Previous news story    Next news story

Tamron gives SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD price and availability

By dpreview staff on Apr 6, 2012 at 17:54 GMT

Tamron USA has announced pricing and availability of its SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD image-stabilized fast zoom lens. Canon and Nikon mount versions of the lens will be available from April 26th 2012, at a MSRP of $1299. The Sony version, without image stabilization, will follow at a later, unspecified date. The lens is compatible with both full-frame and APS-C cameras, includes a moisture-resistant body, and a rounded aperture for attractive background blur.


Press release:

TAMRON ANNOUNCES WORLD'S FIRST [1] FULL-SIZE, HIGH SPEED STANDARD ZOOM WITH BUILT-IN IMAGE STABILIZATION - SP 24-70MM F/2.8 DI VC USD (MODEL A007)

April 5, 2012, Commack, NY Tamron USA, Inc. announced the SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007), the world's first1 full-size high-speed standard zoom lens equipped with VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive)[2], with resolution at the top of its class, will be available starting April 26, 2012 in Canon mount with Nikon mount following. Delivery of the Sony mount version has not been released.

Product Features

  1. World's first full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in VC (Vibration Compensation)[3]. 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 specialized 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[4], the lens achieves gorgeous blur effects.
  3. Features 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.

Footnotes:

1. For high-speed standard zoom lens compatible with full frame size SLR cameras. Current as of April 5, 2012. (Source: Tamron).
2. USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) is Tamron's proprietary ultrasonic motor drive.

3. 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.

4. This rounded diaphragm retains a nearly circular shape even when taken two stops down from its fully open state.

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 1:5
 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

Comments

Total comments: 240
12
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 6, 2012)

I sympathize with the 'other' brands and mostly they offer great value for what they ask but you'll never get the best results. If you can afford it buy the best, you'll feel much better with every shot!

0 upvotes
Visualiza
By Visualiza (Apr 6, 2012)

Never say never. Not only is the Sigma 150 macro(either iteration) exclusive to the brand and available to all the major camera systems, it's among the best macros available. That's but one example of many.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 6, 2012)

I thInk that's all in your head. Third party lenses can be just as good, or very nearly as good, as OEM lenses. And once you've finished processing your images, it's practically impossible to tell the difference.

Plus, one could just as easily "feel much better with every shot" knowing that you have the benefit of Image Stabilization giving you the most steady, shake-free handheld shots possible.

0 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 6, 2012)

Indeed but let the facts tell, check the reviews around the world. I own several other brands but only one (Sigma 50 1.4) is as good as Canon's version. And why? Because it's even more expensive than the Canon. There aren't 'many' out there, I wish there were. Cheaper almost always comes at a hidden price....(watch the word 'almost'.)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 6, 2012)

@Rubenski- conversely, 'more expensive' doesn't always come with tangible advantages or benefits. The reality is that some of the differences between many lenses can only be seen with highly sensitive lab tests, or with a high level of pixel peeping. For those of us who do real photography out in the real world, the differences ultimately don't add up to much. Obviously, this varies from lens to lens, but it's naive to think that just because you're spending more for a lens, it means you're getting proportionally better lens performance.

The reality is that I find a lot of peoples' egos and self-esteem are attached to the branding of their equipment. Having the right brand name makes them "feel better" with every shot.

3 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 6, 2012)

T3, you're the one talking about things in the head, I'm talking about facts. I couldn't care less which brand I own, I only care about the results. Once again: check the reviews. It's as simple as that. I also own a Sigma 6-18, good lens, maybe for some very good but certainly not excellent. And it's very easy to tell the difference, simply on my screen, not even at 100%.
BTW: the Sigma 150 2.8 is indeed one of those exceptions, it's a very good lens. But how many more are there?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
scott_mcleod
By scott_mcleod (Apr 6, 2012)

In this particular case, this is "the best" - by definition, since neither Nikon nor Canon have seen fit to put VR/IS in their f/2.8 standard zooms. One can only hope it's optically up to snuff. Even if it only gets *really* good from f/4 on up (throughout the range), I would still seriously consider this lens as the VR ought to be good for at least 3 stops which would make it far more useful (for what I shoot) than a "perfect" 2.8 zoom with no IS. YMMV, of course...

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 7, 2012)

@Rubenski How many more are there? Quite a few: Tamron 90 2.8 Macro, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Tokina 12-24 f4, Tokina 16-28 2.8, Tokina 100 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 105 2.8 Macro, Sigma 100-300 f4, Samyang 14 2.8, Samyang 35 1.4, Rokinon 85 1.4, et al. and I haven't even mentioned Voigtlander or Zeiss. I love Nikkors just as much as the next guy, but there are a lot of superb optics out there.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

@Rubenski - if it makes you "feel better" to get the OEM lenses, go for it. If the Tamron is up to snuff, I'd rather get the Tamron, then put the $1000 savings towards other equipment, or maybe buy a plane ticket to some great photo destination. Plus, I'd rather have a lens that has IS to one that doesn't.

If I have to do a lot of anal pixel peeping to notice any difference in the optics, it's just not worth it to spend the extra $1000, and lose IS. Plus, the Tamron is a bit lighter and a bit more compact, which is helpful when you're out and about.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Apr 6, 2012)

Tamron is robing Sony users of the VC functionality which they have paid for based on the equal selling price of both VC and non-VC variants.

Why on earth would Tamron spend the manufacturing & assembly costs of removing VC optical mechanism when the buyers of the lenses would prefer to have VC in lens especially for video.

It doesn't make any sense.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

Sony is one of the largest shareholders of Tamron. One has to wonder if they have something to do with it.

4 upvotes
inasir1971
By inasir1971 (Apr 6, 2012)

Sony's have in body stabilization - you can't have stabilization on both the body and the lens

0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Apr 6, 2012)

You can turn off stabilization in the body or in the lens and see which one is better. Of course Sony wouldn't like it too much if the verdict came out that the lens stabilization is better.

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 6, 2012)

Sales of the Sony version will be negligible since VC is absent and the CZ version focuses closer than the Tamron

0 upvotes
36hike
By 36hike (Apr 6, 2012)

Good news. With the Nikkor 24-70mm going for $1900- on Amazon, one would be a little thick not to check out the viability of this lens.

2 upvotes
Parry Johnson
By Parry Johnson (Apr 6, 2012)

I have no doubt that this lens will have stellar performance, on a par with Nikon or Canon, providing that one can live with less durability.

I am quite careful with my lenses, so durability is important; however, optical performance is more important to me.

I'm currently using both the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC and non-VC versions (for Nikon DX cameras). The results are nearly identical (with the non-VC slightly outperforming the VC). However, the biggest difference is in construction -- Tamron put more thought into seals and less-flimsy plastic materials in the VC verson -- likely needed to house the VC mechanics. I've had my VC version for nearly two years now without a problem, yet the prveious version was already sent back to Tamron twice in that time. (Although, that same older lens did survive a year in the hands of the theif that stole it -- later recovered! There is some evidence that it was abused.)

Given my experiance, I have no doubt the 24-70 VC will be an awesome lens!

0 upvotes
Parry Johnson
By Parry Johnson (Apr 6, 2012)

Furthermore, during part of the time I was without my first Tamron, I bought a Tokina 16-50 f2.8. Although it was built like a tank, it didn't perform optically like I expected. I also tried out the equivalent Sigma, and wasn't happy with it.

So, to wrap things up -- if you need both optical and construction quality (and you're willing to pay the higher price), buy the Nikkor or Canon 24-70 -- otherwise the new Tamron 24-70 VC is probably the best choice.

0 upvotes
epoon2
By epoon2 (Apr 7, 2012)

usually Tamron performs ordinarily in vignetting.

0 upvotes
snake_b
By snake_b (Apr 6, 2012)

Wish they and Sigma would come up with weather resistant lenses.

0 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Apr 7, 2012)

"Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent water from penetrating the lens."

0 upvotes
bobkeenan
By bobkeenan (Apr 6, 2012)

I cant wait to see the reviews. I have the canon version and I really want the stabilization. A few stops help there and the better ISO performance of the 5DMKIII and it will really open up a lot of shots for me.

Of course the optics quality has to be there.

3 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Apr 6, 2012)

Almost the weight of the Canon new 24-70 2.8 L (805g) although it carry the burden of a VC mechanism otherwise unnecessary. Canon has 18 elements in 13 groups. MTF charts of the two lenses, cromatic aberrations, light falloff, as well as resistance to humidity is needed to compare the cost/benefit to buy one.

0 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Apr 6, 2012)

attractive price, will wait for the review.

0 upvotes
Robert Hoy
By Robert Hoy (Apr 6, 2012)

$1200 for a 24-70 lens is not what I would call "attractive" pricing. Their previous non-IS lens sold for $330.

2 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Apr 7, 2012)

For 1200$ it is a 24-70 f/2.8 lens that comes with image stabilization, silent focusing motors and weather sealing. Compared to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 mk I(1400$) and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8(1800$) both these lenses lack Image stabilization. Canon stabilized lens of this focal lenght costs twice of this Tamron. Old Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens you spoke of was a basic lens, todays lenses have to have atleast silent focusing motors. So considering these factors 1200$ MSRP quoted by Tamron is a very good price IMHO.

1 upvote
NovemberSun
By NovemberSun (Apr 6, 2012)

I will be seriously considering this option. Of course after full reviews and testing that is but it looks promising nontheless

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

From these comments I am beginning to think all the full framers are a bunch of rich and uppity snobs.

1 upvote
onlooker
By onlooker (Apr 6, 2012)

I don't know, but I will bet you many can count (it often precedes the state of being rich and uppity), and they know that 30% difference in price is not worth the potentially wasted time and aggravation and loss of shooting opportunity. Life is too short.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 6, 2012)

@onlooker- what "potentially wasted time and aggravation and loss of opportunity" are you talking about? I know plenty of people who've bought OEM lenses, and had to go through several ones until they found a good one.

Also, "30% difference" may not sound like much until you realize it equates to about $1000 more and the loss of Image Stabilization. After all, there are "opportunity" costs associated with having $1000 less to spend elsewhere, or not having the benefit of Image Stabilization. For example, I could put that $1000 towards two new Canon 600EX radio transmitter flashes. And of course, Image Stabilization is very handy to have.

1 upvote
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Apr 6, 2012)

Third party lenses depreciates more steep although some are really as good as canon or nikon's if not better.

2 upvotes
dara2
By dara2 (Apr 7, 2012)

With 1000$ I could buy a flight ticket from Europe to Asia. There will be many photos opportunities + I will enjoy the weather. Yeah, live is too short.

1 upvote
tipit08
By tipit08 (Apr 6, 2012)

Great if IQ is as good or better than the best of the name brand zooms.

As good as a paper weight if not.

4 upvotes
jppentax
By jppentax (Apr 6, 2012)

street price will perhaps be at around $1000 - i think it will be very attractive if it has performance of 17-50 non-VC or anywhere near it. i woudl buy one.

0 upvotes
Denis of Whidbey Island
By Denis of Whidbey Island (Apr 6, 2012)

I'd love to upgrade my midrange zoom and have held off on the Nikon 24-70mm due to weight (I already carry the 14-24mm). But I'm not willing to pay the VR premium that is obviously factored into the price of this lens. At $900, I'd be interested.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 7, 2012)

Wait until it hits the streets. It's quite unusual for third party lenses to sell for MSRP.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 6, 2012)

Tokina is the only third party lens maker that i would consider. This one is a pass.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 6, 2012)

Two votes for Tokina. Miracles do happen but I'd be surprised if this Tamron was in a league with the Nikon or if any two Tamrons were the same.

0 upvotes
NowHearThis
By NowHearThis (Apr 6, 2012)

There are several third party lenses I have used and really like.
Primes:
Sigma 50\1.4
Sigma 85\1.4
Sigma 150\2.8 OS HSM Macro
Tamron 90mm Macro

Zooms:
Sigma 17-70 OS HSM
Tamron 18-270 PZD
Tamron 70-300 VC USD
Tamron 17-50\2.8 (VC or non-VC)

Others that I haven't used but would recommend based on reviews/reputation:
Sigma 8-16 HSM
Sigma 120-400 OS
Sigma 50-150\2.8
Sigma 30mm E-mount
Tamron 18-200 VC (E-mount)

This isn't even a complete list, but sufficed to say there are other good lenses out there and not just from Tokina.

5 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Apr 7, 2012)

You forgot the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS(even old 18-50 f/2.8).

0 upvotes
DWR0082
By DWR0082 (Apr 7, 2012)

Funny my Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc has provided me with thousands of tack sharp images for years now. I guess I should sell it for a Tokina.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 7, 2012)

Not a fan of any of the third party 50's. My Nikon is sharper out to the corners and focuses spot on. Can't say I had the same experience with the bloated Sigma.

I really wanted a mid-range with IS, but the Tamron 17-50VC was crap for build and had a spinny AF ring that drove me nuts. Was janky to work the focus for video on too. The Sigma OS 17-50 I tried was pretty sweet, but again, the spinny fiddly af ring killed it. Better build than the Sigma. So after selling my 17-55 Nikkor with my D2x, I find I've had to buy one again for the D7000. T'ain't a third party lens sharper, tougher, or sealed better.

The 28-70 Tamrons a studio I worked at had were excellently sharp, but I've had more durable Kleenexes. If you have to work in rough/wet environments, they won't stand up. Tokina builds em tougher, but the optics are the compromise.

I will attest to the lack QA with third party lenses. It's quite true.

You couldn't take my 20mm/1.8 Sigma from my cold dead hands though.

0 upvotes
laueddy
By laueddy (Apr 6, 2012)

It's only $1000 diff. if you would to compare this with the 24-70 II on Canon side. But I wonder if it can even get as sharp as the 24-70 Mark I. which is about the same price as this.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 6, 2012)

"...only $1000 diff..." LOL.

Also, the Canons don't have image stabilization.

9 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (Apr 6, 2012)

I doubt any Nikon shooter will buy this, when the Nikon version costs just $500 more.
It would be competitive with 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Nikon lens. Not so with 2/3s of the Nikon's price tag.

...make it half the MSRP price

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

"just" $500 more? And the Nikon version is not even stabilized.

7 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Apr 6, 2012)

If the optics are up to par, why wouldn't a Nikon owner save FIVE hundred dollars and get FIVE extra years of warranty?!

7 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (Apr 6, 2012)

@ryansholl - because it's a Tamron.
And it's not even $500, it's only $400. Makes the "cheap" 3rd party alternative not cheap at all. And I doubt it's gonna be as sharp with the AF as fast and accurate as the Nikon's original.

5 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 6, 2012)

$1299 is the MSRP. Street price will surely be a bit lower. Also the Nikon was launched 5 years ago. Tamron has had time to catch up (hopefully)

0 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Apr 6, 2012)

I've been burned by Tamron before. I'll pay the extra $1000 to Canon before I'll by Tamron again.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 6, 2012)

Well, conversely, people have been "burned" with poor Canon units, too.

If the Tamron offers good optical quality, I'll gladly buy the Tamron and save the $1000. Not only do you save the $1000, but you also get Image Stabilization.

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Apr 7, 2012)

I've never been burned by Nikon lens quality. Quite the opposite. In fact, I kind of wonder if Nikon's repair department sucks so bad because of their excellent build quality (at least on their top end gear).

0 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Apr 9, 2012)

Perhaps, but I'll take the proper AF system instead of the reverse engineered slow AF + VC any day of the week. I've never thought the 24-70mm range warrented VC/IS anyway. I'm perfectly happy without it on my current 24-70mmL

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

If this has even half decent optics it should make a huge dent in Canon and Nikon 24-70 sales. It's nearly half the price AND comes with stabilizer.

4 upvotes
nikhilnh
By nikhilnh (Apr 6, 2012)

I am hoping that the optics is atleast as good as the Canon MK I version and the price comes close to $1000 in few months ( maybe after . If that's the case then it certainly should make a dent in Canon/ Nikon sales.

0 upvotes
Bill McClung
By Bill McClung (Apr 6, 2012)

How about a version for the Sony NEX cameras?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

It is not a small lens. Not sure it would be a good fit on the NEX.

1 upvote
tabloid
By tabloid (Apr 6, 2012)

Be interesting how it copes against the the Sigma, of the same specs.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Apr 6, 2012)

24-70 is full frame lens. Nex (as of now) s APSC system. Better to see 18-50 F2.8 than this.

1 upvote
FoolyCooly
By FoolyCooly (Apr 6, 2012)

This FL on a crop body makes a great portrait zoom. I personally like 35 to 70 more but I won't complain about a little more on the wide end.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 6, 2012)

not without an adapter

1 upvote
mforbes
By mforbes (Apr 7, 2012)

A lot of "ifs" in these responses, the bottom line for me is that I'm not willing to put an "if" between my already expensive full frame camera and over paid models sucking up paid by the hour lighting and make up people. I'm sure this Tamron will be a good lens, but I'm not sure where the aim is, pros won't buy it and wonder how many prosumers will shell out $1,200 for it. Plus, as someone mentioned previously, third party lenses just do not hold their value, buy the Nikon version and use it for a few years and sell it at a $200.00 loss, buy the Tamron, sell it in a few years and it will have ended up costing you more than if you had bought the Nikon.

0 upvotes
Don Richardson
By Don Richardson (Apr 14, 2012)

I decided to be one of the Goat and pre-ordered from B&H. If it's a dud, I'll send it back just like I would any thing else I buy that doesn't work properly. I'll post OOC images when I get it.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 240
12