Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD lens review

By dpreview staff on May 20, 2013 at 16:23 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Just posted: Our review of the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. In our latest lens review produced in collaboration with DxOMark, we look at Tamron's fast standard zoom for full frame cameras - the first in its class to include optical stabilisation. With its Ultrasonic Drive focus motor and drip-proof construction, it looks like a very tempting option for full frame shooters, especially as it costs rather less than its counterparts from Canon, Nikon or Sony. But is this all too good to be true? Click through to read our review and find out.

271
I own it
86
I want it
16
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 150
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (11 months ago)

I use the Canon version of this lens mostly with my 5D III (sometimes with my 7D). Overall it is a great lens with few minor optical flaws that are all discussed in this very good DPR review.

The main drawback of this lens for a 5D III user is its not-so-stellar AF performance. I worked out that I need a huge MA (calibrated with lenscal) for close distance but better switch MA off for more remote objects to get best results. I had two copies and both showed exactly this behavior. So I guess that this is a problem of the reverse engineering that Tamron had to apply in the development of its AF system. Switching off VR(IS) helps a bit if you shoot action.

If I shoot action I get much more in-focus keepers at 70 mm if I use my EF 70-200 mm f/4 IS or f/2.8 II, the difference is significant.

So, if you want the full performance of your 5D3's great AF system you should consider Canon's new 24-70's. In every other respect the Tamron is a a great alternative with VC/IS.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Alexnikon80
By Alexnikon80 (9 months ago)

I couldn't agree more in this opinion, I have written a review of the lens describing exactly this issue along with some other deficiencies, you can see it here

http://www.nlight.gr/?p=1341

0 upvotes
CreamJuicy
By CreamJuicy (11 months ago)

I've got the "wait and see what Nikon what replaces the current 24-70 with syndrome" even though I don't know if they'll be coming out with a replacement in the next 10 days or the next 10 years. Meanwhile, I'm losing the better pictures I could be getting with either the current Nikon or this Tamron. I was on my way to trade in some lenses on the Nikon last weekend, when that feeling of possbly missing out on the newest made me stop. I wish I could rid myself of this syndrome.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

When Nikon does replace the current 24-70mm f/2.8 I wouldn't be surprised if it costs $2499

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (11 months ago)

such utter nonsense. If the current Nikon or the tamron lens aren't making magically perfect photos for you it's not the equipment-- it's the photographer with the problem. If it's all about razor edge sharpness then use software like NIK Sharpener Pro. Jeezus ... there are complete amateurs shooting brilliant photos with far less high-end glass that aren't sitting around waiting for the perfect lens, camera, etc. Just go shoot with what you have and quit believing it's all about the gear.

6 upvotes
CreamJuicy
By CreamJuicy (11 months ago)

Neither one is making magically perfect photos for me because I have neither. I know it's nonsense because that was the point of my post. Jeezus.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

@calking

True any of the current 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses are more than good enough to make outstanding, breathtaking images and large prints. The subtleties we argue about on DPR are largely academic when it comes to the final image. No one is ever going to say "gee that would be an amazing photo if only you had shot it with the Nikon instead of the Tamron lens." In fact the VC of the Tamron is more likely to be the difference between getting a usable image or not than the slightly better optics of the Canon/Nikon lenses. When you factor that in and the fact that the Tamron is also weather sealed, has a 6 year warranty and is cheaper it makes which one to buy pretty easy.

2 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (11 months ago)

Hope that Canon and Nikon will seriously think about theyr pricing of present and future lenses because of this beauty :)

4 upvotes
dwill23
By dwill23 (11 months ago)

Until Tamron has the same zoom direction as canon does I won't even consider it. I tired using one once and I kept zooming in when I wanted to zoom outward. Soooo annoying!! Sigma has it right. I don't care if Nikon and Minolta (sony) goes the other direction, who cares?! I just want it correct for my system. GRRR

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (11 months ago)

??? So you're saying the lens is making decisions as to which way to zoom instead of you?

4 upvotes
calking
By calking (11 months ago)

some humans apparently can't adapt to simple things.

4 upvotes
Eric Sorensen
By Eric Sorensen (11 months ago)

Sold my trusty EF 24-70 mkI for this new lens. Haven't looked back. A bit sharper than the Canon, and I get MANY more keepers from the VC. It pretty much takes hand-held camera shake out of the equation.

7 upvotes
VWJ
By VWJ (11 months ago)

Exactly, I truly miss the point of not having IS on your heavy duty, low light lens. This lens is great in every aspect. Sharpness is matter of taste, sharpening the picture in post process is never an issue anyway.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

The whole "you dont' need IS/VR/VC on a lens in this range" thing is nothing more then people trying to justify paying more for the Canon/Nikon lenses. Strictly speaking you don't NEED stabilization on any lens.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 42 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Kexi Cao
By Kexi Cao (11 months ago)

Why DPreview advertising amazon's price as $1,029.99 but when you click on it, you get 1,299.99?!

2 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (11 months ago)

If you look closely, $1,029.99 is a price from a third party vendor. I wouldn't buy it because this seller ships from Korea, which means it's a gray market item without US warranty.

I agree that the ads should not display prices for gray market items.

1 upvote
nyairman
By nyairman (11 months ago)

This lens is outstanding on my Canon 5DM3. The AF is not as fast as Canons AF but, were talking the difference is milliseconds. I will add one more thing that was not mentioned with this review or in the comments.....

A 6 Year Warranty!!!!

4 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (11 months ago)

Unless you need the stabilization, I'd rate this third tier after the Nikon or Canon 24-70, and not as good a deal as the cheap as dirt 28-75mm Tamron. The 28-75 is the sharpest of any of these (except maybe the new Canon, which still shocks me at the long end). It just happens to have a really cheap build. The optics are first rate though. For some reason it rates slightly lower in tests, but even on a D800 and D7100 it looks damned sharp. Better bokeh than the new VC version too. AND on Nikon, the screw driven 28-75 focuses faster than the new VC version. (There's a new one with a motor that's I'd avoid for Nikon.)

Where's your test data for the 28-75? None? Go check it out over at photozone then!

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (11 months ago)

If you need some labs "who photozone", learn to take pictures in real life with your own imagination.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (11 months ago)

There is a big difference between 28 and 24 mm so I don't think this lens should be compared to the 28-75 at all — they are of different categories.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

The 28-75 was designed many years ago before the advent of high mp FF DSLRs. It's a decent performer on APS-C, but on a modern FF body, the edge and corners are not great. APS-C shooters would be better served by the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. FF users by the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, the Sigma 24-70 or Nikon / Canon 24-70 f/2.8.

Photozone writes: "The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP is a stellar lens when used on APS-C DSLRs but things aren't all that rosy anymore on a high MP full format DSLR."

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

3 upvotes
Brigcam
By Brigcam (11 months ago)

The 28-75s edge and corner performance is impacted more by focus field curvature than softness. I don't think the review sites really test for that. Bad for taking pictures of brick walls, but in real world shooting its not as big of an issue.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (11 months ago)

...like I said I just tested a newer 28-75 out and it did quite well on both my new D7100 and a friend's D800. It's good gear. I wouldn't take it out in the rain or drop it too much, but the optics are excellent.

24 vs 28 is a personal preference thing. I don't often want 24. Surveying my shots I found most of my wider keepers were at 20, 28, and 35mm and their DX equivalents. Whenever I have owned a 24mm zoom, I've never used it at it's widest.

YMMV.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (11 months ago)

Also see here: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=6&camera=none&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=1

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (11 months ago)

We need the Tamron-s in this world of monopoly drivers.

I have their 17-50 2.8 and 70-300 on Nikon. Perfect quality and images. Can only recommend to get out of common "brands".

3 upvotes
calking
By calking (11 months ago)

I believe by now Tamron is every bit the common "brand", along with Sigma and Tokina. Years ago all three were making less-expensive and perhaps lower-quality product but each have been making specific products that rival or better the major camera maker lenses for a couple years now. My point is that there really isn't a distinction between brands now -- only individual products common to one or more manufacturers.

1 upvote
Horshack
By Horshack (11 months ago)

If anyone is interested I have a gallery of hand-held shots with the Tamron on my D800, most shot indoors @ f/2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/13. I've made the full-size 36MP images available for viewing.

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

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (11 months ago)

Mr. Horshak,

Thanks very much for making your studies available to us. I can see that edge resolution is too low for my palate, notably in landscape shots, but for some reason it seems less of an issue in other compositions -- in particular, your interior shots, and the canal shots. This may be a function of object distance. Although I would not use it for landscapes, I will now seriously consider it for interiors, specifically, poorly illuminated interiors -- I'll be photographing the American Museum of Natural History this season, God willing, and I think the IS feature clinches the deal -- the museum is dark! The Nikon contenders lack IS. That kills the deal for them.

Gordon Laing has a 3-way comparison of the Tamron, the spendy Nikon 24-70 2.8, and the "cheap" ($600) Nikon 24-85 3.5-4.5 at

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (11 months ago)

It is evident that Canon rose the bar and targeted Leica, not Tamron nor Tokina. They already succeeded in matching prices. Next step will be to match Leica's market share.

8 upvotes
Henrikw
By Henrikw (11 months ago)

Market share in 2011:
Canon: 19%
Nikon: 12.6%
Leica: 0.15%

6 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (11 months ago)

That me laugh. Nice comment. :D

5 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (11 months ago)

Can't wait for the dinosaurs to be left behind by the ones that we consider now "third party". Even if I'm a Canon guy, I'd enjoy a 2015 when a humorless chap would come with some statistic like:

*Market share 2015:*
Canon 5%
Nikon 5%
Others combined 10%
Innovative guyz 80%

Bah... No chance for that to happen, as long as there are people to slavishly buy Cloud licenses and throw double the money on "brand name" lenses that don't feature even things that are common for third party.

2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (11 months ago)

Oh, really...? There is a difference between a CD and a vinyl LP, you know... So, which is the innovative one today - the CD or the vinyl LP? Or, do you like more the DTS HD Master quality of your Bluray? So, which one is better? So, why is the Canon 24-70 II a bad product or not "innovative"? Yes, no IS, but otherwise what do you really know about "what's inside" that lens (tech wise)? My take: you have no idea. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (11 months ago)

Your take, obviously, was perfectly diagnosed by yourself: no idea.
My take is based on testing them all, working in a photo equipment shop, seeing service operations and measurements for half a ton of lenses and... Oh, sorry, you were just in love with your brand! Then yes, I have no idea; I love some results given by various pieces of engineering, but I don't know hot to love the actual objects that much. Sorry for finding faults on your sweetheart :P

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (10 months ago)

So, you do many P&Ls while testing lenses?! Many forecast meetings? Many "war games". Wow, impressive. My second take: you have no idea about what I was talking about, and you just felt the need to post a reply, without even asking for a clarification.. Hint: try photo industry trends (the real ones, with SWOTs based on each component etc). And, btw, you also have no idea what's inside (exact materials used, tolerances etc), because that's a well guarded matter - this is why third party players like Tamron / Sigma are not quite "close". Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Henrikw
By Henrikw (11 months ago)

So happy to finally see this review. Tamron deserves all the success they can get for launching this lens, and Canon deserves to lose customers/revenue by releasing their overpriced 24-70 II without IS. It was such a kick in the face for loyal Canon wedding photographers like myself.
Selling my Canon 24-70 and buying the Tamron was the best decision ever. Not only was it a financial win situation, the Tamron outperforms the Canon in sharpness (perhaps a lucky copy). Vignetting is more pronounces but I often add it in post production - it can be removed in seconds if unwanted.
As a wedding photographer, stabilisation is the main draw. It's a slow moving type of shoot, often taking place in dimly lit locations (churches particularly). I am not an old school flash shooter, but rather focus on getting the most out of available light sources. For this reason my favorite lens is the 85 1.2, and the Tamron compliments it perfectly for low light situations.
Cracking lens!

9 upvotes
smokeshowing
By smokeshowing (11 months ago)

Well said! Couldn't agree with you more.

3 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (11 months ago)

I'm still using 24-70 ver.1 and have been awaiting comparisons of ver.1,2 and this lens. I'm getting to the point I would like VC even in this range at the end of a long day and had high hopes for the Tamron. The niggling thing for me is the AF speed. Everyone agrees it's slower than Canon but how slow is slow? I guess I'm just going to have to get a loaner or rent to find out for myself just how slow "slow" is. My only other question is...how come everyone seems to be reviewing this lens with the 5D2? Shouldn't it be stuck on to the 5D3 and/ or 6D?

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (11 months ago)

Not everyone can afford a 5D3. MANY still have a 5D2 and/or 5Dc and don't get a new body just to have a new body...great advancements or not. Lenses are the key.

1 upvote
hobbit mob
By hobbit mob (11 months ago)

I have it for my 5DIII and love it. I haven't used either canon equivalent, so I can't speak to the AF speed comparison, but I feel it focuses plenty fast for me.

3 upvotes
tonywong
By tonywong (11 months ago)

The Camera Store guys did a review of it on youtube a little while ago.

Canon 24-70 F2.8 II vs. Tamron 24-70 VC Shootout
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (11 months ago)

Cordellwillis...no offense to anyone shooting anything other than the latest and greatest. It's just that the newest cameras have different AF systems and how this lens works with them is of concern to me. I've read mostly good things but I'll have to see for myself how slow is slow.
Hobbit Mob...I appreciate the input.
Tonywong...I saw that quite a while ago. Their shootout also appears to show the AF not too shabby.
The only thing I've seen so far is the-digital-picture wasn't too happy about the AF consistency. Others have been happy. Again, I'll just have to pop one on for myself and see if the VC warrants losing a hair of AF speed and corner sharpness.

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (11 months ago)

this "slow auto-focus" stuff is crap, and yet so many buy into it in search of the Holy Grail. "Slow" auto-focus by today's standards in equipment costing thousands of dollars is defined in milliseconds, which means it's not noticeable to humans. That is, until you read some whiner's internet post of pure speculation suggesting that such-n-such lens has slower AF than xyz brand or model. Then suddenly it's burned into your subconscious mind and you start believing that drivel. A professional will get spectacular results from something like this Tamron without seeking out test data that shows it being .0001 second slower to focus than something else. Good composition takes time -- someone who needs to throw his camera into a shot with the shutter already firing (aka professional sports/wildlife/photojournalist) can still get sharp shots with non-IS lenses and last-gen technology, so why amateurs make such a huge deal over this is ridiculous.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

@calking

I agree %100

In The Camera Store TV's video review they compare the AF speed of the Tamron to the Canon mark II 24-70 f/2.8. The Tamron is only approximately .3 seconds slower. The idea that is enough to to be of practical significance is so silly on it's face I can't believe people are actually seriously claiming such things. It is clear they are just looking for reason to justify their emotional decision to buy the more expensive Canon/Nikon lens.

0 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (11 months ago)

I've had this lens for almost a year now. I use it on a D3s and D800 were it is excellent on both. I have used Nikon's version and IQ is very hard to tell apart. The Tamron's AF is very quick, but unlike the Nikon version it seems to think for a split second but then nails AF. It is indeed curious and a shame that between 1/40 and 1/80 the VC can't control the mirror slap frequency. It's at those "borderline" shutter speeds that one most needs VC. Say you're out of breath or shivering and normal techniques to stop camera shake arent working, VC is great. One way around it is to switch the camera to Q mode. Mirror slap is less apparent. I have primes from 35 to 135 and only two zooms; 14-24 & Tamron's 24-70. VC for video on the D800 is excellent. Stable shots hand held.

1 upvote
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (11 months ago)

Explain to me how " it seems to think for a split second but then nails AF" can be considered "very quick"?

2 upvotes
Mais78
By Mais78 (11 months ago)

DPReview explanation:
"Slightly less-fast autofocus than Canon or Nikon equivalents (but far from slow)"

Anything but slow, you must have a bad copy

2 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (11 months ago)

The lens AF is quick while Nikon and Canon's newer 24-70 are super quick.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (11 months ago)

Mais78: It definitely ain't "Very Quick". I own lenses noticeably faster than the Tamron and "Very Quick" it is not...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (11 months ago)

Optically, the Tamron works perfectly on my D7100. No problem at corners but its focusing's too slow for events shooting and even for moderate action scenarios. Quite a shame really, considering its IQ. And as far as portraiture, architectural and landscape is concerned, it's as close to perfect. The zoom ring is a bit on the stiff side but it's not something I would not get used to.

I would rather have less-than-perfect IS than slow focusing any day (it's a fast lens after all). Too bad, I liked the weight and feel but after the loaner, I'ved decided not to buy it. But only mainly because my current budget won't justify that one compromise.

3 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (11 months ago)

Yeah, contrast that with lightening-fast and 100% accurate focus from the Nikon 24-70.

Not to mention METAL construction, full weather-sealing, etc.

You gets what you pays for, I guess.

2 upvotes
ranalli
By ranalli (11 months ago)

I couldn't agree more. The whole point of buying the Nikon version is 2.8 and lightning-fast AF. Lose either of those and no dice...sorry just not worth the money. I'd rather the price of the Nikon.

Frankly this bothers me in so many camera and lens reviews....AF speed and accuracy is almost an afterthought. It should be equally as important as image quality or mega-pixels because it determines whether you get the shot or not!!!

1 upvote
Mais78
By Mais78 (11 months ago)

Curious. we all agree that AF is slowER than Canon II, but how can you call it slow?? I have the Canon fit and it is very fast, in line with what reviews say.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

@mias78

The Tamron is fast enough and not that much slower than the canon/Nikon. Just look at the f-stopers video review of it. People are just trying to find a way to justify their emotional decision to stick with the more expensive Nikon/Canon versions.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Actually I guess it was the camera store tv review I was thinking of.

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg

Go to around the 5 minute mark.

The difference in af speed is approximately .3 seconds. So not enough to really matter. The Tamron is certainly more than fast enough for any use.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (11 months ago)

While technically the Tamron is excellent as tested here, real world problems spoil this (and other third party) lenses. Despite costing more and not having IS, the Canon 24-70 gets better real-world usage review than the Tamron. The Canon gets 4.8 stars on both B&H and Amazon, while the Tamron gets 4.3 on both. It's not a coincidence that the two websites agree on the same rating. The problems are real and the statistics prove it.

As a long time Tamron and Sigma user, I applaud Tamron for great improvements over optics, VC and ultra sonic focus. However there are 2 areas that still make this lens inferior to name brand: focus reliability and quality control. Tamron cannot be taken seriously in the professional market until they can get these problems figured out.

1 upvote
Mais78
By Mais78 (11 months ago)

do you own one? I never had any problem with AF and shoot 5000 pictures

3 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (11 months ago)

Just because your copy is good doesn't mean everybody's copy is good. That's my point. One copy isn't statistically significant.

Or if you're correct, then all of these people on BH and Amazon are lying about the issues they've encouterd.

0 upvotes
brntoki
By brntoki (11 months ago)

Someone forgot to answer a pertinent question.

And it is laughable to use B&H and Amazon reviews and "statistically significant" together, unless the statistics being talked about happen to be about those reviews.

2 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (11 months ago)

Not turning cartwheels here. Edge rez is not impressive. By me.

0 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (11 months ago)

I will do cartwheels. Edge rez is not important to many. If I were a landscape shooter it would be, but I''m not so I don't care.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (11 months ago)

After seeing Mr. Horshak's photos (see his post above), I'm mitigating my opinion about this lens. His input has provided the additional data needed to form a more considered opinion. It's the IS that scores the win.

0 upvotes
t.c. marino
By t.c. marino (11 months ago)

seems to me that the nikonians are more receptive to this lens than the canonites..are the canon guys in denial?..YES the super canon 24-70 is superb..so is the tamron at a more affordable price..same applies to the nikon version..GREAT TO HAVE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS..if you're into extreme pixel peeping at 200% ..get the canon or nikon version

3 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (11 months ago)

Um...check the build quality control...finding a good lens is iffy at best......

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (11 months ago)

Ridiculous statement -- serious photographers want excellence at ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, not 200%.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (11 months ago)

Go to the Fuji forum. Some trolls there cry bloody murder while pixel peeping at 400%

3 upvotes
cordellwillis
By cordellwillis (11 months ago)

@ Infared, hang around long enough and you will learn of the many complaints about Canon's QC. Everyone these days seem to be an expert because they read it on the net. Prior to the many forum sites you would never hear anything negative about Canon's 24-70 (v1) QC. Now that's all I come across these days. When V3 comes out everyone will complain about the QC of the v2 that they seem to love.....today.

Tamron is reputable and has long term warranties to backup their lenses. Finding a good one isn't just the lens, it's the camera AND lens AND photographer combo.

1 upvote
lancespring
By lancespring (11 months ago)

From f/4 to f/8, this lens is incredibly sharp. Shoot in that range, and you will be blown away by the resolution. Wide open at F/2.8 is quite sharp too.

In comparison to this lens, the Sigma f/2.8 24-70mm HSM is a piece of junk. The Sigma goes badly soft when opened to f/2.8

3 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (11 months ago)

I do agree that the Tamron's IQ even at 2.8 is stellar after using one. But after also loaning the Sigma, I didn't have any issue at 2.8, granted that the Tamron is noticeably better.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (11 months ago)

How come the review does not metion all of the lenses that are being sold that are faulty!?!? Many, including reviewers are getting bad copies of this lens, and are not getting what they deserve from Tamron in the service dept.
That alone should knock this lens down to a silver award.

4 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (11 months ago)

Simple. DPR can only comment on what they are sent. DPR aren't speaking for all other reviewers out there. If your lens doesn't perform to DPR tested results, then send it back to Tamron they have a 6 year warranty.

Making DPR responsible for other reviewers test results is an all time low for expectations. And I thought I had read them all.

3 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (11 months ago)

so garrard...you are the self-appointed DPR police. LOL!!!!!!

0 upvotes
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (11 months ago)

This Tammy and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II wereannounced around the same time. Yet the Canon still outsold the Tammy by 2.6:1 according to number of reviews on BHphoto.

I guess the $1000 price difference and image stabilization are still not enough to overcome brand association...

0 upvotes
KW Phua
By KW Phua (11 months ago)

I am mainly shooting for event. Fast and reliable AF is most important. Can't afford to miss, so have to pay for the extra. 3rd party lens may be good/better in IQ but if able focus it is useless.

2 upvotes
KW Phua
By KW Phua (11 months ago)

Correction "if not able to focus fast and accurate enough, it is useless"

2 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (11 months ago)

After trying the the tamron lens and canon I was. Amazed how much canon's lens better ,focus much faster and sharpness at f 2.8 the tamy has no chance so if you have the money buy canon for sure but if you are on budget save more and buy canon's 24-70 also it is simply the best lens in this focal range and anything else is compromise .

0 upvotes
yihlee
By yihlee (11 months ago)

Is 3-4 stops VR(VC,IS,OS) part of the compromise?

6 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (11 months ago)

In spite of what this review states, the build quality, quality control, and customer service are seriously lacking with this lens. The first batch had lens elements falling out????
This review makes me question DPR integrity...because the Canon 24-70mm II is heads above this lens.

0 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (11 months ago)

The VC did not make my shot any sharper at 2.8 or clearer or added any macro contrast , I personally thing the VC is over rated in this range given the awesome noise handling at high ISO that modern DSLR capable of

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (11 months ago)

Infrared, that's twice you are trying to make DPR accountable for others. Think with your head.

5 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (11 months ago)

hmmmm....ok...I own the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I think I already did think with my head. :-)

0 upvotes
Outback Pics Australia
By Outback Pics Australia (11 months ago)

I purchased this lens when it first appeared on the market (dropped my Nikon 28-70mm in Church during a wedding shoot and broke in 2). This Tamron is absolutely amazing - sharp as a razor, VR works a treat and half the cost of Nikon 24-70mm. Vignetting is apparent, but fixed in 2 seconds with a slider in Lightroom. If you are looking for a day to day working lens, go and buy one of these.

4 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (11 months ago)

I own it. I love it. It knocks my socks off. I highly reccomend it

10 upvotes
lancespring
By lancespring (11 months ago)

I love mine too. It is a great match for either the D600 or D800.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (11 months ago)

It's a quality revolution. First there were the Sigma 35 and 50 1.4s, and now this.
Do any of you experts know what has changed in either the lens industry that is allowing these second-tier companies to suddenly come out with lenses that equal or beat the big two?
I know that there is a lot of cross pollination and that the second-tier firms make components and sometimes whole lenses for Canon, Nikon, and the rest, but there seems to be a shift in what has always been a very "cooperative" industry. In years past I don't think that Canikon would have allowed their subcontractors to make lenses that directly competed with their bread and butter products.
Has something changed in the industry culture? Are we seeing a new breed of corporate executive who rejects the collusive practices of times past? Are new design algorithms or computer programs making this possible?
Or have Sigma and Tamron just kicked their optical engineers into high gear?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (11 months ago)

Interesting comments. I think part is the recognition that one must compete at the high end, higher value, more profit product. Those buying a camera with kit lens, will likely do fine and not look elsewhere than what comes with the Canon, Nikon, Sony, maybe, Pentax DSLR.

2 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (11 months ago)

"In years past I don't think that Canikon would have allowed their subcontractors to make lenses that directly competed with their bread and butter products. "

Since Sigma and Tamron are independent entities... Canikon only has their own expertise to fall back on. Nobody is holding the third parties back, and they (quite understandably) have a more directed R&D approach when camera design, printers, ect doesn't matter (even for Sigma it could be argued ;). Consider also the ever decreasing cost of computational/modeling/material science.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (11 months ago)

It has been my understanding that the Japanese camera and lens companies have for decades worked together in the traditional keiretsu system of mutual obligation and benefit. So my question is, has that system broken down? Or are we seeing a new face of the keiretsu?

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (11 months ago)

I would only add, that Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 SSM dont have stabilisation for simple reason that Sony system doesnt need it. Should be noted there that all Sony dSLTs and dSLRs have built in stabilisation system, so every lens on it is stabilised (as long as camera knows there is lens on it and it has proper focal length in chip coded).

So simple "No (stabilisation in camera body)" would suffice.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (11 months ago)

Or as I wrote in the review, " It's important to note that the Sony lens doesn't need optical stabilization, because the company's Alpha mount cameras all use in-body sensor-shift image stabilization"

7 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (11 months ago)

Then why aren't the Sony or Pentax mount lenses less costly. Why not put OIS in the lens and the user can choose to turn off in-camera shake reduction.

3 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

Gesture, i agree, sensor shift shines more at the telephoto end vs the wider side of lenses. So having the choice is good.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

Gesture,

Nobody is looking to do you a favor. They are trying to sell product for as much as they can get for it.

As an Olympus DSLR user, I had to pay twice what Nikon, Canon, etc. users had to pay for the Sigma 70-300, when it was rebadged and sold as an Olympus lens. Why? Because on Olympus the 70-300 was 140-600 equivalent.

Nobody at Sony is thinking, "Is it FAIR to charge the same price for a non-stabilized lens as a stabilized lens?" Nor are they losing sleep over it, so please don't you lose sleep over it either.

3 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (11 months ago)

Because the OIS-disabled version only accounts for a fraction of the overall production and have to be fitted with something to compensate for the missing OIS elements.

Why don't they just sell the OIS version to SONY and Pentax users? Because some technologically inclined photographers (most people) will leave the OIS on and got blurry shots and blame the lens. Bad publicity travels fast.

3 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (11 months ago)

Andy Westlake

Sorry, I read just that small table of facts about lens and checked performance tab. And its not noted in that table of facts. I guess ppl which "read" it way I do wont notice either..

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (11 months ago)

The lens that Canon and Nikon should have come out with... but did not.

Why?

Because they were both very generous.

They wanted somebody like Tamron or Sigma or Tokina to get the first profits and sit by their armchairs to gauge the market.

Well it will gouge the market... their market (share)

.

13 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

Why? You didn't seriously ask why, did you?

Nikon's strategy is to offer "affordable" full-frame bodies, so they can stick it afterwards to purchasers with overpriced lenses.

Good for Tamron.

P.S. This lens does look nice, but it doesn't make me want to switch to full-frame any time soon. Significant vignetting at both extremes wide open, and this is a bargain at $1,300?

Um, O.K.

P.P.S. And it's a standard zoom that I'm paying $1,300 for, with vignetting, and no exotic functions like macro, or extreme wide or tele? I can see I'm out of my element.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
likeafoxow
By likeafoxow (11 months ago)

It's all relative. This lens is clearly competing against Canon and Nikon's respective 24-70mm lenses, which are priced at $2000.

Thus, relatively speaking, $1300 is cheap. (Plus it has vibration compensation).

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ranalli
By ranalli (11 months ago)

Don't need or want VC...need and want fast and accurate AF. Nikon is still beating the third party vendors here from what I've seen.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (11 months ago)

Canon or Nikon didnt make it from simple reason that it would be in their case really big and heavy. And even more expensive. I think 24-70/2.8 L MK2 is expensive enough as it is..

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Personally I don't find the flat and stiff switches to be a con since it means they are less likely to be accidentally bumped into the wrong position. In fact it is likely Tamron made them that stiff and flat on purpose just for that reason.

3 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (11 months ago)

The built quality cannot be very good since some inner glasses are fixed with glue as shown by Roger Cicala. This could means easy dis-adjustment.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

lol Glue is used in the construction of L lenses too. Besides we are not talking about the Elmer's glue you used in school. It is industrial strength adhesive. If it wasn't strong enough to do the job Tamron would have used something else.

8 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (11 months ago)

@Josh152

You are correct of course (about glue being used by Canon (and others too)).

However, the difference is one doesn't come across reports (well, I never have) of Canon or Nikon front elements fall off inside the lens barrel because the glue didn't work (as has been the case with Tamron; which just adds to the perception of "cheap" alternative and "cheap" in the negative sense).

Regards,
plevyadophy

3 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (11 months ago)

I ask my self how DP could speak of good built quality when DP did know of these pitfalls in built construction such as - industrial Josh152's glue - use in front elements?

Additionally, how DP could talk about the good environmental seal with only few hours of testing?

Where are the tests made to show good built and environmental qualities?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

I would love to see reports of this happening to this lens. Many more the one too if you expect me to take it seriously as problem and no the Lens rental lenses that had the problem due to being beat up from shipping so often don't count. I mean normal use cases where the lens just fell apart on someone. Plus Tamron has excellent customer service by all accounts. Just read the end of the lens rental article where it is talked about. Plus Tamron lenses come with a 6 year warranty so you really dont' have to worry about it that much anyway.

0 upvotes
brntoki
By brntoki (11 months ago)

Ruy, you sound like you are trying to justify the extra cash you laid out for either a Nikon or Canon version of this lens.

If so, why not pick up this Tamron, sell your CaNikon version, and buy yourself another lens or two with your savings.

This review confirms everything about why I'm happy with this lens. It is very, very good.

2 upvotes
zakaria
By zakaria (11 months ago)

tamron would you please give pentaxians this lens !

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (11 months ago)

Need a FF first. Yeah, I know you can use it in APS-C mode.

1 upvote
poochpie
By poochpie (11 months ago)

if tamron can make such a good lens and include an image stabilizer, watch canon and nikon drop their prices soon for the same lens

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Yes it will be interesting to see what Canon and Nikon lens prices do if third party manufactures keep releasing lenses as good as this one and the Sigma 35 1.4 for much more reasonable prices.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

Well, their first move has been to get their trolls to post on this thread that the Canon and Nikon versions are superior. We'll see if it works.

3 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (11 months ago)

What about contrast and colors? These things are quite subjective, but I tend to notice that many off-brand lens like Tamron and Sigma cannot match their Canon or Nikon equivalents.

2 upvotes
yihlee
By yihlee (11 months ago)

This one is VERY different. Try it to see for yourself.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Just go a flickr and search for the Tamron lens under groups. You will find a group for the lens with many shots posted and you can see for yourself how it compares. I did and I can tell you now it is indistinguishable from the Canon and Nikon lenses.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (11 months ago)

If you are colorblind, then its maybe indistinguishable from Canikon. Most people are to certain degree, photographers included.

Tho as question was about colors, no its not Canon or Nikon, but colors are good. Better than Tamron had before. I think thats good enough. Anyway, you can make color profile to match it to Canon or Nikon lens, if you are bothered by natural colors from that lens.

Contrast seems ok, its better than before too.

Overall, probably one of best lens Tamron made so far.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

According to the Photozone review, contrast is slightly reduced at 70mm wide open.

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (11 months ago)

By the way, I just checked the prices on DPreview Gearshop. I loved the "SAVE 1.99" green tag...

6 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (11 months ago)

The Tamron is plastic.

Nikon's 24-70 uses METAL.

Long as people are happy with their cheap purchase, that's great.

0 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (11 months ago)

Say, it happens often to use your lenses as nutcrackers?
The Tamron is built solidly, and more importantly: it's designed to eliminate weak internal adjustments, the ones that throw your beloved brand-name lens out of whack (centering, focus calibration etc) just because you sneeze at it. Of course, the metal outside looks perfect, but inside... Let's not go there.

1 upvote
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (11 months ago)

It's so much cheaper than the lenses from the big two, especially the Canon equivalent... It's a no brainer. Just how much does a red ring cost? Bravo Tamron.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

exactly. This lens really shows the ridiculous markup the Canon and Nikon lenses must have. Especially Canon's new 24-70 f/2.8 This is just as good optically, or close enough it doesn't matter, has just as good build quality including weather sealing, VC, and a 6 year warranty all for significantly less money.

Either Nikon and especially Canon are really marking up their lenses or Tamron has some super secret way they are able to significantly cut costs while maintaining the same level of quality.

When you consider price, performance, and the 6 year warranty it is easy to see Tamron has literally made the best 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on the market bar none.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@Josh152

The Nikon 24-70 has a solid metal barrel that most expect from a professional grade lens. Same with the Canon 24-70, AFAIK, whereas the Tamron uses mostly high quality plastics, so I don't think it's quite correct to say that build quality is just as good.

3 upvotes
ranalli
By ranalli (11 months ago)

It's a no brainer alright...sticking with the Nikon. I think these third parties make excellent lenses but NONE of them have the blazing-fast AF and accuracy that my Nikon lenses have...NONE of them.

That's huge for me and a lot of shooters. What good is a minute amount of fidelity when you lose the shoot?

0 upvotes
five5pho
By five5pho (11 months ago)

I have sold the canon 24-20 V1 for this lens.
Very good considering it is not a prime lens.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
sean lancaster
By sean lancaster (11 months ago)

This looks like a great option from Tamron. With the recent emergence of some stellar lenses from Sigma (e.g., the 35/1.4 is perhaps the best 35 prime for DSLRs) and now this offering from Tamron, the 3rd party lens makers are providing nice competition and great options for consumers. Yay.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (11 months ago)

A great lens!

3 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

Wow....Very nice lens at a very nice price!

4 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (11 months ago)

Good to see sample photos from London again. Remind me of good old days when DPR was in London...

11 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (11 months ago)

True. Seattle is not all that interesting to look at. That said, I am amazed there is a "Tube" station without minority.

1 upvote
gajuambi
By gajuambi (11 months ago)

all the 2 copies that i got from tamron had a compatibility issue with canon 650d (t4i) and slow focus issue. got my money back and bought a canon 24-105...never going for tamron again

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (11 months ago)

Did the lenses do the slow focus thing every time you mounted them? Did you notice any difference between mounting a lens with the camera on vs. off?

1 upvote
Mais78
By Mais78 (11 months ago)

The first copies of the Tamron had well documented compatibility issues with 6D and 650D. When buying make sure the serial number is 02xxxx or higher.
Had to change my 007xxx with a 023xxx. This lens is great value for money, the Canon costs twice as much and you only get fractional improvements.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (11 months ago)

How come, for APS-C, at 70mm sharpness *decreases* from f/2.8 to f/4? From there to f/5.6 it increases again, as would be expected.

5 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (11 months ago)

Focus shift?

0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (11 months ago)

Don't think it's focus shift, because on 5D2 the sharpness increases when stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 at 70mm.

1 upvote
ruicarv79
By ruicarv79 (11 months ago)

It seems like we have a winner here! Well done Tamron!

8 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (11 months ago)

Wondering why the cropped performance is featured first on a full frame lens review?

And to potential buyers: why would you buy this zoom range for APS-C?

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (11 months ago)

DPR lens reviews have always had APS-C first for full-frame lenses.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
chlamchowder
By chlamchowder (11 months ago)

Also, APS-C buyers looking for a longer standard zoom option at the expense of the wide end could consider it.
36mm equivalent is still somewhat wide, and being able to get to 105mm equivalent could be useful. I've seen quite a few APS-C users running around with the Tamron 28-75...

4 upvotes
Bruce Edwards
By Bruce Edwards (11 months ago)

Because I almost NEVER shoot in the 18-24 range (I have an 18-105 lens), and the Nikon 24-120 F4 is too slow for that much $$$. Vast majority of my shots using the 18-105, are 24mm and above.

And for the umpteen times that blogs, reviews, and message board folk state "but APS-C users should buy the 17-50 instead!" I say BULLHOCKEY! :) If I shot wide very often, I would use a dedicated WA lens like a 10-22 or something. And 50mm is just way too limiting on the long end IMO. If I were shooting around 50, I would just use my 50mm prime and get a sharpness and speed boost.

The 24-70 puts me in a range that I personally shoot almost all the time. I would even prefer 24-85 or 90, just for a little more reach, but hey, just glad we have this option!

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Yeah a lens in this zoom range coupled with something like a 10-24 is a popular kit for an APS-C DSLR. Especially among those who have aspirations of going FF one day.

2 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (11 months ago)

Because people shoot different things, and need different focal ranges. There's no magic about an 18-50mm. 18-50mm is more useful for landscapes, but isn't a good option for portraits. On crop sensor, 24-75mm starts to be quite decent for portraits. If you were using out-of-camera shots, 33-100mm would be ideal, but 75mm crops decently to 100mm.

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (11 months ago)

When I had my Olympus film cameras my standard lens was a 35-105 Zuiko zoom. It was a very sharp lens but this was 30 years ago!

As such I tend to agree on aps-c starting at 36mm equivalent limits the appeal.

What I don't understand though is not is aps-c application but why full frame users like lenses like this that stop at 70mm.

When standard zooms first came out you even got 35-70 lenses simply because it was hard optically to make one with a wider range but again this was 30 years ago.

Why is the 70mm "long" end a standard these days? 85mm was considered the minimum for portraits so surely something like a 28-85 or 28-90 would be far more useful leaving wider to something like a 20mm prime?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

I agree with BJN, why would an APS-C shooter purchase a standard zoom that starts at 36mm-38mm for $1300 when they when there are far less expensive with great optics that start at 26mm-28mm, depending on whether you shoot Nikon / Pentax / Sony (1.5 X crop) or Canon (1.6 X crop)?

70-200mm lenses are kind of nice on APS-C for the added reach. Standard zooms are not at all nice because you lose the wide end. This is a FF lens with limited appeal for APS-C shooters. Not to mention the fact that it has a huge 82mm front filter thread making it large for smaller APS-C cameras.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

@Dave Oddie

People love these lenses on FF for the f/2.8 aperture. I am sure most would prefer the lens have a little longer maximum focal length if they could still get the f/2.8 . But my guess is the lens manufactures did some testing and determined the 24-70 focal range coupled with the f/2.8 aperture was the best balance between focal range, size, weight, cost optical quality and maximum aperture size for a standard zoom.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (11 months ago)

It's pricey for a cropped sensor, though it does avoid some issues (you get the sweet spot in the center). As for the length - I still have a Tamron 35-105/2.8 I bought for my F4s and use on my D3. Sadly, as great as it was(is) it's softer than I like, so I tend to use my primes in that region. Still, for me it's the perfect zoom range for walking around. Wide enough for small groups of people, long enough for a quick portrait shot or to get closer into some action. And not the dog slow f4+ most lenses in that zoom range have.
I wouldn't get it for FF - it's just not long enough to keep on my camera for the way I shoot. By the time I'm at 24mm, I may as well break out the 14-24/2.8 and get something really interesting. (I started with a 28-85 with my F4s and sold it within a month - too slow, not quite wide enough to replace a WA, not quite long enough for everyday).

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (11 months ago)

@Josh152

But wouldn't sacrificing the 24mm enable them to go longer at the long end and still get the F2.8?

I wasn't suggesting a 24-85 F2.8 but a 28-85 F2.8. 70mm seems a bit of a none focal length to me. I don't favour 16-50's on aps-c for the same reason.

I also don't think F2.8 is that fast and would even favour a 28-90 with a variable aperture of F2.8 to F4 on FF given the generally excellent high ISO performance you get on FF these days.

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (11 months ago)

Well done Tamron, a lesson of agressive price/quality ratio for the others.

9 upvotes
Juraj Lacko
By Juraj Lacko (11 months ago)

That lens so deserves gold award

20 upvotes
Total comments: 150