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
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
JeanFrancoisMercier
By JeanFrancoisMercier (Dec 17, 2012)

I just got the 24-70mm and here are my first impressions:

-The VC work very well for video, everything is smoother
-VC on photo about 2.5-3 stops
-Autofocus is pretty quiet and fast enough
-Nice Bokeh but not like a great Canon lens
-Solid construction
-6 years warranty
-Image quality is very good and sharp

Worth the price!!!

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Jun 14, 2012)

y no K-mount version :(

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (May 15, 2012)

I bet my 50mm 1.8Mk2 is sharper, faster, lighter and 1/10th the price.zoom with my God given legs.

1 upvote
DSiegfried
By DSiegfried (Jul 7, 2012)

Nope:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

1 upvote
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Apr 17, 2012)

I'd really love to try this. i cancelled my canon 24-70L lens after reading too many reports of softness. However, tamron really screwed me on a 18-270 which had stuck focus. I contacted their customer support twice and both times received an auto-responder with a promise of a followup which never happened. Not sure I'd trust them for support on a $1300 lens. Buyer beware...

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (Apr 18, 2012)

Buy it with a good credit card, return it to the place of purchase. Done. The protections you get with (good) CC transactions often are far better than any support you'll get from the mfr. If it's older than a couple of years, you might have to actually use a phone - 800-827-8880.

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Apr 19, 2012)

problem is, the issue didn't develop until well past the CC return policy period. It was 3 months old so they should have supported it.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ScottGee1
By ScottGee1 (Apr 22, 2012)

Jack, by "auto-responder" I assume you mean e-mail.

Based on my experience with Tamron U.S. service I'd recommend calling directly. In my case, the lens I sent to them had extreme CA. In the cover letter I referenced the name of the person with whom I spoke and I included sample files. They agreed and sent me a new lens within a week.

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (Apr 16, 2012)

Man, I wish Tamron would re-do their 35-105/2.8. I have one, but now that I'm shooting digital, I'm seeing the softness of the lens at the wider apertures. Still, it's my carry-all lens. 35 is wide enough for most walking around photography, and 105 is long enough for people-events. My first lens was a 28-85 Nikkor, and it wasn't wide enough for the artsy shots, nor long enough to pick people out of a crowd in a bigger room. I fear that the 70mm top end on this would be similarly limiting.

I'm certainly not worried about the Tamron quality on their higher end gear. The 35-105 has been in my bag for almost 20 years now.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Apr 10, 2012)

At least this 24-70mm f/2.8 lens telescopes out for longer focal lengths and the hood does not move with the internal barrel. This is unlike my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lens which telescopes out for the shortest focal lengths (24mm) and is most compact at the 70mm setting. Also the hood moves along with the telescoping making the lens even longer at 24mm.

Also my copy of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Macro (old version, not HSM version) seems a lot sharper on APS-C, even the central region. Can't explain this. I was not impressed with medium to longer focus distance quality pics from the lens on full frame (SONY).

So I would consider upgrading to this Tamron but the lack of in-lens IS/VC for Sony mount while selling for close to the same price as a used Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 puts me off.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 11, 2012)

Err, it looks like the hood moves with the telescoping front assembly so it will add to the over all length as you zoom to 70mm.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 11, 2012)

Are there any lenses for the Sony mount that have IS/VC?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Haelstrom
By Haelstrom (Apr 12, 2012)

If memory serves no. There are no IS or VC for Sony as it is done internally in the camera body and not the lens.

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (Apr 12, 2012)

Usually not since Sony dSLRs have in body IS, making it redundant to have it on the lenses

0 upvotes
franzeez
By franzeez (Apr 10, 2012)

If one would like to match this lens with a budget dslr body which can perform, which body is good.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Apr 10, 2012)

For Nikon, that would probably be the D5100. For Canon, maybe the 600D.

0 upvotes
Dsit995
By Dsit995 (Apr 10, 2012)

5D Classic is a great performer and can be had for 650-800 depending on condition.. No sense in using it on a Crop camera, there are plenty of options available for croppers already...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
ubuntuuser
By ubuntuuser (Apr 9, 2012)

Does anyone know if this lens features internal zoom? I really don't like extending lenses...

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 10, 2012)

Well, considering that the Canon 24-70/2.8L I and II are extending zooms, it's pretty likely that this is an extending zoom too.

0 upvotes
dara2
By dara2 (Apr 10, 2012)

it is extending externally.
you can see it at 0:34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANjh3oUpW8U

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 10, 2012)

The nice thing about it, though, is that it extends inside the lens hood, just like the Canon 24-70/2.8L. In other words, when you have the hood mounted, the hood remains stationary on the body of the lens, but the front element telescopes in and out, inside this stationary hood.

You can see this very quickly at 0:57s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMlmJtSFpBo&feature=related

3 upvotes
DVasquez
By DVasquez (Apr 15, 2012)

Nope, it does not look like that video is with the 24-70 2.8 Tamron, look at this video and you will see that where the hood attaches is on the extending portion so it is similar to the canon 24-105 and the new canon 24-70 II, which both have extending hoods which means the hoods are optimized for the widest setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILNwURGIv0

0 upvotes
DVasquez
By DVasquez (Apr 15, 2012)

Another thing to consider is if it did have a hood similar to the canon 24-70 zoom, they would mostly likely make mention of it, which they have not, and the video
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILNwURGIv0 ) if you look closely when the extend the zoom out and he rotates the lens to show what focal length setting it is set, it is the 70mm setting, which makes it highly improbable that it can be such a design similar to the canon 24-70 zoom because for it to work would have to extend as the focal length gets wider, in other words a reverse zoom.

0 upvotes
bearseamen
By bearseamen (Apr 9, 2012)

I was naively hoping for a kit lense replacement for something like 500-700 euros :(

1 upvote
kayone
By kayone (Apr 12, 2012)

Sorry but that's. Incredibly. Unrealistic. For a full frame sensor lens of that category. With the inclusion of image stabilization this id already a competitive price compared to canon or nikons versions

0 upvotes
Robert Rafai
By Robert Rafai (Apr 12, 2012)

yes, it say 1299$ MSRP which is close to Canon or nikon high end zooms, but I think price will drop fast, may be over 1 month and will be around 900$ street price or that lens must be perfect in quality as canon or nikons

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Apr 8, 2012)

Wonder why they think Sony users wouldnt like to have VC as option.. Sure in 24-70 difference between stabilised sensor vs lens isnt big, still for movies its nice option..

2 upvotes
NoFunBen
By NoFunBen (Apr 9, 2012)

sony has in camera body stabilised sensors so it not really needed. this should bring the price down.

0 upvotes
ledgars
By ledgars (Apr 9, 2012)

I never have seen much lower price for Sigma/Tamron (Sony) lenses wo IS. I would buy stabilized lens for Sony.

0 upvotes
Vamp898
By Vamp898 (Apr 9, 2012)

yes, price is sometimes even higher without OS/IS/VC so i dont get it why it should be without for sony.

And until now i wasnt able to get SteadyShot working in the View finder, it only affects if you take the photo or the movie so it would help a lot with manual focusing.

Also the objective IS is specialised for the focal length. Sony tells you can have 4,5 more aperture with steady shot, sigma with the 18-250 tells maximum 3

my sigma 18-250 have the better IS then the in-body steady shot (it least in my Sony A77)

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 9, 2012)

The lens IS probably works fine on Sony bodies but the body IS needs to be turned off. Since there's no good mechanism to switch these, perhaps they decided the simplest route is to just not offer in lens VC. I think there's a way for the lens to tell the body not to use SSS. Not sure if Sony or Minolta had publicized it.

0 upvotes
Michael Knight
By Michael Knight (Apr 19, 2012)

Vamp898, so you have a sigma 18-250mm has IS, even for sony mount? and it's confirmed to work better than the in-body SSS?

I wonder why Tamron never wants to put IS for its sony-mount lenses. even worse, the price stays the same as the Tamron canikon-mount with IS.

0 upvotes
tosvus
By tosvus (Jul 22, 2012)

I am annoyed they dont offer VC. OS is usually better, plus for us Nex owners, we could really use it. Now I am limited to Sigma for a 2.8 standard zoom w/stabilization it seems..

0 upvotes
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 8, 2012)

In Japan, its brochure is already available in a shop. They say pictures in it are so good and expect it'd be greatest Tamron's lens ever :)

2 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (Apr 9, 2012)

It's lenses like this that make me think of jumping ship to Canon or Nikon FF.

2 upvotes
645D
By 645D (Apr 9, 2012)

That's what I thought too. Look at the tech spec, Tamron loaded it with special glasses. This is the most important lens range and Tamron could not afford to make a lame lens.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 14, 2012)

can't wait to see a comp..

0 upvotes
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Apr 8, 2012)

Reading the future reviews one should be careful.

No doubt, new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 will be the spoiled baby and the Tamron one "the ugly duck"...

That IS feature sounds very good... I think that if that lens has a decent performance, this Tamron joined to the 5DIII would be an amazing team in low light scenes.

1 upvote
GMack
By GMack (Apr 8, 2012)

If Canon thought their gear was that much better, they'd add a better warranty on their $10,000 lenses than only ONE year. The have to have the worst lens warranty going for a major player right now.

Nikon USA has FIVE years and Tamron USA has SIX years, if you avoid the gray market ones. Of course, either could claim "Impact damage" and stick you with a $500 bill too to circumvent it.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 8, 2012)

I'd rather buy the non IS canon for the same price because it makes me feel better inside for no logical reason. After all, Canon deserves a break right? Especially with all the money they 'invest' in marketing the message that their stuff has to be better. Its first party. First party is always better.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 9, 2012)

Try reselling that Tamron and you'll see that maybe the Canon/Nikon lens was worth a bit more after all. Snobbery perhaps but for good money I would expect this Tamron to be at a new level of quality they have not reached previously, and properly centered so the one you get is the same as the one tested.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 9, 2012)

If resale value is a factor then you're either looking in the wrong price range for your budget or you need to find a system you can trust more.

However, I would totally understand the statement:

"I buy first party because I _______ and I might need to sell off all my gear if it goes south."

However, no one ever says that. Its mostly first party snobbery.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 10, 2012)

@AbrasiveReducer- initial assessments look pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMlmJtSFpBo&feature=related

As for resale value, I don't know why that's such an essential factor for people from the getgo. I pick lenses that I can keep because I buy them so I can use them, not so I can sell them. And their value is in the photos I can create with them, not in how much I can resell them for. Ideally, you want to pick and choose lenses that you don't want to resell.

Ironically, if I were to buy the Canon or Nikon 24-70/2.8 lenses, I would be *more* likely to want to resell them down the line because I would eventually want a lens that had IS/VR. So you take a hit in price twice when you buy these lenses: the first time is when you're paying $1000 more than the Tamron, and the second time is when you're reselling them for a lot less then what you bought them for. So in reality, you would have probably been better off, financially, to have bought the Tamron to begin with.

3 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Apr 12, 2012)

I sell used lenses frequently on eBay, and my observation has been that a good lens will keep its value, regardless of the brand. The value will mostly be determined by how much a new copy costs.

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Apr 8, 2012)

I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 8, 2012)

I don't think you understand lens design. If VC is added as an afterthought, then yes, there is the potential for diminished optical performance. However, when VC is an integral component of the optical formula, it should not diminish the optical performance at all.

Consider, after all, the numerous Canon and Nikon IS/VR lenses that deliver superb optical performance, equal to or better than their non-IS predecessors. Consider the latest Canon 70-200/2.8L IS, which is definitely superior in optical quality than the non-IS 70-200/2.8L! It is simply naive and ill-informed to assume that the addition of IS/VR/VC automatically means diminished optical performance. If that were true, there would be significant and obvious evidence of it throughout Canon and Nikon's lens line-up. I can assure you that when someone buys a Canon or Nikon 600mm f/4 IS or VR lens, these buyers aren't saying, "I guess I'm just going to have to sacrifice sharpness for IS/VR!"

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
oysso
By oysso (Apr 8, 2012)

video? What about general travel lens where there are both dark and light situations. It will be much easier for twilight / cityscape at night shots handheld.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 8, 2012)

I found th same thing with the 17-50. Yhe non VC is what I still have. I hope T3 is right. It makes sense.

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Apr 8, 2012)

It seems that Zeiss has similar standpoint of view. As such, they do not put anti-shake mechanism into their high-end products. While Zeiss is for sure producing superb optics, I don’t think Nikon and Canon are manufacturing sub-par VR/IS lenses but charging people at top-of-the-line price level.

For nowadays technology advancement, the inclusion of anti-shake mechanism should not be a hindrance to manufacturers in the production of superb optics.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 8, 2012)

The 17-50 VC is a single, isolated example. The 70-300 VC lens is sharper than their old non VC 70-300's. The SIgma 17-50 OS is sharper than the old 18-50 f2.8. Canon's IS lenses have all be sharper than their predecessors. Nikon's 16-35 VR is very sharp.

1 upvote
Leok
By Leok (Apr 9, 2012)

The non VC version of Tamrons 17-50 has been widely reported to have better optical performance than the new VC version. As with any lens purchase, its wise NOT to assume the new version will be better in all respects. The focus breathing of Nikons 70-200 2.8 VRii is another classic example... its a great lens in every other way but for users who want close focus @200mm the VRi may be a better choice.

I hope the 24-70 VC does not have any major issues... and will wait for reviews before purchase.

0 upvotes
CommanderMAD
By CommanderMAD (Apr 9, 2012)

@T3
jonikon was speaking from experience in the fact that he actually HAD both and compared them to find that the new lens wasn't as good.
You're just spouting theory.

0 upvotes
benbammens
By benbammens (Apr 10, 2012)

With my lenses it was the exact opposite. The VC version is way better than the non-VC version I had first.
I put together a little test you can find halfway this page:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=40500741&page=2

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 10, 2012)

@CommanderMAD- you can not take the experience of *one* lens model and extrapolate that to all lenses that have IS technology. Plus, it's a *fact* that there are a lot of IS lenses that optically better than their non-IS predecessors! Additionally, it's a *fact* that there are plenty of IS lenses that deliver *superb, top-level* optical performance that is unhindered by the integration of IS technology.

It's bizarre that we're still even discussing this, because IS technology is very widely used in lenses of all levels, and has been used by the most demanding photographers for years now! CommanderMAD, you act as if IS is some unknown, untested, untrustworthy technology that still needs to be vetted. Wrong. We're way past that now. You're living in the 1990's!

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 10, 2012)

Yes it is a universally known fact of course, that Tamron's 17-50 F/2.8 non-VC lens is sharper than its VC newer version. I've owned and used all of the versions of the Tamron 17-50 in both Nikon and Canon mount. By the way there are 3 versions in Nikon mount but that is besides the point.

Interestingly, the newer Tamron 18-270VC Piezo, which replaced the older Tamron 18-270VC, the users report that it is also softer than the old version (in the tele region of zoom). I personally owned the old version of that 18-270, and not the new version, so I cannot tell from experience, but the reviews I have seen seem to support that point.

The only other lens that Tamron made with VC was 70-300VC. I owned that lens and used it on Nikon D700 and D7000. I found the sharpness ok, but replaced it with Nikon's 70-300VR. What I did not like on Tamron 70-300, was, that despite the Ring Focusing that Tamron finally started to put inside lenses), the focusing was just slow.

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 10, 2012)

So it appears, at least until now, that when Tamron puts VC in something, they screw up the optics. However, their VC is the best in industry, you can hand-hold pretty much anything. But I give them a benefit of the doubt; hopefully they finally figured it out and can stick the VC mechanism and not screw up the sharpness on the lens, in the new 24-70VC. I am also hopeful that they finally figured out how to do fast AF like Canon's USM (or even Sigmas HSM)

0 upvotes
kadarpik
By kadarpik (Apr 8, 2012)

Yes. yes VC is not so important in still imaging but for video, canon 24-70 is good on tripod only. Tamron will have huge success among video/still graphers. canon prime 28 IS for videographing and street photography taken in mind. Hope the critics will be substituted here with more broad understanding of lens applications.

0 upvotes
GMack
By GMack (Apr 7, 2012)

An 82mm filter is going to mean this thing is huge! Don't know if I'm willing to buy another round of B+W filters for an 82mm lens when most of the Nikkor f/2.8 lenses are 77mm filter sizes. Have to wait for the IQ tests to show too.

However, another nice thing going for it is that Tamron USA has a 6 year warranty on their lenses over the 5 year Nikon USA versions. Good luck with the gray market on either as neither will get fixed by the US importer now under warranty. Sadly, Canon lenses are only one year still which is screwy on some $10,000 lens of theirs. Not much faith in them it appears. I would expect more out of Canon by now.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 8, 2012)

"Don't know if I'm willing to buy another round of B+W filters for an 82mm lens when most of the Nikkor f/2.8 lenses are 77mm filter sizes."

In the digital age, how many physical, screw-on filters do you still use? Back in the film days, I had a ton of color correction and effects filters. Since switching to digital, I've gotten rid of all of them except for a polarizing filter. Who the heck needs a bunch of screw-on filters when you can apply most filters with much better control and flexibility via post-processing?

0 upvotes
Michael She
By Michael She (Apr 8, 2012)

Still need ND filters, UV filter, and Polarizing filter. A hundred bucks or two if you need to buy everything.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Zigmont
By Zigmont (Apr 8, 2012)

I bought extra large filters and then use step-down rings for smaller lenses, rather than buying separate sets of filters for each size lens.

0 upvotes
genxseven
By genxseven (Apr 7, 2012)

$1299 seems expensive. Even with image stabilization, I'd rather buy a Canon 24-70 for basically the same price.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

I think a lot of people underestimate the value of IS.

For example, IS allows you to shoot stopped down and still get a steady shot. And stopping down a lens increases its optical performance. Lenses rarely perform as well when shooting wide open as they do when the aperture is stopped down a stop or two. With a lens that has IS, you have greater flexibility to take advantage of stopping down the lens than you do with a non-IS lens.

So lets say that the Tamron and Canon lenses perform quite similarly at f/2.8. But how will the Canon compare to the Tamron when both are stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6, with only the Tamron having the advantage of IS to keep it sharp and steady? Or how does the Canon at f/2.8 compare to the Tamron stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 because the Tamron can take advantage of IS to keep it sharp and steady, while using the stop-down technique to get better optical performance?

6 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Apr 8, 2012)

Do not forget the thumb role of velocity equal the double of the focal lenght, and ISO resources etc to compensate for. If one buys a 2.8 lens is to use that aperture most of time. Besides, a new electronic circuit in a lens circuitry could add an additional source of defect in it. Rarely one buy a lens like that to make very sharp photos. But, if this lens proves to have an optical as good as Canon new 24-70 than the VC may become a minor advantage not to say the price.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 8, 2012)

"If one buys an f/2.8 lens is to use that aperture most of the time." -- True. But "most of the time" still leaves other occasions where f/2.8 isn't being used. Just because a particular feature isn't being used "most of the time" does not mean it's still not valuable. For example, plenty of us would really like clean ISO 12,800...even though we would not be using it "most of the time". We want it there when we need it. Same with IS.

"Besides, a new electronic circuit in a lens circuitry could add an additional source of defect in it." -- LOL. People have been using that argument ever since the first electronic camera! People made that argument against auto exposure circuitry, against auto focus, against Image Stabilization, against LCD screens, and even against digital photography. Besides, I think IS technology has proven itself to be very reliable over the years. It's a very widely used technology these days. No need to fear it. Time to join the 21st century.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Apr 8, 2012)

So, I ask you, why Canon, mastering this technology long time before Tamron (who is Tamron compared to Canon?) and other brands, Nikon inclusive, do not put it in this lens recently relaunched and put it in several cheaper non Pro lens? What matter in this focal length with such an aperture is not stabilization. A lens in this price range is made to experienced Pro photographer not to parkinsonian amateur. Even DP was surprised by Canon recent non Pro 2.8 lens launch with IS. Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM. DP questioned if a such aperture lens needed stabilization. I think Canon was clear in its target: Non Pro amateur photographer. But, if this were not a burden it is welcome since we can switch it off and on. But remember, the IS circuit is coupled to AF circuit so a malfuncion in it can compromise the AF.

0 upvotes
Michael She
By Michael She (Apr 8, 2012)

IS adds weight and cost to the lens; Canon probably did not add it due to those factors.

Tamron on the other hand needed something to one-up Canon (otherwise why buy Tamron)? Therefore they included IS.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 8, 2012)

Ruy, your concerns regarding "the IS circuit is coupled to AF circuit so a malfuncion in it can compromise the AF" is completely pointless because Canon is perfectly fine with putting IS in plenty of their lenses, including plenty of their top L lenses. IS exists in lenses from the Canon 24-105/4L to their upcoming 200-400/4L IS, and many, many others. When these lenses were announced, did you jump into discussions, raising concerns about "the IS circuit is coupled to AF circuit so a malfuncion in it can compromise the AF", or that these lenses were for "Parkinsonian amateurs", or that IS was "a burden"? LOL. Relax, IS is very reliable, effective, and for users of all levels. We pro shooters enjoy the advantages and effectiveness of IS just as much as amateur photographers. In fact, IS is probably even more important to us because it can make the difference between a sellable image, versus a missed opportunity.

I know plenty of pros who would love IS in the Canon 24-70/2.8L!!!

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 8, 2012)

Ruy, you also forget that we live in a new age now, where more and more of these DSLRs are being bought and used to shoot video. And having a lens that can do IS can be a very valuable tool for many DSLR video shooters. Many suspect that this is why Canon chose to put IS into their new 24mm and 28mm primes. It's possible that the latest 24-70/2.8L was put into development long before they realized that it should really have IS because it would be desirable to the many video shooters that were now buying DSLRs. You have to remember that product development occurs far, far ahead of the product announcement, sometimes years in advance. I would not be surprised if Canon is working on an IS version of the 24-70/2.8L right now as we speak, for release in the future!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 8, 2012)

If you don't need stabilization in wide lenses, why would nikon add it to a 16-35? If you don't need it for standard zooms, why did Canon add it to the 17-55?

And those saying they would just buy the Canon for the same price had better hurry up. I really doubt canon is going to keep making that once the $2200 v2 lens hits the shelves. So you can buy used and hope it's a good copy, buy the Tamron, or pony up for the $1000 more expensive new Canon.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Natan Lorenzi
By Natan Lorenzi (Apr 8, 2012)

Well, I had a AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 and i sell it because I can't use this lens (24mm on FF) below 1/60s. With my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D I can use shutter speed up to 1/15s without blur.

Maybe if it had VR I could use up to 1/15s, 1/20s without blur. So, I guess the Tamron hole in one with this lens.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 9, 2012)

Well, the compelling reason to buy Tamron is because it's cheaper. It's not likely to be sharper than one of Canon's better lenses. Stabilization is nice to have especially if the lens turns out to be pretty good.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

I have been checking daily for price and availability on this lens. I love VR in the mid-range because I can shoot lower ISOs handheld and still get nice sharp photos. A D800e is in my distant future, and right now all I have are primes for mid-range on my D700, no VR (not a big problem for the D700). I want this lens, if it checks out good. I believe the street price will drop after release, sooner rather than later. If it just has good center sharpness at f2.8 I'm all in for it. Imagine the indoor, casual family portraits you could get with this and a D800e.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

"Imagine the indoor, casual family portraits you could get with this and a D800e."

I can imagine lots of moire on clothing and soft corners

5 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

Pessimist. And I'm not anal about that stuff. The bright faces are the point of interest. Just take plenty of photos, and use software if necessary.

2 upvotes
Zalllon
By Zalllon (Apr 7, 2012)

Moore and soft corners is overblown. If you are doing commercial work, then it may be an issue ... but then you probably wouldn't look at this or comment in the first place. Get your gray point, shoot your portraits, run your raw files through and get paid for your work. When you're shooting wide open, who cars about soft corners.

Non-commercial customers don't complain about corners and more, photographers do.

3 upvotes
rar133
By rar133 (Apr 8, 2012)

please tell me you use $4000+ worth of equipment for other things than 'JUST' casual family portraits.... :)

3 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 8, 2012)

somebody use Leica S2 for casual pet shots, I could't care less
just pointing out the fact, D800e is not the best tool for casual shots
get it?

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 8, 2012)

Y'all are cracking me up. Of course I use a $5000 rig for family photos. Why not? It's my hobby and my money. Who commutes in a $50,000 BMW or a $60,000 truck? Not me. Who fishes in a $50,000 boat on the weekend? Not me. I take pictures of birds, sunsets, and family with a $3000 camera. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your therapist (and I don't use those either).

3 upvotes
canderanet
By canderanet (Apr 7, 2012)

Where's PENTAX mount? I believe many PENTAXIAN would buy this lens

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

to use with Film Pentax SLR?

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 7, 2012)

Exactly ! This is a lens best suited for film or 35mm sensors rather than a crop sensor camera. I use a 24-70mm on a crop sensor and the 36mm equivalent FOV is killing for indoor shots.

2 upvotes
Leok
By Leok (Apr 8, 2012)

As Pentax DSLRs have built in stabilization the advantages of this new lens over the 28-75 2.8 are minimal. I used to shoot Pentax, and really miss having antishake in my short lenses now that I went FF Nikon.

This lens makes much more sense for Nikon & Canon shooters who want VR / IS.

0 upvotes
grahamdyke
By grahamdyke (Apr 10, 2012)

Tamron don't make lenses for Pentax mount any more, they stopped after the 10-24 was released about two years ago...

0 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Apr 7, 2012)

If this lens doesn't have front or back focus issues it's the clear choice unless you need higher build quality. Want this so bad, being able to shoot events in comfort knowing you'll only have to worry about motion blur on subjects, would be awesome.

I mean Canon is charging almost the same just for a 24mm prime with IS.

1 upvote
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Apr 7, 2012)

It's awesome to see Tamron back in the Hi-end "SP" class with an option to Sigma's 24-70/2.8 EX HSM aor the excellent but expensive Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ( in the Sony field ). I hope the Sony A-mount version comes with a somewhat lower price, since it doesn't have/need the VC ( I doubt it, though... ).

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 7, 2012)

Well that starts the ball rolling...

The gauntlet has been thrown down.

Special Performance lenses like these grab the thunder away from the stable of the top brands, as well as grabbing away not only market share of the 24-70mm f2.8 lens class, but wall sitters who may have been sitting on the fences too long will now swoop the coop.

Unless of course a really major design and function blunder occurs on this particular lens, which the manufacturer would do utmost to avoid.

A welcome addition to the fold. IQ and performance remains to be seen.

.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

I believe Nikon will add VR to their new 24-70, which has to be coming soon. I cannot understand why Canon did not, yet they charge a king's ransom for it. Nikon will charge as much, if not more. I like good glass, but I don't like getting bent over so badly. For a pro top glass is a necessity, I know. Thank the lord I am just an amateur. I could go for this lens if it tests well.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 7, 2012)

Given the way Nikon has stepping up features even when it wasn't necessary to match Canon, I would not be surprised at all if they put VR in their next 24-70 and priced it the same or slightly less than canon's new 24-70. That is just the type of classy things they have been doing lately.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

To match Canon? I thought Canon officially surrendered some time ago. No?

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 7, 2012)

@BackInTheGame
It is precisely because Nikon has been doing more than the bare minimum necessary to compete that it feels that way. Nikon seems like they try to include as much as they can and still make a profit while canon seems like they only include the bare minimum features to still make a sale.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Apr 7, 2012)

Well it seems Canon had a not so great 24-70. They took up the IQ a bit and nothing else. Then they broke it off in users on the price, just for getting it right. They finally put a decent body on the 5D series and felt they were justified in breaking it off in users again for the 5DIII. It's like sadomasochism, Canon the sadist and its users the masochists. You guys don't know when to say "uncle".

1 upvote
weblog
By weblog (Apr 7, 2012)

very lens.

7 upvotes
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Apr 7, 2012)

Yes, very.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 7, 2012)

I like very lenses. Mine are all very very.

4 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't want to jump in on the old very vs indeed bandwagon, but to me it's more indeed. I dread the inevitable piling on by the die-hard totally folks. They are suuuuch losers!

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Apr 7, 2012)

What if we say this lens is very indeed? Is it soooooo totally lame?

1 upvote
mjsneddon
By mjsneddon (Apr 8, 2012)

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Apr 9, 2012)

Indeed, very lame.

1 upvote
Visualiza
By Visualiza (Apr 7, 2012)

http://www.fotografidigitali.it/news/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-28-di-vc-usd-eccolo-dal-vivo-al-photoshow_41591.html

Photos and a quick video of the lens^ Gives a good idea of the size, which IMO seems quite reasonable. IS, hypersonic motor, LD glass, weather sealing...it hits all the wickets at a VERY attractive price point. IQ and build quality are still up in the air, but if it delivers the goods then Tamron may have hit another homerun.

4 upvotes
markcolangelo
By markcolangelo (Apr 7, 2012)

I consider Canon Lenses as a long term investment, I stick with the Red Ring...

5 upvotes
scratscrat
By scratscrat (Apr 7, 2012)

SNOB.....

10 upvotes
markcolangelo
By markcolangelo (Apr 7, 2012)

I would say "wise" :)

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

it's true that these 3rd party lens drop value (as %) quicker then Canon/Nikon/Zeiss

however since the base for C/N/Z is also higher in absolute term you can lose more $

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 7, 2012)

I have a 25 year old Sigma 70-210mm f2.8 from the 1980s. Its in perfect working condition with AF, metering etc etc. Just because its a 3rd party lens doesn't mean its flimsy.

There are plenty of well made 3rd party lenses as well. And this isn't Sigma, Tamron has a reputation of generally having few lemons in its line up.

For Canon/Nikon users this is a good alternative to the OEM versions since the OEM versions lack any IS/VR while being more expensive to boot.

Sony users have enjoyed stabilized 24-70mm lenses for decades now and since Tamron is removing the VC system while keeping the same price, it makes less sense to go for the Tamron.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

Lenses are tools, not "long term investments". A lens will never appreciate in value like a "long term investment" is supposed to. The only way a lens can give you a true return on your investment is with the pictures and images it allows you to capture. That is where your true return on your investment resides! And in that respect, I think most people would rather have a lens with IS/VC rather than one without, because IS/VC allows you to capture more images in a broader range of shooting conditions, allowing you to get a better RETURN on your INVESTMENT.

8 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Apr 9, 2012)

"Sony users have enjoyed stabilized 24-70mm lenses for decades now and since Tamron is removing the VC system while keeping the same price, it makes less sense to go for the Tamron."

Sony Alpha has not been around for decades, not even one.

2 upvotes
Michael Knight
By Michael Knight (Apr 19, 2012)

SNOB = brand fanboys

0 upvotes
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (Apr 7, 2012)

After seeing the price of the Canon 24-70 II, I am interested.

10 upvotes
IljaM
By IljaM (Apr 7, 2012)

I am not. The old Canon 24-70 is about the same price and I am sure, it is optically better. And you are sure, you will have no problems on future bodies with Canon lens. I know, this is stabilized lens, but do you really need stabilized f/2.8 lens on today`s low noise, high-ISO bodies? I will never buy this lens for $1300, I rather buy older red-ring compatibility-safe lens...

3 upvotes
Petrus Magnus
By Petrus Magnus (Apr 7, 2012)

I prefer IS capability (image stabilization) to high ISO settings anytime! People seem to forget that it's not just noise that gets worse with increasing ISO--dynamic range (DR) gets narrower, colour depth and rendition deteriorates, contrast decreases, etc. Check out the DR/ISO diagram of Nikon D800 at DXO Mark--it's quite a slope! High ISO is always a compromise. With image stabilization and a modest ISO setting, none of this happens and you're getting the best out of your sensor.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

@IljaM - first of all, just because a lens has a max f/2.8 aperture doesn't mean that people are always going to shoot at f/2.8. Sometimes, you want to stop down for more depth of field.

Secondly, stopping down the aperture increases the optical performance of most lenses. Lenses are rarely as sharp at maximum aperture as they are stopped down a stop or two. So stopping down allows you to get the optimum image sharpness. And when you do that, suddenly IS becomes quite valuable!

Plus, not everyone likes to crank up the ISO just because you can.

Also, sometimes, you want to shoot at slower shutter speeds for creativity. You can shoot at surprisingly slow shutter speeds when using IS in conjunction with a monopod. So IS allows you to broaden the creative range of images you can take.

2 upvotes
IljaM
By IljaM (Apr 13, 2012)

@all: I know it all. I shoot live concerts and similar events most of the time. And because, not only me is moving, but the photographed object is moving, too - stabilizer does not help me in these situations.
I know, lens are not optimal wide open. But all my L-lenses are great wide open and my 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.5 too. And no one lens has better bokeh stopped down, all lenses have the best bokeh wide open.So, I wish not to shoot high ISO, I need to do it. This is the reason why I will buy only high-quality (red ring) lenses and not hi-priced third party lenses...

0 upvotes
dora9
By dora9 (Apr 7, 2012)

MTF chart looks good. I can't wait to mount this!

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Apr 7, 2012)

I have the SP 24-135, SP 17-35 and SP 70-300 VC. They all worked pretty good with D700. I would believe this new SP 24-70 to be nearly as good as the original manufacturer's version. I just hoped that the actual retail price would be much lower than the current MSRP.

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Apr 7, 2012)

I hope this is optically as good as Canon 24-70 II. Or nearly as good.

2 upvotes
Rubenski
By Rubenski (Apr 7, 2012)

Dream on...

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

it really depends on what's your definition of "nearly"

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

if it could be even cheaper and "IF" canon announce FF rebel...that would be perfect

0 upvotes
Midnighter
By Midnighter (Apr 7, 2012)

Only a matter of time I think (3 years?) the market for APS-C is being impacted from below, hence the D800 arriving $1000 cheaper than expected. Sell an FF body, make FF money on FF lens sales.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

let's hope it's 3 years! time to ditch APSC

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 7, 2012)

ASPC will never go away. If it did the prices of the FF would have to come down dramatically. They only real reason to by a 5DIII over a 7D for example is the FF sensor. If rebel and or 7D class bodies had a FF sensor the 1DX/D4 type cameras would be going for half what they do now and the 5D type cameras wouldn't even exist. Canon and Nikon will never give up their huge full frame mark ups. Sorry.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Apr 9, 2012)

If the APC-C market went away, the FF prices would go up since there would be less competing technologies. Having APS-C format alternatives means the FF sensor cameras cannot be excessively expensive so only the pros can afford them.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 9, 2012)

FF prices would not go up with out ASPC that is just silly since neither canon or Nikon would sell any cameras if the happened.

0 upvotes
fotomartyn
By fotomartyn (Apr 7, 2012)

So price! Best choice standing Nikkor 24-70.

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Apr 7, 2012)

I own 4 Tamron lenses and all of them have some problems. Some more severe some less. Therefore I decided some while ago to stick with Nikon pro lenses. More money but less troubles.

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Apr 10, 2012)

I agree. I've tried many 3rd party lenses, and they are often inferior in white balance, AF, and/or flash exposure. If I were to choose between two lenses with identical specs, I'd choose Nikon in a heartbeat. The only problem here is that I value image stabilization GREATLY, and Nikon's lens pricing has gotten pretty ridiculous in the past few years, which is the only reason Tamron can also ask for this ridiculous price.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (Apr 7, 2012)

The price is not right.

1 upvote
epoon2
By epoon2 (Apr 7, 2012)

world's first... yay

1 upvote
msstudio
By msstudio (Apr 7, 2012)

I personally can't wait to see a test on this lens. Some of my recent shots involve bery low light, long exposures, on the go. The IS on the 24-105 is great and makes shooting like this possible. But. I miss my 2.8 opening to actually see and hate switching primes all the time, which also slows me down a lot. My hopes are that this is as sharp as the new Canon 70-200 M II with equal IS correction, for which I would actually be happy to pay the asking price of Canons new 24-70 ( which I will get anyways, but that's me...)

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Apr 7, 2012)

You guys know the msrp is different vs street price right? It will probably go for $1,099.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 8, 2012)

Most Tamrons have been selling at or near MSRP lately, but Tamron always has rebates. Wouldn't be surprised if it is $1299 with a $100 rebate right from launch.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
KyleN
By KyleN (Apr 6, 2012)

Canon's new version is close to $2400.00 nearly twice the price and does not have IS. The first version will probably go away soon just as they did with the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Apr 6, 2012)

price is too close to canon. The IS feature won't be enough to cut into canon's sales IMO. At this focal length, IS is not as important. It needs to be $1k to tempt folks from canon's offering IMO unless canon discontinues the 24-70 2.8 MK I

3 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Apr 7, 2012)

pretty sure with the MK II the MK I will be discontinued.

2 upvotes
f_stops
By f_stops (Apr 7, 2012)

It is already half of the Canon 24-70 II. If it is better than the Tamron 28-75 - this will be a winner.

I owned version 1 of the 24-70mm. The 28-75mm Tamron is a better lens (except in the corners wide open).. My Canon misfocused frequently, even after sending it to Canon for adjustment. The canon is superior in feel/build quality.

Looks like round two: Canon vs Tamron. I'll wait and see - but I wouldn't be surprised if the tammy's image quality is comparable to the Canon at twice the price.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

"At this focal length, IS is not as important."-- Which focal length were you talking about? It goes from 24mm at the short end to 70mm at the long end. And on a 1.6x crop camera, it's the equivalent of 38.4mm to 112mm. Plus, IS just gives you more creative flexibility. Sometimes, I *want* to use as slow a shutter speed as I can get away with, and all I have with me is my monopod. You can shoot at surprisingly slow shutter speeds with a monopod and IS.

Plus, for many people, a bit less size and weight to lug around is desirable. Canon's 24-70/2.8L lenses are behemoths. The Canon 24-70/2.8L MKI is 953g, while this Tamron is 825g. The Tamron is also about 1.3cm shorter in length. It may not seem like much, but when you've been carrying it around all day long, you can feel it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 7, 2012)

How many years have people said IS isn't needed at shorter focals even though Canon themselves are making 24mm IS primes?

2 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

having IS is good, but not a determining factor for me
and as for the IS canon wide primes, do they justify their price hike? your call

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Apr 7, 2012)

So not having IS and costing the same or more is better how?

0 upvotes
kadarpik
By kadarpik (Apr 7, 2012)

Handheld video without IS ? Canon also launched 24 is 28 is primes. The lens is definitely enough good for full HD resolution.

0 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Apr 6, 2012)

A non-VC version for Sony but nothing for Pentax? That sucks.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 7, 2012)

Might have something to do with the fact that it is a full frame lens and Pentax doesn't make a camera with that size sensor.

Also, sadly, Pentax has been circling the drain lately. Hopefully Ricoh can pull them out, but I can't blame the lens makers for not wanting to take a risk.

3 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

looks like Tamron and sigma are giving up on Pentax already..

1 upvote
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Apr 7, 2012)

@tkbslc It's not the FF issue. Tamron has been making and selling FF lenses in K mount for years. And Tamron sells a boatload more lenses for APS-C in all mounts.
Unfortunately this reflects a lack of confidence in Pentax. Mitsuoka is right. Add to this the defection of Voigtlander and Zeiss last year.

As a Pentax owner I'm disheartened by thinning 3rd party support.

2 upvotes
grahamdyke
By grahamdyke (Apr 10, 2012)

Tamron don't make lenses for Pentax mount any more, they stopped after the 10-24 was released about two years ago...

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 6, 2012)

Tamron. I've gone through my share of Tamron lenses and I believe it will have typical Tamron's attributes:

1) Sharpness - almost as good as OEM (Canon or Nikon)
2) VC - superior to both Nikon/Canon (although they don't have in that range)
3) Contrast - always inferior to Nikon/Canon. Often yellow cast to photos. But can be dealt with in PP
4) AF - this is a biggie. Tamron has placed Ring AF in their latest 2 lenses (finally) but it just does not work nearly as good as Nikon and Canon AF (and Sigma is faster too). For some - it does not mater, it is silent but it is noticeably slower than OEM.

That is why I think, Tamron needs to price this thing much less, like $700 to make it work.

0 upvotes
h0tsauce
By h0tsauce (Apr 6, 2012)

It's the only is/vr 24-70mm that you can get for Canon OR Nikon, and you think they need to make it $700 for it to work? it's already a lot cheaper than the none OS counter part from NIkon and Canon.

7 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Apr 6, 2012)

h0tsauce, IS isn't so important in this focal range.

0 upvotes
pomoville
By pomoville (Apr 7, 2012)

It's important if the situation makes it important. It's definitely a helpful feature to have.

8 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 7, 2012)

@Jack A. Zucker- IS "isn't so important" until you're in a situation where it's important. LOL. I don't think there's any doubt that IS can be quite valuable. You can shoot with IS from a moving car that's bouncing about, at a slower shutter speed, and still get amazingly steady shots with everything sharp inside the car, but with the outdoor environment motion blurred. You just can't do that with a non-IS lens. You might not think IS is not "important", but I see IS as a tool that can broaden and expand your creative possibilities. And I think that's a very valuable thing to have in photography.

4 upvotes
johnnyjohnny
By johnnyjohnny (Jun 26, 2012)

totally...i shoot low light nite shots, hence the mk5iii on my eventual list...but i need a 2.8 lens with IS...i have that already on my rebel t2i and refuse to give up the 3 stops it gives me when i shoot at 1600...if i go to the mk5iii and get a canon lens, i will gain nothing without IS...i can shoot the mk5iii at 3200 but lose 2-3 stops without IS
...on my t2i i have the remarkable canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, so much better than an earlier tamron, but since canon makes no such thing for a fullframe, i'm stuck wondering about this tamron...if it's as lousy as my similar tamron zoom (28-75 about 5 years ago) i would never consider another tamron...however, this sounds like it might truly be in the realm of canon glass quality...well, one can hope

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
johnnyjohnny
By johnnyjohnny (Jun 26, 2012)

just hunted down camera test of canon lens vs tamron, on the net at different mm and f stops. super vignetting and noticeable optical distortion beyond the canon...this is the problem i had with the 28-75 2.8 tamron i had 6 years ago...it was horrible in real world use from headshots to around town...from what i see, this is intrinsic of tamron and evident in this new lens...wish i had the link, but google image comparisons and you can find comparisons

0 upvotes
Lordsegan
By Lordsegan (Apr 6, 2012)

If this is anything like the 70-300 VC, this lens will be an absolute killer.

No one knows, but I have an order in for two :)

0 upvotes
Duckie
By Duckie (Apr 6, 2012)

Haunted by the past!

I got many OEM lenses before and almost all of them are now in the unused shelve. For this reason alone I will think twice and inspect samples when more people are actually using it. Using OEM is often a compromise and there are the associated risks. For RRP 1299 (even for a, say, 40% discount) I would not wear the risk. YMMV

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kjbkix
By kjbkix (Apr 12, 2012)

you realize OEM means original equipment manufacturer right? i.e. Canon and Nikon. So this comment seems backwards.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 6, 2012)

Seems a lot of people are assuming that this lens will give comparable performance to the Nikon or Canon equivalents. That's a big if. If it performs like the first Tamron 17-50 2.8 I would buy it, but not for $1299. For that money, I'd either do without VR, and buy the Nikon AF-S 28-70 2.8 or I'd buy the 24-120 f4 VR and have better range for the same money or spend a few hundred more for the ultimate standard zoom, the Nikon AF-S 24-70 2.8G.

No, I've been waiting for this lens, but the price is too high for a 3rd party lens even with VC.

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

So their update to their 28-75 f/2.8 costs $1200 adding IS? I bought the 28-75 5 years ago at $330. Adding IS should not increase the lens price by $900.

1 upvote
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Apr 6, 2012)

The Tamron 28-75 is actually $499 today. It really can't compare with the new version:
. No VC
. No ultrasonic focus
. 4mm at the wide end (which is much more difficult to make than the 5mm at the long end)
. Not moisture resistant

Also, the old 28-75 was rather soft wide open, especially on full frame. I owned one and sold it.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 6, 2012)

Canon's went up $900 and they didn't add anything to the wide angle or add stabilization.

5 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 6, 2012)

I wish this lens to be a huge success. Competition is good

16 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Apr 6, 2012)

Yay for a healthy competition!

1 upvote
645D
By 645D (Apr 6, 2012)

This is a perfect mate to D800, it's optics should be on par to the Nikkors.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 6, 2012)

are you sure?

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 6, 2012)

That's a huge unknown, and I wouldn't expect this lens to have Nikon 24-70 2.8G performance. I'm hoping it performs as well as the Tamron original 17-50 2.8 though.

0 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Apr 6, 2012)

Tamrons are rather good optically, why don't you read tests comparing the 17-50 Tamron and Nikkor 17-55. Build quality (and price aside) they are not too different.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 6, 2012)

@Der Steppenwolf Yes but comparing the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which this lens replaces to the Nikon 24-70 2.8G and you'll find there is no comparison. It's much easier to make a good lens for APS-C than for FF, and that's the challenge that this lens faces.

1 upvote
645D
By 645D (Apr 7, 2012)

Yes, I am sure. I have Tamron 70-200/2.8 and 180/3.5, both have better optics than Canon L counterparts. The 28-75 is also not far behind. Look at the spec of this lens, Tamron is putting all the best glass they have, should be no less than the aforementioned glasses.

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 7, 2012)

@645D
it's good to know

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 7, 2012)

D800, please shoot with prime or f5.6-f11.

0 upvotes
joebloggs
By joebloggs (Apr 7, 2012)

@ 654D - You state "Tamron 70-200/2.8 and 180/3.5, both have better optics than Canon L counterparts" - are you kidding. I believe your trying to convince yourself. Simply ask yourself, do you see any protogs using Tamron, or do you notice the red ring.???. That said, I really do hope this 24-70 the very best of luck, but paleeez dont kid yourself or anyone that it will compare optically with the red rings. You get what you pay for.

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Apr 10, 2012)

Have you actually used the 17-50? I get horrible flash overexposure because the lens doesn't report the right distance information to the body. I hope this new lens doesn't have that problem.

0 upvotes
DotCom Editor
By DotCom Editor (Apr 6, 2012)

The lens shown in the photo has Nikon's counterclockwise zoom from wide to tele. Does the Canon version rotate in the opposite direction, as actual Canon lenses do?

0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 6, 2012)

I was hoping for the same thing but I don't think Tamron will give us that

0 upvotes
oysso
By oysso (Apr 6, 2012)

It is the same movement. But the the mm-numbers are on the ring on Canon , and on the static part on the tamron.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Apr 6, 2012)

oysso, you've got us wrong..

0 upvotes
FuzzTheKingOfTrees
By FuzzTheKingOfTrees (Apr 6, 2012)

pretty sure Tamrons rotate the same as Nikons, whereas Sigma goes the same way as a Canon. I think Tokina are the only people who swap the rotation for the two mounts.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 240
12