can too. Why they went the asinine route the did is mind boggling.

The 24-70 f/4 IS has the short focal length of the 2.8 without the fast aperture that is normally the reason for having a smaller zoom range and the slow F4 aperture which is usually the trade off to have a longer zoom range. They basically took the disadvantages of both the 24-70 and the 24-105 and combined them into one lens. It would have made much more sense to add IS to the f/2.8 version and if they had to have a new standard zoom at the $1500 price point as well they could have just updated the 24-105 too.

2 upvotes
Kokeen4231
By Kokeen4231 (Nov 19, 2012)

A lens I have always considered. Hopefully a review is done on this soon. Would be crucial in deciding the 70 200 F2.8 too

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Nov 19, 2012)

It is funny how many snobs would not buy this lens just beacause it is a Tamron. They don't even bother to comment because it is a Tamron...Nikon and Canon love you guys, that's for sure!!!

10 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Nov 19, 2012)

Hey, I have a Nikon and would seriously look at this if I didn't already own the Nikon version. But the Nikon version in the UK is "only" £1200 and the Canon is (cough) £2100 and doesn't have VR either!

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 19, 2012)

My only observation is that when I owned the Tamron 28-75 2.8 ( good IQ, fair AF speed) it fell surprisingly short of its stated 75mm max FL . It seemed to be only about 65mm compared to the angle of view on my 70-200 Canon.

If this is similar, then the range is even more truncated. Of course I have no way of knowing but the true FL of any lens seems to rarely measured. In primes it may be less of an issue but it sure bothered me in that zoom.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 19, 2012)

its a bit shorter than 70mm but so are almost all zooms (shorter than stated) not enought to cause problems

5 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Nov 19, 2012)

ALL zooms are shorter! And actually you can see those measurements in the magazine Popular Photography! :)

I think the oficial rule is that it cannot be shorter more then 10% of the said focal distance. For instance, before 2005 (or so) all Zoons that ended at 400mm are in reality 360mm!!! :/
(yes, ALL brands!!!)

0 upvotes
B64
By B64 (Nov 19, 2012)

Focal Lenght depends on focus distance as well. I believe focal lengths are measured with the lens set to infinity. For most lenses the focal lenght at the closest focus distance is shorter than at infinity.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 19, 2012)

One of the posters below gave the best chuckle of the night. They would never buy such a lens because, in their words, it's slow.

a) This lens has a huge 82mm filter thread. A hypothetical zoom with constant f2 or faster max aperture would be the size of a can of Foster's Lager and would cost 4 times the price at least.

b) everybody here is fully aware of the advantages of fast primes but this lens is made for when it's not practical to change lenses to get the shot as in photojournalism, sport, weddings, etc

b) f2.8 is a common max aperture on the standard FF professional grade lens like those from Nikon and Canon.

6 upvotes
Shield3
By Shield3 (Nov 19, 2012)

You know Olympus makes a 14-35 F/2 that's not that big (it's like a 28-70 for 4/3rds).

0 upvotes
RobertoAvanzi
By RobertoAvanzi (Nov 19, 2012)

Much smaller sensor, hence the need for MUCH SMALLER glass - you are comparing 4/3 with FF...

3 upvotes
Corwin Lee
By Corwin Lee (Nov 19, 2012)

That 14-35 properly not big compare to full frame lens, but it is almost 1kg .... m43 standard zoom lens with 1kg weight.... seriously not make sense.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Nov 19, 2012)

Because it's a whole stop faster, that lens turns out to be only an inch or two smaller than the canon and nikon lenses.
It is 5 x 7 x 5 inches and weighs 2 pounds.
The Nikon 24-70 is 6 x 9 x 6 inches and weighs 2 pounds.

Optical physics is a cruel mistress.

0 upvotes
PBR Streetgang
By PBR Streetgang (Nov 19, 2012)

f2 and only four times the cost of a can of Fosters? I'm in! ;-)

1 upvote
Shield3
By Shield3 (Nov 20, 2012)

But it's certainly NOT the size of a can of Foster's, and it is a fixed F/2 zoom. And sharp as a razor; I used to own one with an AF-100. I just didn't care for how it performed on a GH2 + the adapter.

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 20, 2012)

m4/3 has a larger aperture precisely because the sensor is smaller and the light beams are focused onto a smaller area.

Its like trying to start a fire with a magnifying glass, you move it to a focusing distance till the light beam is focused onto the smallest dot possible for the highest intensity.

f2 at m4/3 has a DOF equivalent of only f4 at full frame. Different class, so let's not even try to compare. & the weight of the f2 glass negates all advantages of the m4/3.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Nov 19, 2012)

I just saw the pricing for this lens. $1300?!? Not for a Tamron, no way. Drive this baby off the lot and it depreciates by 40%. I'll keep the Nikon thanks. VC is nice to have, but it's not a necessity especially with the way Nikons perform in low-light these days.

The Nikon 24-70 is a killer lens, with a better build and IQ, and you always know that you can resell your Nikon lens without losing too much.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 19, 2012)

this is not typical of tamrons quality. just about everyone who reviewed has said it is better than the canon usm 1. Frankly your atitude annoys me because i think tamron is trying to do some better work and prices are going up. but i finally there will be some competition with the first party manufactures and that will be good for photographers

13 upvotes
vagtanklan
By vagtanklan (Nov 19, 2012)

There's a benefit for photo journalists that might be asked to shoot video as well - in that case the VC is a huge plus.

Swedish mag. Foto just awared it a "highly reccomended"-tag.

2 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 19, 2012)

.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
futile32
By futile32 (Nov 19, 2012)

meh, personally if it'll get me 99% of the quality at 60% of the cost, Its a good thing.

It means one very important thing, I'm not worried about it being stolen or smashed, and I relax and just take photos with it (like it's a tool and not a baby).

Plus, there is something really nice about finding a lens that is cheaper but as good as the competition. The hidden Gems.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 19, 2012)

I think it's a mistake to assume a non-OEM lens will be a poor performer. If the optical "task" is simple, like making a sharp macro lens, even Sigma can do it. Tamron lenses are frequently good and most Tokinas are outstanding. The only drawback I can see to this Tamron is resale value but it still might be worth it, to save money, upfront.

0 upvotes
dodgebaena
By dodgebaena (Nov 21, 2012)

As a working photographer, I DON'T buy a lens for its resale value (this is not gold, or silver). If it has good IQ and build Q, then the resale value will take care of itself, which is a bonus. The lens will pay for itself after a few jobs. I've had two Tamrons before and their IQ was more than acceptable to me.

0 upvotes
fyngyrz
By fyngyrz (Nov 18, 2012)

I have another perspective.

I wonder how many people are like me, where I see the f/2.8 and react "just another slow lens" and never even consider purchasing?

I want to see f/1.4 or better yet, f/1.2. /Then/ I'm thinking of cracking the cookie jar.

Half of each day, on average, is spent in the dark. And just because it's dark doesn't mean subject matter will hold still. So slow lenses are not of interest.

And before someone says "f/2.8 isn't slow", you come back and tell me that after you've shot in the dark with an f/1.2 lens like Canon's 50mm or 85mm. If you do, I'll know you haven't actually used a fast lens. :)

0 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Nov 18, 2012)

I think the problem is that a f1.2 zoom would be HUGE and very heavy. So, unusable unless on a tripod.

It seems with the advances in iso performance in the last few years, super large aperture lenses are needed less for low light, and are now purely used for artistic effects.

5 upvotes
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (Nov 18, 2012)

This however is a zoom lens and should not be compared to fast primes. "Wanting to see" f/1.4 or f/f1.2 on a zoom lens like this does not make sense, who wouldnt?. My reasoning is, if its dark, get a flash, or even a flashlight or try make your subject stay still, better yet get some skills to expose at the right moment. The lens does not do the photo, you do. If night shots is all you do theres the 58mm Noct Nikkor for Nikon, and probably a similiar for Canon. f/2.8 constant in this zoom range is FAST in my opinion

8 upvotes
lancespring
By lancespring (Nov 18, 2012)

What an off-topic and irrelevant comment to make. To compare a standard zoom lens with any type of prime lens? It is nonsense for you to make these comments, as these are totally different types of lenses. Very silly of you, really.

10 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Nov 18, 2012)

> wonder how many people are like me, where I see the f/2.8 and react "just another slow lens" and never even consider purchasing?

Did you ask this question because you are a marketing person or Tamron shareholder? Otherwise, why worry how many 'other' people think?

A lens if fast or slow is relative to one's needs, as you pointed out. If you shoot wildlife in complete darkness, no lens would be fast enough. That does not diminish the fact that this lens is probably considered fast for many other people.

1 upvote
GlobalGuyUSA
By GlobalGuyUSA (Nov 19, 2012)

I think really what you meant to say is that DPReview and others shouldn't call f/2.8 "fast" -- f/2.8, f/4 are rather "Moderate" -- and obviously anything f/5.6 or above starts to feel 'Slow." But then, we are not talking "Fast primes" we are talking "Fast zooms" Apples to Oranges. Your post is meaningless -- f/2.8 is darn fast for a ZOOM, and your tradeoff for a zoom is having to bump up your ISOs. Sorry, thats how it is. Everyone already knows that f/2.8 is the slowest of the fast -- f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8. f/2 obviously all being more desireable, but hardly feasible in a zoom that consumers could afford.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 19, 2012)

another side of his coin is there is almost no lens that performs well at f1.4 or brighter. f 1.8 and 2 will generally give much better results and with a modern dslr it should not be necessary to shoot at these f stops to get a good shot. wanting lenses fast enough to produce a good DOF effect makes alot of sense wanting these crazy big f stops for low light witch generally dont produce a pleasing effect isnt sensible

also the other poster are right f 2.8 is about the biggest f stop they can put in a zoom lens so there is no sense in pining for more just get primes if that is what you want

it was said by a couple of people that of course youd want an f 1.2 lens but even that isnt true. I am not aware of an f1.2 lens t hasnt majorly sacrificed image quality to achieve this f stop. the canon l f1.2 primes are a great example all of them dismal lenses that canon wants a mint for. both 1.8 and 1.4 non l lens are better for both 85mm and 50mm

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Nectar D Or
By Nectar D Or (Nov 19, 2012)

I wonder how many people are like me, where I see the70mm and react "just another short lens" and never even consider purchasing?

I want to see 600mm, or better yet, 800mm /Then/ I'm thinking of cracking the cookie jar.

Most subjects, on average, are far away from the camera. And just because it's far doesn't mean subject matter will get close. So short lenses are not of interest.

And before someone says "70mm isn't short", you come back and tell me that after you've shot a far away subject with a 600 or 800 mm lens, attached to an x2 TC. If you do, I'll know you have actually used LONG lens. :)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Nov 19, 2012)

I wonder how much time will go by before people like this start calling f 1.4 slow...

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Nov 19, 2012)

fyngyrz, I'm sorry but you're showing a lot of ignorance as others have pointed out. Photography is about light. You have four ways to control light.. aperture, shutter speed, ISO and scene brightness (flash). When there is little of this all important light, one needs to adjust one or more of these four things. One doesn't throw up one's hands in dispair and demand a faster lens so they can choose a wider aperture. You have three other ways to go.

As others have pointed out, most f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are not optimal at those speeds or even that close to those speeds. F/2.8 might be a better choice even when you have f/1.4 to choose from. Again, you slow the shutter, raise the ISO, or add some light; whichever is appropriate for the subject. Rarely would none of these be appropriate. Then and only then should you consider the poorer IQ aspects of widening the aperture. Use all the tools in the toolkit.

2 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Nov 19, 2012)

fyngyrz is funny, I enjoy posts that don' t make any sense at all.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 19, 2012)

@fyngyrz: and half the day is light, in which case f/2.8 zooms are awesome. Plus, most people sleep at night anyway...

0 upvotes
LebronPhoto
By LebronPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

The capacity to achieve clean images at very high ISO's makes those larger apertures and the weight and higher cost associated with them less relevant.

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 20, 2012)

That's ridiculous.

A f1.2 or f1.4 zoom lens would make your arms ache every time u raise it.

The mass of the lens elements would be too big & heavy to have IS.

The autofocus speeds will be subpar due to the mass needed to be moved.

With IS and the high ISO sensitivities of today's full frame bodies (IS in Sony DSLRs for instance), photographers literally can see in the "dark" already.

Your post only reveals yourself as a dinosaur.

0 upvotes
fyngyrz
By fyngyrz (Apr 18, 2013)

Yeah, ok, you all had your fun. And now I'm having mine, and you can all nuzzle your "wish I hadn't said anything" teddy bears:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/18/Sigma-announces-worlds-first-F1-8-constant-aperture-zoom-lens

f/1.8 -- Now we're cooking.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Nov 18, 2012)

I think Tamron did an EXCELLENT job with this lens. Adding VC can compromise IQ alot(IE tamrons 17-50 vc). I think for a....starting wedding photog, ect... This would be a great lens. Its better then the first gen pro lenses, but not as good as the current pro lenses. Saving 1k on something that someone will most likely NOT be able to tell the difference. Thats a pretty big deal. A "busy" background can be dealt with in photoshop pretty quickly.

Vignetting is very very easy to correct.

Weather sealing doesnt hurt either.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 18, 2012)

Interesting lens. As a Nikon user, I don't see it as a totally satisfactory replacement for the AF-S 24-70 2.8 G. But price/performance seems fairly good in spite of a few issues like heavier than normal vignetting wide open and corner issues.

From the tests online, 24mm is it's best focal length. Why can't lens designers make 70mm the sharpest focal length on these lenses? I already have an UWA lens.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 18, 2012)

Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?

0 upvotes
Scales USA
By Scales USA (Nov 19, 2012)

When using phase detect, the camera body calculates the proper position for the lens to be in focus and tells it to go there. If the lens goes to some other point, there is front or back focus. Accurate AF depends on the lens moving to the focus point as directed. When they do not, its a problem.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 19, 2012)

@scales, the AF module may calculate the position but isn't it an iterative process as Shaocoholica indicated? Small discrepancies then would be self correcting.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 19, 2012)

I don't think all AF lenses can 'go to a position' when the camera tells it to. I always thought it was a passive process where the camera senses, adjusts, senses, adjusts, etc. until the phase is within some threshold. I know older AF lenses don't even have the electronics/mechanics to determine what focus its at. The focussing mech typically has nothing hooked up to it to tell the lens or camera what focus position its in. I've only seen electronics for determining focal length in zooms and that only has a very large steps like 6-8 positions it can detect. If that were used for focus and lets say finer grained at 16 steps, thats still not enough steps for accurate 'go to' focus and I'm pretty sure thats not how phase detect AF works.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 19, 2012)

If you listen to some cheaper AF lenses, you can hear the focus gearing/motor spin in a large step, then smaller, then smaller again and so on a so forth indicating the process is iterative and akin to a binary search.

0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (Nov 19, 2012)

Have a read of this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new

Then this follow up:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras

It seems that AF systems can be open loop (calculate and then go to that point) or closed loop (double check if the lens made it). The fact that we need lens microadjust proves that even if it is an iterative process it still has tolerance that can lead to focus errors.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 19, 2012)

So really, there's nothing wrong per say with the lens. Microadjustments are really there to compensate for the AF system.

0 upvotes
tallshorty
By tallshorty (Nov 18, 2012)

I have this lens with my 5DIII but continue to experience AF problems. It requires AF adjustment (unlike my canon lenses). But the real headache is that I cannot adjust the center AF point to match peripheral AF points. When the center point is adjust perfectly, the peripheral points are back focused. Then when peripheral points are adjusted perfectly, the center point is front focused. I tested 2 more copies at the store and they all had this problem. Had mine sent into Tamron and they acknowledged this problem and couldn't even fix it and instead sent me a new lens from a new batch. It is a lot better than my original lens but problem still exist just difference between center point and peripheral points is not as severe.

6 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 18, 2012)

Great wave-off! I'm much obliged.

How about manually focusing it?

I note that the sample photo featuring the orange umbrella is hugely out of focus.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

have not experienced this however when i went to the camera store to purchase mine i tested it and the first one they gave me had dramatic focus miscalibration. I demonstrated for the clerk and asked for another lens. no issue so i bought and have been shooting for 2 weeks still no issue. nikon D800 btw

1 upvote
Gerard Hoffnung
By Gerard Hoffnung (Nov 18, 2012)

@Pat
Not sure why they included that image, it's pretty ugly. The US flag image shows the lenses capabilities better, particularly the loose threads on the edge of the flag.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

I have this lens. The vignetting is the only draw back, its a little strong. It is the best performing 3rd party zoom i am aware of and it in my opinion is batter the the canon usm 1 witch i never owned but a photographer i did a lot of image processing for did. Vignetting is correctable but i find myself wishing lightroom would hurry up and profile this lens

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

I am using it with a d800 btw

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 18, 2012)

Adobe will get to it eventually. They recently added the Tokina 16-28 2.8 and I'm delighted. The lens has very good distortion control for an UWA, but as a raw shooter, it's nice to have the Lens Profile for it anyway.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 20, 2012)

You know, you can profile your own lenses. I did it, and it's not all that hard. Adobe provides you with the tool for free.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Nov 18, 2012)

These real world samples are extremely useful. More please.

This lens gives excellent results at 70mm but is not as good at the 24mm end due to some smearing and CA. Think I'll stick with my primes.

0 upvotes
lancespring
By lancespring (Nov 18, 2012)

This is a great lens for photographing people at events, as one can instantly change from 24mm, to 28mm, to 35mm, to 50mm, and to 70mm. Primes don't offer than versatility.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3364691915/photos/2234591/dsc_3488b

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3364691915/photos/2253893/dsc_3687a1

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3364691915/photos/2281861/dsc_3807b

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3364691915/photos/2318408/dsc_4047h

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 19, 2012)

>a great lens for photographing people at events

Make that indoor events (and not always well-lighted ones) -- that's why the Tamron is my choice.

0 upvotes
five5pho
By five5pho (Nov 18, 2012)

I m not the one to say that is better than can canon or nikon, but since I own the lens for a few months now, I can assure you it is worth its price.The is rocks too.

0 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Nov 18, 2012)

It's $1000 less than Canon's v2 with IS(vc), minor optical flaws can fix in batch process. This Tamron has better IQ than Canon's v1. AF is not as fast as v2, but, is good enough. For general walk around zoom, this lens is hard to beat. How many more images can you get in low light situations with VC, 5%, 10%, 15%,....... whatever percentage it is, is it worth $1k LESS than v2?

8 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 18, 2012)

Canon doesn't make a 24-70/2.8 IS

1 upvote
Buchanan
By Buchanan (Nov 18, 2012)

I think he may mean it's $1K less and it has VC whereas the Canon doesn't.

7 upvotes
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Nov 18, 2012)

You got it Buchanan

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Nov 18, 2012)

I am a prime lens guy, so I am naturally not that swayed by these pictures. The vignetting seems quite bad, in picture nr.2 it's so pronounced it seems added in PP. I don't realy like the colors (there are many variables here though) or the bokeh but the sharpness looks ok, and with the added VR at 1000 euros, I think it's a good compromise.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 18, 2012)

Corner sharpness looks pretty good. Vignetting is probably above average compared to their Canikon equivalents.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 18, 2012)

Simon, I have a question.

If you take multiple pictures of the same scene handheld with VC on, and you start the VC while pointing at different locations relative to the final location, does the across-frame sharpness vary a lot from frame to frame? The position of the IS elements can, in some designs, greatly affect the across frame sharpness, and I'm seeing little hints of that in a few of the images, but there aren't enough images and information to make that determination.

1 upvote
06m1r3m86
By 06m1r3m86 (Nov 18, 2012)

I don't know if it's just me, but it seemed to render the colors very coolly. I get the impression that all the dock pictures were taken on a warm summer day and yet everything looks too cold. Perhaps its the white balance on the camera, but I will wait for some more advanced testing before I would think about this.

1 upvote
jm67
By jm67 (Nov 18, 2012)

I agree. They seem a little on the cool side but that's something you can adjust anyway.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

i would attribute that to white balance and not the lens

1 upvote
summicron
By summicron (Nov 18, 2012)

nice to see samples.
lens looks good.
altho i would have liked to see more 'low light, slow exposure handheld' to see performance of stabilizer.

also, strange that these show capture date of july and the posting happens four months later. why such a delay?

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Nov 18, 2012)

Right ! I would have like to see this lens work in a dark place too. Taking pictures of running dogs, or flying birds would have told us some more about the quickness of this Tamron. This f2.8 argument seems good, but how good is it ? Not bad according to the Amazon reviewers (cf: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-24-70mm-Nikon-Mount-AFA007N-700/product-reviews/B007RZB3KM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 ) but is a "not bad" mark good enough to what we could expect from a f2.8 high end lens ?

0 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (Nov 18, 2012)

too bad the many added elements for VC will make IQ much worse than the nonVC version.

same thing with the 17-50.

and all just because Nikon and Canon wont put VC in their bodies....

0 upvotes
delete
By delete (Nov 18, 2012)

Am I to understand Canon and Nikon are able to build optical stabilizers w/o added elements, as in contrary to Tamron? :)

0 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (Nov 18, 2012)

no, you are not to understand that....

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

he means image stabilazition in the bodies themselves

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (Nov 18, 2012)

One of the main reasons Canon and Nikon don't use IS/VR in their bodies is that it is much less effective in the body than it is in the lens. Moving the sensor in the body gives less room to shift without making the body larger. This is especially true with FX cameras. The most VR you'd be able to get from an in-camera is about 2 stops. And the longer the lens the less effective the in-camera stabilization will be and the same is true for macro lenses.

Also when using in-camera VR you can't see the stabilizing effect in the viewfinder. Which also has a small impact on the AF and AE.

Another problem with in-camera stabilization is that the sensor is shifting in response to camera movement. Most of the movement that needs to be compensated for is lens movement. Shifting the lens elements allows for more stabilization as well as more accurate stabilization.

They aren't leaving VR/IS out of the body because they can jack up lens prices. It's for more practical reasons.

1 upvote
bossa
By bossa (Nov 19, 2012)

The K-5 is one of the smallest DSLR's out there and it has SR (VR, VC, IS) in-body and I really miss my K-5 for that reason.

1 upvote
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (Nov 19, 2012)

"They aren't leaving VR/IS out of the body because they can jack up lens prices"

since they have so many lenses already out there with IS, and they are much more expensive they will never add IS in-body.
So, yes, effectively it is about extra cash.

and the ca. 1 stop advantage (only long zooms) of lens-IS is not worth the trade off in image quality. And cost.

0 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Nov 19, 2012)

do you know about the Olympus OM-D???

0 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (Nov 19, 2012)

yeah, imo, iso800 not really useable.
(with the pentax k30 it is)

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 20, 2012)

@JDThomas

That is a load of Canikon marketing BS that you are repeating as a duped consumer.

The in-body image stabilization of the micro 4/3 & Sony DSLRs for example have stabilisation up to 4.5 stops. Of course it is dependent on the focal lengths and the actual user. But in real life there is practically no difference with in-lens IS.

In theory in-lens stabilisation allows greater displacement of the optical light path, but what extremes in focal length are most photographers going to be using for that to matter? 1200mm? Can u afford a 1200mm IS/VR lens?

Further, as was pointed out, what cost the additional elements on IQ & the additional cost and weight of lugging a few image stabilisation motors in every lens? How much is it worth to be able to shoot a fisheye or 16mm or any lens for that matter at 1/2s shutter speeds?

That kind of Canikon BS is used to dupe u flocks of consumer sheep. Or either that you are a dinosaur. Update yourself.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Nov 18, 2012)

Looks sharp and contrasty. No annoying color fringing (maybe just a hint in some shots). Bokeh looks somewhat busy at some settings, good in others. I can't judge edge performance due to the limited DOF but overall I'd say it is a promising lens. You can't ask too much more from a zoom.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

i have it and i actually think the bokeh is pleasing for a standard zoom.

1 upvote
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (Nov 18, 2012)

Ou est les review? Mon dieu.

1 upvote
quatpat
By quatpat (Nov 18, 2012)

Ou SONT les REVUES... Mon Dieu!

2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 18, 2012)

Chapeau.

1 upvote
ddjerfi
By ddjerfi (Nov 18, 2012)

Looks sharp.

0 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Nov 18, 2012)

I would love to see you guys provide video samples for lens like this. Using a full frame camera for video this lens is the only game in town if you want to hand hold f/2.8.

I want to see comparisons on how well the IS system works in video mode, I'd want to know if a lens like this performs as well as a lens like the new 24-70mm F/4.0 hybrid IS.

You might say they aren't related, but when you consider so many people are now shooting video on full frame and carrying around a tripod and fluid head is extremely difficult sometimes. For journalism how these lens perform from a stable hand held position is important.

2 upvotes
SeaSpray
By SeaSpray (Nov 18, 2012)

These are available on YouTube:

Corbi de Piatra, Arges Romania - Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC @ 5D mark III test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKu1VPdwS-k

Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC Mini Video Test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjxrNyiumP8

Tamron 24-70 Focus Breathing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVx4_hZeD8U

3 upvotes
oscarchong
By oscarchong (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm still waiting for the new IS lens from Canon, and I love to try this lens, why Canon is not releasing a IS f2.8 for the 24-70mm ?

So people say they have one in the lab.

0 upvotes
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Nov 18, 2012)

Samples look fine, except bokeh.

1 upvote
jm67
By jm67 (Nov 18, 2012)

Absolutely. It's an amazing performer considering the specs (IS aka VC, 2.8, weather resistance, price) but the bokeh is a bit of a trade off. This lens to me falls between the Canon versions. It's a little better than I and a little behind II. What will be very interesting to see is how it compares to the new 24-70F4. Will Canon's new lens be good enough to warrant letting in a stop less light? In any case, it's hard to deny the bang for the buck this lens gives you.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 18, 2012)

I find the bokeh acceptable for a standard zoom. even the usm 2 doesnt look that awesome to me. the nikkor is better but still not awesome. this seems to me to be a tradeoff of standard zooms in general

1 upvote
HSway
By HSway (Nov 18, 2012)

Excellent samples.

0 upvotes
HSway
By HSway (Nov 18, 2012)

This is a great lens. Very good indeed. Nikon and Canon (ll) versions are better for landscape. If there are other considerations, this Tamron with very effective VC is the second best option.
Hynek

0 upvotes
pixnvid
By pixnvid (Nov 18, 2012)

I have always wondered what people mean when they say that a lens is "better for landscape." It seems to me that if a lens is sharp then it should be good for anything you aim it at. Can you explain what you mean? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know.

1 upvote
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Nov 18, 2012)

Indeed for stills. On videos, the focus breathing annoyed me and I really had to take it back (rental)... If you are also doing video, you may have to consider this irritant.

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Nov 18, 2012)

pixnvid....I'm not a landscape shooter but have been in the past and enjoy it now just on the hobby side, but the reason why the CanonII is better is for corner to corner sharpness. Us portrait people for the most part are concerned with the center being sharp and since the corners are usually going to blur to nothing, sharpness isn't always as important. For the landscape, you almost always want everything in the frame tack. There are exceptions but generally speaking.

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 18, 2012)

at 70mm the corner sharpness of the tamron is better than the canon 24-70 II.... some tests say.. at 24 mm it is worse.

0 upvotes
npomokoji
By npomokoji (Nov 18, 2012)

Обычная линза ничего особенного не увидел

6 upvotes
pixnvid
By pixnvid (Nov 18, 2012)

Thanks jm67, that makes sense. I would expect most lenses to be pretty much edge-to-edge sharp by f8 or f11, though. I've been shooting professionally for a long time now and I find that's the case with virtually all my lenses. Those that weren't sharp stopped down a couple of stops got sidelined pretty quickly.
Thanks for the insight.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 18, 2012)

>Обычная линза ничего особенного не увидел

And where our sarcastic cracks about this?

Joking here.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
msadat
By msadat (Nov 19, 2012)

i bought a copy of this lens to use with nikon d800 and after much trail , i returned the second copy and decided to hold off. the nikon mount has issues with the cam being accurate from 2.8~4 and vc did not function well at all in 60~300 speeds and u needed to turn it off. i am planning to give this lens a try once some of the issues are fixed. lensrental also found some qc problems

0 upvotes
sotirius
By sotirius (Nov 19, 2012)

I had two copies of this lens but decided not to keep them. Mine were the Canon version. Tamron has bad quality control on their products, they are like cheap Chinese manufactured products. You never know what you get. Both copies suffered badly from decentred elements, resulting in smudged corners. I have came across many people over the internet that have the same problem with this lens. The good points about it are: 1.Very sharp in the centre 2.Has low CA 3.Has VR(which degrades IQ that's why the Canon ver2 doesn't have it) but is useful for videographers. The bad points of this lens are 1. vignetting even at f/8(you can get rid of it in PP but why bother it shouldn't produce so much vignette) 2.Slow AF-compares to canon 18-55 IS. 3.Massive barrel distortion. 4.Due to field curvatures and bad centering it produces unacceptable images. Say goodbye to landscape and group shots. 5. Over priced. The real price should be no more than 700$. This is my personal experience, not forum based

0 upvotes
pmazolo
By pmazolo (Jan 10, 2013)

I bought the Tamron 24-70 VC because of the image stabilizer and mostly with the purpose of using it for video filming. As soon as I got it, I quickly compared it to my Canon 24-70.

Here is a mini-review with pros and cons and some example pictures comparing the bokeh of both lenses... subtle difference but that onion bokeh is quite annoying I think: http://www.fotograf-stockholm.nu/tamron-24-70-vc-vs-canon-24-70-for-stills-and-video-filming-image-stabilization-and-bokeh-test/

Anyways, for that price it's a good lense when you factor in the image stabilizer.

0 upvotes
kigamboni
By kigamboni (11 months ago)

Guys..the only reasons you can buy this lens are the VC and the price. I've just bought one, 2 weeks ago. I'm desperate. Tamron italia changed it already twice, they've been kind actually. But the problem is still there: NO ANY FOCUS good on lateral points, no way to get a good focus. I've tried (in a shop, with 3 photographer near me) 4 different 5d markIII bodies, 3 different 24-70 tamron, EVERY single f aperture, EVERY focus mode: nothing to do, up to 50mm it's simple not able to get a right focus on lateral points, only with the central one.
And now they don't have a glue how to solve me this backfocus problem. (42 cm of backfocus...it's crazy). They are sorry but they don't know what to do. Neither do i.
This is really wasting money and time.
Ok for video is a perfect lens, but for still.....forget it. Get a second hand canon 24-70 L, it's better.
Sorry for telling this, i was the first one who wanted to believe in tamron this time.

0 upvotes
Adman25
By Adman25 (2 months ago)

Hi guys I am looking at buying this lens and I was wondering what you do in regards to filters as its a 82mm filter mount do you use a step down adapter from 82-77mm or buy 82mm filters? The only reason I ask is the next lens I have lined up is a 77mm filter mount and I would like to be able to get a good set of filters I can use on both of my zooms. Is there problems with vignetting using and step down adapter down to 77mm on this lens?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 149