New Tamrom 24-70 F2.8 VC... Wow is not enough...

[pea_soup]

Going to have to post samples from this however I am still waiting for my Canon copy to get here.

What's the big deal?

A 24-70 F2.8 with Vibration Control that out performs the current Canon 24-70 F2.8L and from what I just saw on the weekend the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 as well.

Price point is only $1299 although vistek seems to have the Canon mount going for $1199 and getting them is not going to be easy as most places still have them in pre-order.

The zoom seems to be a 24.5mm to 67mm in my eyes. I know all companies nikon and canon included tend to round the numbers to make them a little more even. There is some vignetting in the corners which can be good for portraits and I think is easily fixed for photoshop.

So before you think of buying the Canon 24-70 or the Nikon 24-70 check this thing out. I sold my Canon 24-70 simply because I knew this lens was coming out. I was able to sample one on the weekend that was a Nikon mount and all I can simply say is WOW.

Usually I'm not a friend of 3rd party lenses. To date this is only the third such lens I would recommend. The three I do recommend are.

Tokina 16-28 F2.8
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Tamron 24-70 F2.8

Now if only one of these companies could provide us with a really good 70-200 Canon and Nikon might start looking at the pricing and realize they are ripping people off.

I have my canon mount coming in for next week and I will be sampling it versus the new 24-70 F2.8L II. I have a funny feeling the MTF will be very similar. Not bad considering it will cost $1,000 LESS and has a 6 year warranty.

Shame shame canon!

A little more info on a review of this lens:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ta...s-review-19056

[taemo]

I've always liked Tamron lenses and I knew that this 24-70 VC would turn out really good.
Would really like to see more sample pics but man it's tempting me to switch from 24-105 to this 24-70 as it's not as heavy as the canon 24-70 and it comes with VC

[AccentAE86]

Sounds like a winner. I just really wish they made it a 24-85. I've always found 70mm to be just a BIT too short. Close, but just not enough. Still quite happy with the 24-105. But very glad to hear someone is putting out a lens with great optical quality that makes canon and nikon look retardedly overpriced.

[taemo]

some youtube review videos from thatnikonguy comparing tamron, nikon, sigma and canon.
im tempted but I know it would just be a GAS (gear aquisition syndrome)

[pea_soup]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
Sounds like a winner. I just really wish they made it a 24-85. I've always found 70mm to be just a BIT too short. Close, but just not enough. Still quite happy with the 24-105. But very glad to hear someone is putting out a lens with great optical quality that makes canon and nikon look retardedly overpriced.

I totally agree with you Lloyd. If it were a 24-85 F2.8 or dare I say it a 24-60 F2.0 I think a lot of photographers would be a lot happier even if the size was larger.

It's way better than the Canon 24-70 F2.8L without question. Copy I had sampled was on par if not better than the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 in some aspects. The corner sharpness and light falloff are still better on the Nikon version.

I get the feeling we are going to see more and more companies selling products that are on par to the Nikon and Canon products and they will be huge winners as Canon and Nikon seem to think charging $2,000 for any lens is fair game.

I'm waiting to see what happens when they release the 135mm F2L II. If the prices is nutbar on that I'll become more and more a 3rd party lens guy.

[AccentAE86]

They're coming out with a 135 II? Why? The mk I is so bloody amazing in every way, there seriously are no problems with that lens. It was lightyears ahead of my Nikon 135 DC.

I cried when mine got stolen.

[pea_soup]

Sadly its true they are coming out with a 135 II. Don't be too shocked same thing with the 200mm F2. The newer version added IS and the optics were basically the same. I think we will see a 135mm F2 IS and they will of course double the price of it. Seems they just want to make more of lenses because people really aren't upgrading bodies like they thought they would.

I mean come on the pricing on this new 24-70 F2.8L II is simply stupid. I really hope this Tamron is able to take 10-15% of the sales away. It's a bloody tremendous lens.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Looks to be an interesting lens, but it definitely has some downfalls compared to the "big brand" counterparts:

- Extends a lot (for example Nikon version extends only a tiny bit, and within the hood)
- Weather sealing not as good (granted this likely isn't an issue for most)
- 82mm filter thread means most people are buying another full set of filters (everything else is 77mm).
- Bokeh doesn't seem as nice from the samples I've seen, but I would like to see more before making judgement. Some people seem to think it's the worst bokeh ever.
-I've already read complaints about bad copies
- Almost 3 stops light fall off in corners wide open (easily correctable in PP though)

The good news though is that it looks to be very sharp if you get a good copy, and image stabilization on a 24-70 is an industry first, and definitely something I would want if I owned that lens. I wish Nikon/Canon would put IS/VR in their 24-70's. For anyone looking to save $350 and gain stabilization, this is a good option, but I don't think the price difference is enough for most people to go off-brand and a notch down in build quality unless you absolutely needed that VC. Canon version might be $1000 more, but the Nikon 24-70 is only $350 more, so I wouldn't call that retardedly overpriced, considering it's still better in some ways. I think Canon users will be easier to persuade with the $1000 premium for the Canon 24-70 II.

Kudos to Tamron though, I do think this is a great little lens all things considered. Anything giving people more options, and pressure for the big brands to improve is good in my books. I wish they would have gone with a better zoom mechanism and 77mm filters though.

[pea_soup]

Depends how you look at it. Filters are practically useless with the exception of ND filters. ND filters are actually the only ones I use these days. Not to mention the new Canon 24-70 is 82mm as well. You are going to start seeing 82mm on just about every single PRO lens that comes out in the future. Exception of course being the large glass that uses drop in filters.

It is weather sealed as well, not quite sure where that came from. At least the copy I was playing with was.

According to the MTF charts it will be equally as sharp as the Nikon 24-70, sharper than the Canon 24-70 and we don't know if its close to, equal or better than the Canon 24-70 Mark II.

The light falloff isn't a big concern. The canon 17-55 is actually one of the worst lenses you will see in that regard and most people actually loved the effect of having some vignetting which can be fixed in post if it's wanted.

It can be shot hand held at 1/10th....

That alone is fairly sick.

The bokeh is a big blah. None of the 24-70's have good bokeh. Most F2.8 lenses for that matter don't unless you start shooting at 200, 300 or 400. I don't think you ever buy a 24-70 for the bokeh. It's a lens that's there for the flexibility.

Really cool lens though especially for a Tamron. At the same point though I can show you a lens for less than $400 that can best the Nikon 24-70 F2.8G and it's actually one of the older Nikon lenses that most will say is the best bang for your buck lens they've ever produced.