Reading mode: Light Dark

The new TAMRON SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC USD on Canon 5D1, 5D2, 5D3

Go to last post
Wow, a 24-70 with stabilisation?

I always thought there was a technical limitation why Canon and Nikon did not offer that. This looks interesting, although the bar is high for IQ with the Nikon/Canon...

--


Things I have clicked with: Agfa 110, Minolta X-300, X700, Nikon F3, F4, Hassleblad 500C/M, 4x5", Sony F717, D70, D200, Canon 1Ds, II, D2x, D3, Canon 5D-II, D800E
 
Bob, thanx for shearing your review. I am exactly in your position, upgraded from 7d to 5d3, having a 17-55/2.8, and looking for a new FF standard zoom besides my primes (already FF). Looks like the Tamron is really an attractive choice. What amazed me is your comment about its AF consistency! I have a Tamron 70-200/2.8 that drove me with its AF inconsitency (microadjusting didn't help) to finally replace it by Canon's 70-200 (4 and later 2.8 II). Since then I can shoot action in the mid tele range an know that I get finally a good selection of in-focus pics.

So, let's see what other reviews reveal about this new Tamron, hope that you were not the only lucky one with a really good copy. Tamron's production quality is said to vary widely (non-centered lenses etc.).
--
Picturenaut
 
Kali108 said:
Johanfoto said:
MikeFromMesa said:
Kali108 said:
I always thought there was a technical limitation why Canon and Nikon did not offer that
Click to expand...
Sigma has offered a stabilized 17-70 for some time.
Click to expand...
Canon offers several stabilized lenses in this range, such as the 17-85mm lens and the 15-85mm lens.
Click to expand...
But those are EF-S, slow (not 2.8) and do not match the IQ of the Tamron.
Click to expand...
True, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there is no technical limitation, as shown by these offerings.

--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com
 
17-55 f2.8

market forces drive IS on lenses. canon/nikon never had competion before on this before and IS technology has come on a bit in the last few years since the 24-70 was first made. Its not that the couldn't make one
Kali108 said:
Johanfoto said:
MikeFromMesa said:
Kali108 said:
I always thought there was a technical limitation why Canon and Nikon did not offer that
Click to expand...
Sigma has offered a stabilized 17-70 for some time.
Click to expand...
Canon offers several stabilized lenses in this range, such as the 17-85mm lens and the 15-85mm lens.

--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Vibrio said:
17-55 f2.8

market forces drive IS on lenses. canon/nikon never had competion before on this before and IS technology has come on a bit in the last few years since the 24-70 was first made. Its not that the couldn't make one
Click to expand...
That begs the question of why the MkII version of the 24-70 won't have it. With Sony offering in-camera IS, and Canon introducing a couple of WA primes with IS, it seems odd that when it came time to update the 24-70 that Canon chose to leave that feature off of the spec sheet. Especially given the astronomical price increase that they've tacked on.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
ahhh, thanks for clarifying.
Johanfoto said:
Kali108 said:
Johanfoto said:
MikeFromMesa said:
Johanfoto said:
I always thought there was a technical limitation why Canon and Nikon did not offer that
Click to expand...
Sigma has offered a stabilized 17-70 for some time.
Click to expand...
Canon offers several stabilized lenses in this range, such as the 17-85mm lens and the 15-85mm lens.
Click to expand...
But those are EF-S, slow (not 2.8) and do not match the IQ of the Tamron.
Click to expand...
True, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there is no technical limitation, as shown by these offerings.

--
Johan
http://www.johanfoto.com
Click to expand...
 
I agree. Canon has lost their collective mind on pricing as of late. I'm guessing weight is the issue.
Skip M said:
Vibrio said:
17-55 f2.8

market forces drive IS on lenses. canon/nikon never had competion before on this before and IS technology has come on a bit in the last few years since the 24-70 was first made. Its not that the couldn't make one
Click to expand...
That begs the question of why the MkII version of the 24-70 won't have it. With Sony offering in-camera IS, and Canon introducing a couple of WA primes with IS, it seems odd that when it came time to update the 24-70 that Canon chose to leave that feature off of the spec sheet. Especially given the astronomical price increase that they've tacked on.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
Click to expand...
 
What I find interesting is that, aside from two links (to the same review), there have not been any responses in these posts to the OP's original question.

I would have expected to see a lot of users telling us that the lens is good, bad or indifferent. Perhaps not too many people actually bought this lens??? This lens may be expensive, but the Canon is much more so, so I guess I am a bit surprised.
 
MikeFromMesa said:
What I find interesting is that, aside from two links (to the same review), there have not been any responses in these posts to the OP's original question.

I would have expected to see a lot of users telling us that the lens is good, bad or indifferent. Perhaps not too many people actually bought this lens??? This lens may be expensive, but the Canon is much more so, so I guess I am a bit surprised.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised, too. Doesn't seem to be too many owners of the lens. Could it be hard to get?
 
BigBen08 said:
Could it be hard to get?
Click to expand...
While I don't know I am inclined to suspect that people are just reluctant to spend $1300 (US) for a Tamron lens. I am not suggesting it is not worth it, but people who spend that much money for a lens are probably either professionals or enthusiasts and perhaps they are more prepared to spend more for a Canon (or Nikon) lens.

I have to admit that my personal purchase preferences are Canon, then Sigma, then Tamron. I have 2 Sigma lenses I am quite happy with and freely recommend, but they are not > $1000 (US) lenses.
 
MikeFromMesa said:
What I find interesting is that, aside from two links (to the same review), there have not been any responses in these posts to the OP's original question.

I would have expected to see a lot of users telling us that the lens is good, bad or indifferent. Perhaps not too many people actually bought this lens??? This lens may be expensive, but the Canon is much more so, so I guess I am a bit surprised.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41700135

He liked it. But I did see some comments on another thread that I cannot find that their versions of that lens were less than stellar. But, without actually knowing the people in question, it is a matter of speculation as to whether they had the lens, or were using it properly or whether their expectations were too high. Or that the knew what they had, used it correctly, and realistic expectations and their lenses were, indeed, not that good.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
Here you go. I will be the one to give you want you want. Prepare for information overload on the subject. Keep in mind it is a series with a video for each aspect of the lenses so watch them all. There are a lot. By the time you do yo uwill be an expert on the 24-70 line of all 4 makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9ju8LmRfU
 
People should use the search fonction more often, because there was some threads about this lens.
I have done some test comparing the canon with the tamron on a 5dmk2 body.
The pros of the tamron are :
  • better IQ in general
  • great IS : i have a rather sharp shot at 1/3 sec 50 mm handheld ( a 4 stop performance)
  • lighter than the canon
  • good bokey
  • 5 years warranty
Cons
  • good bokey but some onions like effect (not with the canon)
  • more distorsion at 24 mm and slighty more vignetting.
you can see full size pics here :
http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/tamron_vs_canon_2470_

--
It's all about photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top