Stay away from Tamron(24-70 f/2.8)

[sotirius]

You need to buy 10 tamrons to get 1 that is good, or be extremely lucky to get a good copy at first. The two i used where crap.

I am happy i returned the second lens today, and would never ever recommend Tamron garbage lenses to anyone.
These are the reasons:
1.Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.
2. Mega barrel distortion.
3. Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)
4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.
5. Acceptable(depending on type of photography), but slow autofocus

If it was in the price range of 300-400$ I would be able to look over the issues it had, but at 1200$(even though i got it for 1045$) stay away from it. I mean it! Tamron junk lenses are made out of pickle or mayonnaise jars.

I made the newspaper, brick wall and quadrant test. They are not the most sophisticated but it sure does show the cheap engineering Tamron is implementing in their lenses.

Have a good look at the top left and bottom right corner. It is so bad as if someone intentionally used the smudge tool in photoshop. Disgusting samples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630580733610/

I used the 5dm2 camera, shot in raw and processed with Canon software all set to default. The crops are full size.

Here is are some images of the distortions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630553470686/

As you can see there is heavy moustache distortion at 24mm
at 50mm there still is moustache distorition with slight pincushioning
and pincushioning at 70mm
There is no focal length where the lens is free from distortion

Here is the raw image of the newspaper test 30MB size:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sli3l6a82g20mkk
and the jpeg with default processing 20MB:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?3sk3x3gbxf58gif

I have read positive reviews about this lens at the beginning, but all of a sudden the internet is flooded with negative reviews... This is called QUALITY CONTROL at Tamron.

Save your money and buy a second hand lens, or better pay 300-600$ more and buy the original manufacturer lens.

Mainstream manufacturer lens last for a lifetime +20 years if they are looked after. Buy Tamron and expect you will be replacing it in 2-3 years after.
Good luck with your purchase of this lens....

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I can't comment on this lens as I do not own it, but I have owned the following:-

Tamron 90mm SP macro
Tamron 17-50 f 2.8 SP Di
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 SP D

All of the above provided great images and came with a 5 year warranty - which other lens manufacturer supplies that? Canon, Nikon, even with L glass ?

I have read plenty of reports of decentred elements on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, even Zeiss and Leica lenses - it happens, QC is never 100% fool proof.

While the particular lens you mention may not be great (I wouldn't know), you shouldn't tarnish Tamron as a brand because of your bad experience.

To be honest, lens quality control for ANY brand is not what it once was. Back in the 1970s when a lens had that "QC passed" sticker on it and "made in Japan" you could usually rely on the QC but now lenses are banged out of factories more quickly and you get more QC problems in my experience, just like with cameras.

You need to buy 10 tamrons to get 1 that is good, or be extremely lucky to get a good copy at first. The two i used where crap.

I am happy i returned the second lens today, and would never ever recommend Tamron garbage lenses to anyone.
These are the reasons:
1.Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.
2. Mega barrel distortion.
3. Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)
4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.
5. Acceptable(depending on type of photography), but slow autofocus

If it was in the price range of 300-400$ I would be able to look over the issues it had, but at 1200$(even though i got it for 1045$) stay away from it. I mean it! Tamron junk lenses are made out of pickle or mayonnaise jars.

I made the newspaper, brick wall and quadrant test. They are not the most sophisticated but it sure does show the cheap engineering Tamron is implementing in their lenses.

Have a good look at the top left and bottom right corner. It is so bad as if someone intentionally used the smudge tool in photoshop. Disgusting samples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630580733610/

I used the 5dm2 camera, shot in raw and processed with Canon software all set to default. The crops are full size.

Here is are some images of the distortions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22285064@N03/sets/72157630553470686/

As you can see there is heavy moustache distortion at 24mm
at 50mm there still is moustache distorition with slight pincushioning
and pincushioning at 70mm
There is no focal length where the lens is free from distortion

Here is the raw image of the newspaper test 30MB size:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sli3l6a82g20mkk
and the jpeg with default processing 20MB:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?3sk3x3gbxf58gif

I have read positive reviews about this lens at the beginning, but all of a sudden the internet is flooded with negative reviews... This is called QUALITY CONTROL at Tamron.

Save your money and buy a second hand lens, or better pay 300-600$ more and buy the original manufacturer lens.

Mainstream manufacturer lens last for a lifetime +20 years if they are looked after. Buy Tamron and expect you will be replacing it in 2-3 years after.
Good luck with your purchase of this lens....

 

[sotirius]

As I said you must have had a good copy. I've owned other Tamron lenses too. 17-50 VR, returned it as it was no good optically, it always gets bashed on internet forums that it's no good, unlike the 17-50 no VR which gets reasonable feedback. I also owned the 70-200 2.8 but focus speed was way too slow. Unless you are on a extra tight budget or you use your camera once an year, i would't bother buying Tamron.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Well we disagree, that's life.

try Sigma, if you dare - you'll probably end up thinking Tamron aren't that bad...

As I said you must have had a good copy. I've owned other Tamron lenses too. 17-50 VR, returned it as it was no good optically, it always gets bashed on internet forums that it's no good, unlike the 17-50 no VR which gets reasonable feedback. I also owned the 70-200 2.8 but focus speed was way too slow. Unless you are on a extra tight budget or you use your camera once an year, i would't bother buying Tamron.

 

[sotirius]

Marco, I provided samples and it's up to you to judge for yourself. If you want it buy it. I know I will never buy a third party lens again.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

My point is that I would not, myself, let one or two bad experiences put me off a whole brand.

Marco, I provided samples and it's up to you to judge for yourself. If you want it buy it. I know I will never buy a third party lens again.

 

[motobloat]

You need to buy 10 tamrons to get 1 that is good, or be extremely lucky to get a good copy at first. The two i used where crap.

Sorry you had problems. Maybe you had two bad lenses in a row. Or maybe not. Really, I think your expectations are totally unrealistic.

But let me know when you have some data to back up that claim that their quality control allows 90% of their lenses to fail and still get out the door. LOL. (only 1/10 is good apparently)

I made the newspaper, brick wall and quadrant test. They are not the most sophisticated but it sure does show the cheap engineering Tamron is implementing in their lenses.

What did you expect, perfectly sharp corners at the widest focal length and aperture? I would say the corners look pretty damned good considering. Have you ever used the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or the Sony 24-70 f/2.8? They're not much better at 24mm f/2.8. In fact, the Canon and Sony are noticeably worse due to their significant field curvature.

Go ahead, read the reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/600-zeiss2470f28ff

I generally trust scientific tests by experienced testers with dedicated equipment. However, I'm not so sure you used the same rigor in your tests, and anyway, your newspaper test looks pretty good to me, considering 24mm f/2.8.

There is no focal length where the lens is free from distortion

That's true about all 24-70 lenses, and anyway, you should have known about this when you bought the lens. It's in all the reviews. Yes, the Tamron is the worst, but besides 24mm, it's not that bad.

Distortion at 24mm | 35/40mm | 70mm
Tamron 24-70: -3.78 | -0.69 | 0.89
Canon 24-70: -2.63 | -0.73 | 1.11
Nikon 24-70: -2.84 | 1.08 | 0.54
Sony 24-70: -2.61 | -0.70 | 0.70

Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)

Really? I recognize that at f/2.8, the Tamron's not the winner in the vignetting challenge:

Vignetting at f/2.8 24mm | 35/40mm | 70mm
Tamron 24-70: 2.15 | 1.63 | 1.86
Canon 24-70: 1.98 | 1.31 | 1.17
Nikon 24-70: 1.55 | 1.29 | 1.24
Sony 24-70: 2.33 | 1.19 | 0.99

But at f/8, it's really not much worse than the Sony (although the Canon and Nikon are better, NONE of these other lenses have in-lens stabilization (VR/VC/IS), which contributes heavily to a lenses vignetting problems).

Vignetting at f/8.0 24mm | 35/40mm | 70mm
Tamron 24-70: 0.80 | 0.52 | 0.45
Canon 24-70: 0.52 | 0.18 | 0.15
Nikon 24-70: 0.39 | 0.17 | 0.03
Sony 24-70: 0.90 | 0.42 | 0.24

Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.

Your tests don't show any decentering. I wonder how you thought you were testing that. You need to align your focal plane to your target with lasers AND correct for field curvature to properly determine if there is decentering, or if it's just poor alignment and/or field curvature.

Tamron junk lenses are made out of pickle or mayonnaise jars.

I'm not going to type it out, but you can read the reviews and see how the Tamron 24-70 either meets or handily beats the other three lenses in resolution, field curvature, and chromatic aberration performance.

The expense of doing so is that vignetting is not as good as the Nikon or Canon, but similar to the Sony, and that distortion at 24mm is higher than the others (but comparable at other focal lengths).

All lens design decisions are tradeoffs. Cost/weight/size/resolution/distortion/aberrations/coma/astigmatism/vignetting/focus motor/stabilization/field curvature/etc. Different lenses are different, and have different tradeoffs.

I have read positive reviews about this lens at the beginning, but all of a sudden the internet is flooded with negative reviews...

Got any links? I'd be interested to read these, if they exist.

Mainstream manufacturer lens last for a lifetime +20 years if they are looked after. Buy Tamron and expect you will be replacing it in 2-3 years after.

Oh really? So you built a time machine and owned this lens for 2-3 years? Or are you a longtime Tamron customer who replaces your lenses every 2-3 years?

But no, go ahead and tell that to all the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 owners who found metal shavings rattling around inside their $2400 lens. Or all of the Canon 24-70 owners who had their USM drives fail. Or all of the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 owners who had their zoom ring lock up. etc. etc.

All manufacturers have problems. Maybe you got a bad lens twice in a row. Or maybe you just have completely unreasonable expectations for what the lens can do.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Canon 24-70. I think if these are your expectations, you are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

 

[D7000newbie]

My Sigma 70-200 is an amazing lens. I would never give it up. I also have a Sigma 8-16 which I haven't had a chance to use much but it takes great pictures. Reviews for both the lenses were positive. Tamron 24-70 VR has been getting so so reviews and $500 for VR over the Sigma's 24-70 price seems ridiculous. So I will be getting a third Sigma pretty soon. Every brand has good and bad lenses. I can't speak for lenses I haven't tried, but the two Sigmas I have are fantastic. Things change and if you're not willing to be open minded that's your problem. There are plenty of car manufacturers that used to make garbage cars too and now make great cars. There is a learning curve for everything. Nikon/Canon didn't make great products from day 1. There is a reason why they had to make version II of some of their 'great' lenses.

try Sigma, if you dare - you'll probably end up thinking Tamron aren't that bad...

As I said you must have had a good copy. I've owned other Tamron lenses too. 17-50 VR, returned it as it was no good optically, it always gets bashed on internet forums that it's no good, unlike the 17-50 no VR which gets reasonable feedback. I also owned the 70-200 2.8 but focus speed was way too slow. Unless you are on a extra tight budget or you use your camera once an year, i would't bother buying Tamron.

 

[gl2k]

I fully confirm your observation.
I own 4 Tamrons and 3 of them have severe flaws.

By own observation and reading posts of other Tamron users I believe that Tamron additionally has some problems with the aperture.

Regarding image quality they are quite good for what they cost but everything else it pretty bad.

I'll definitely won't buy Tamron again.

 

[sotirius]

Sorry you had problems. Maybe you had two bad lenses in a row. Or maybe not. Really, I think your expectations are totally unrealistic.

I have Canon 100mm macro, 70-200 f/4 is, 10-22mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and the Tamron can't compare to any of these lenses. It is by far the worst in the group. I have owned other Tamron lenses through the years and none of them was good. My expectations are not unrealistic, i was expecting the "new" Tamron technology to be good as at least as my 85mm 1.8. Tamron is a total fail, and all of you who are happy with SMUDGED images, good on you. Enjoy your third-party lenses.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I'm not happy with smudged images at all.

My Tamron 90mm macro gives me ultra sharp images

My Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di gives me images as sharp as Carl Zeiss lenses I have owned in the past and sharpness on a par with my Canon 24-105L lens

My Tamron 70-200 f2.8 gives me sharper images than my Canon 70-200 f4L lens used to do.

As I said, I can not comment on the lens you critique in your OP, but it is not my experience that all Tamron lenses are rubbish.

Sorry you had problems. Maybe you had two bad lenses in a row. Or maybe not. Really, I think your expectations are totally unrealistic.

I have Canon 100mm macro, 70-200 f/4 is, 10-22mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and the Tamron can't compare to any of these lenses. It is by far the worst in the group. I have owned other Tamron lenses through the years and none of them was good. My expectations are not unrealistic, i was expecting the "new" Tamron technology to be good as at least as my 85mm 1.8. Tamron is a total fail, and all of you who are happy with SMUDGED images, good on you. Enjoy your third-party lenses.

 

[William DIllard]

I need to see real life examples. I tried the Tamron 24-70 And I was floored over the sharpness and ease of focus. Maybe that was a good copy but that son-of-a-gun was as sharp as any prime at 2.8 and great color too. As far as vignetting I can only state that at 30mm and 70mm I did not see it. I heard and believe that it vignettes at 24mm on full frame cameras but at least with my software i can get rid of it quickly. The first thing I thought was this makes a great wedding lens.

 

[aman74]

Sorry you had problems. Maybe you had two bad lenses in a row. Or maybe not. Really, I think your expectations are totally unrealistic.

I have Canon 100mm macro, 70-200 f/4 is, 10-22mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and the Tamron can't compare to any of these lenses. It is by far the worst in the group. I have owned other Tamron lenses through the years and none of them was good. My expectations are not unrealistic, i was expecting the "new" Tamron technology to be good as at least as my 85mm 1.8. Tamron is a total fail, and all of you who are happy with SMUDGED images, good on you. Enjoy your third-party lenses.

I noticed how you didn't address any of motobloats fine points.

 

[Twong]

I have a Tamron 17-50 non-VC and a Tamron 70-200, both are fantastic lenses. Are they perfect? The answer is obviously no. Primes are slightly better. But I have no problem using them to get results that are more than satisfactory to me. The 17-50 is my workhorse. BTW, I also have Sigma lenses, too.

Branding 3rd part lenses bad is too much generalization. It is like saying my mind is set, don't confused me with data. There are plenty of positive and objective comments and results to support their claims.

 

[inasir1971]

I don't know about any other Tamrons and I bought this based purely on performance for use on a D4 & D800.

Optically, the lens is excellent - certainly as good as either of the OEM ones (Canon or Nikon). It has excellent center sharpness wide open throughout the range (on a D800). Corners are not as good as a good prime, but no zoom is. And some of these primes cost as much or more than the OEM zoom.

The only issue is with the VC system which is affected negatively by vibration from the mirror mechanism at shutter speeds faster than 1/20s. Delayed exposure or shooting from liveview presents no problem. Handheld shots at 1/6s at 24mm are no problem. And it works very well for video. It has far less CA than either of the OEM zooms (important for video)

Switch off the VC and you have a very good optic that compares favorably with the OEM models.

The VC is something that the OEMs don't even offer.

As for your distortions, I don't know what you are talking about. All zooms exhibit some distortion but distortion on this is minor - there is no mustache distortion.

Why are you processing with Canon software? They don't allow any correction for non-Canon lenses?

Lightroom 4 already has distortion corrections for the Tamron (and in most cases the distortion corrections aren't even needed).

As for bad copies of lenses, there is absolutely no shortage of those from Nikon (I don't know about Canon) - just see how many reviewers (not regular consumers) have ended up with 28 1.8G's with decentered elements.

Vignetting wide open on full frame occurs with ALL lenses

The first two are wide open on a D800 to test









These two are from a D4 from both ends of the zoom. Download the full sized originals - I don't see what corner issues you are talking about.









And here's something that no OEM zoom full frame zoom can do (handheld)





Respectfully, OP, you probably have a defective lens and don't know how to process images (the Canon software corrects distortion for Canon lenses but not other brands).

 

[sotirius]

Most likely you won't see any flaws in real life shooting with this lens if you view the pictures at 20% size. At full size they are no good, and the newspaper test does not lie. I provided you with test sample images you make your decision.

 

[inasir1971]

The D4 shots at the 24 and 70 mm end above are full sized - show me better from an AF-S 24-70 2.8G. Click original to download.

Most likely you won't see any flaws in real life shooting with this lens if you view the pictures at 20% size. At full size they are no good, and the newspaper test does not lie. I provided you with test sample images you make your decision.

 

[IanMaw]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents.

I have taken over 3,000 shots will the lens and am very satisfied.

I use Focal software to optimise the AF Microadjustment on my 5D II and very little adjustment was needed (from 0).

My shots are very sharp with minimal distortion.

I like the VC although my gut feeling is that Canon's is better.

Judging by AP's review the Canon 24-70 II is only marginally better for twice the price.

Ian

 

[inasir1971]

Canon don't have IS on the 24-70 2.8L II. Nor are Nikon rumored to be planning one - there are some of us (myself included) that think the current one needs an update. If you want stabilization in a fast full frame (i.e. f2.8 this is the only option).

Does VC left on at medium shutter speeds (around 1/80s) degrade image on your Canon?

I just wanted to add my 2 cents.

I have taken over 3,000 shots will the lens and am very satisfied.

I use Focal software to optimise the AF Microadjustment on my 5D II and very little adjustment was needed (from 0).

My shots are very sharp with minimal distortion.

I like the VC although my gut feeling is that Canon's is better.

Judging by AP's review the Canon 24-70 II is only marginally better for twice the price.

Ian

 

[IanMaw]

Not that I can tell.

I just looked at recent photos I took at various shutter speeds around that speed (including 1/80th) and they all seemed equally sharp.

Ian