So glad I took the plunge.

[kymarphotography]

Hi All.

OK short version: I love this lens. It's well built, fast, silent, and an absolute bargain when compared to the 24-70 2.8s from Canon and Nikon.

Long Version: make a cup of coffee and read on...

A bit of background first. I'm a pro photog specialising in kids / kinder photos with the odd wedding thrown in from time to time. In the past I've used Canon with the mighty 24-70/2.8 L series. When I went out on my own I made the switch to Nikon but at the time could only afford the (average) 18-105 VR to go with my D90. While ok I always found the AF a bit on the slow side and when shooting in dimly lit interiors the 3.5-5.6 aperture did me no favours. As kids move pretty fast I really missed a quick focussing lens.

I finally decided I needed better glass and had narrowed my choices down to the Nikon 24-120/4 or (at the risk of my wife / business partner killing me) the Nikon 24-70/2.8. Then I stumbled across some reviews of this Tamron lens and was intrigued. About 18months ago I'd looked into the Tamron 18-50/2.8 and wasn't all that impressed by the AF and the overall feel of the lens. I'd used Sigma 2.8s as well back in my Canon days and wasn't a fan of them either due to the AF noise and what I felt was an excessive tendency to bad flare in backlit and sidelit situations.

I went to my local camera store and tried out this Tamron and was very impressed by the solid feel and quick, silent AF. In fact the image stabiliser makes more noise than the AF. For what it's worth it's a very faint little click; nothing serious. The shop came within a few bucks of the best online price i'd seen so I grabbed it.

I've now used it for the past week shooting (photographing) kids (aged 4-6) at a childcare centre and can't complain about anything. It almost takes me back to when I used the L series Canon. It's THAT good. The focus is quick to lock on. The bright aperture means if I'm in a dark interior the backgrounds are no longer too dark and when outside I just use Aperture Priority set to f4 (which according to most tests seems to be this lenses sweet spot) and I once again get beautifully blurred backgrounds. Also with the VC (vibration control) it means I don't have to be too concerned with slower shutter speeds if I've had one too many espressos that morning.

The only downside I can see with this lens is it's physical size and weight. It seems to be built without a doubt, like a PRO lens. I can imagine if its fitted to a small body like a D3200 it would feel like too much lens for the camera but I use it with a D90 fitted with a battery grip so it balances out beautifully. My next body will most likely be a D7100 (again with grip).

Most reviews mention the vignetting. For me this wasn't an issue as I use DX format cameras. So far from what I have seen the sharpness and contrast of this lens are excellent. I've even deliberately taken shots with the sun in the corner of the frame and just out of frame to see how good the flare control would be. It's as good, if not better than anything I've used. And for what it's worth I also use a UV filter on the front.

So to sum up, I love the lens. It does everything they say it does. Can't wait to try it on a wedding.

 

[Nexu1]

Is the Tamron stronger on the wide end or the tele end, or good throughout?

How do you find the lens in the focal length around 50-70 at f2.8 for isolating subjects and creating a pleasing out of focus? Do you find 70mm is long enough for shooting kids? I've been debating on a lens like this vs the 85f1.8.

 

[kymarphotography]

Nexu1 wrote:

Is the Tamron stronger on the wide end or the tele end, or good throughout?

How do you find the lens in the focal length around 50-70 at f2.8 for isolating subjects and creating a pleasing out of focus? Do you find 70mm is long enough for shooting kids? I've been debating on a lens like this vs the 85f1.8.

Hi there.

So far i'd say its pretty good throughout the zoom range. I tend to use more between 50-70 and for what I do is long enough at 70mm. Look if it went out to 100mm it'd be a bonus. If you were using it on a full frame slr then you might want something a bit longer. The 85/1.8 would be awesome and if I were to do a lot of studio work I'd probably invest in one but as my preschool and childcare work is very quick-paced a zoom is quite handy. And to be honest I don't really go below f4 with the aperture. What I've found in the past (when using a 50/1.8) is when I shoot at f1.8, the subject only needs to move by about an inch and the depth of field won't cover it and the shot's gone. If my work was only outdoors, I would have gone for the Nikon 24-120/4 as the range would have been great and f4 would be plenty fast but as a lot of my work is indoors, I figured if anything the f2.8 aperture would help with focussing even if I don't shoot below f4.

As far as pleasant out of focus or bokeh goes, I think it looks really nice even stopped down a bit.

Hope this helps. Cheers.

 

[Sjaakvdl]

I received my Tamron 24-70 today and the first thing I noticed while testing it with my 5DmIII was the vignetting:




Ugly hard to completely remove vignetting @24mmf2.8




At 5,6 vignetting is still there in the lower left and upper right corner , the left side of the picture is darker













My old lens: vignetting but much more even and easier to get rid of in LR

LR thinks the Tamron is a Sigma 24-70, when I tell LR it is a Tamron it is recognised but the vignetting is not nicely taken care of...

Do I have a bad copy or is this normal??

 

[kymarphotography]

The vignetting seems to be an unfortunate fact of life when using zooms on full frame cameras. Goto the DXOmark website where they test and give figures for vignetting and it seems ALL the 24-70/2.8s seem to have it. The figures for the new Canon 24-70 2.8 L series even seem to indicate that vignetting would be slightly worse than with the Tamron.