 |
|
|
LizWangPhotog
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 23, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 953
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, quiet, accurate AF. Sharp!! Continuous AF is the best of any lens available for Sony mount.
|
|
Cons:
|
Size, zoom in the front
|
|
|
This review is mainly going to address autofocus performance versus image quality. For Sony shooters, there is no substitute. I switched to Sony a few years back because I loved the image quality. I immediately noticed with all Sony lenses (I've shot with every lens currently available), that as a wedding photographer, all the lenses lacked the ability to track a moving object moving towards or away from the subject. Sure, if you didn't care if the shot was soft, and slightly focused in front or behind your subject, lenses like the Sony 70-200 and 24-70 Zeiss were acceptable in good light, but move to low light or tricky light situations, and you couldn't get more than 1 or 2 keepers out of 10. The 70-200 would hunt like mad and the AF would slow to a crawl. Good luck trying to focus on a moving subject...
After shooting with every available lens, I started guessing it might be the lenses and not the camera, so I preordered the Tamron 24-70 for Sony A mount, since I knew it was a relatively fast and accurate tracking lens on Nikon/Canon mount. I've shot this on the Nikon (great option for that system), and Canon, so this was the perfect test.
Combined with the a99 in continuous AF, single point, fast-moving subject moving towards the camera, this lens was ridiculously more accurate than the Sony 24-70, 6/10 were right on, 2 missed because I didn't hit the focus on the subject, and 2 missed as the camera was refocusing. Not so great, you might say...but the Sony 24-70 and 70-200 had 1/10 or 2/10 in every test. So I would say this...Sony AF still has a lot of maturing to do- same test on the Nikon AF produced slightly more keepers (8/10), but that could be partially to do with Nikon's better predictive AF system. But if you are shooting weddings and care that your processional shots (especially in a dark church) are in focus, or you don't want your lens hunting for several seconds in continuous AF, this is the only lens of choice. The 24-70 Sony Zeiss has better colors, but this is sharper.
I'm now hopeful that the new Tamron 70-200 will be the long end solution...until now I've had to carry two systems- one for action and the Sony for portraits!
|
|
 Apr 30, 2013
|
|
sachkan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
price,weight,VC
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Very sturdy build quality and not too heavy (lighter than the Nikon), effective vibration control and quick auto focus.
I've been reticent about getting 3rd party lenses and I still am, but I took a chance on this and do not regret it. Kudos to Tamron for making this lens.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2013
|
|
dave-s
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Simply Better than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and much less expensive.
Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus!
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality unacceptable in corners, needs to be better.
I need better image quality, even if I have to pay more to get it.
Bokeh can be objectionable in some situations.
|
|
|
I saw this lens reviewed and advertised and it seems to be the only alternative to the Nikon 24-70 f 2.8. I really want/need VC (VR), but I doubted that the Tamron optical quality would be acceptable. Up till now, I have only bought Canon or Nikon lenses (not including my view camera lenses).
I ordered 2 copies of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and also 2 copies of the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, all from B&H (they are always great).
I tested all 4 lenses scientifically and rigorously. Studio shooting with flash, architectural, landcapes @ infinity. One of the Tamrons was the clear winner. The other copy of the Tamron and both copies of the Nikon were unacceptable for my work. None of the lenses give truly sharp corners at any aperture or focal length. But the one Tamron was close enough to get by (I hate just "getting by") (f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron).
Anyway, the better of the two Tamrons clearly beat out both copies of the Nikon. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus! The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light, but in my studio people focus tests, I got more hits with the Tamron than with the Nikon. And of course the Tamron is about $1300 and the Nikon closer to $2000.
I would be GLAD to pay $2000, or even more, for an excellent lens. Nikon needs FAR better quality control - they should be ashamed.
Get the Tamron. It is not perfect, but is the best option available.
But whatever lens(es) you get, be sure to order at least 2-3 copies and test rigorously (if you care at all about image quality), as there can be huge variation from one copy to the next.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2013
|
|
pmagi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
The Tamron seems well build and feels nice. A bit lighter and smaller than the Canon, center sharpness is quite ok, the image stabilizer is great.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lots of vignetting, slow focus, not really 70mm but more like 65 mm, extremely ugly bokeh with onion shaped artifacts.
|
|
I bought the Tamron 24-70 VC because of the image stabilizer and mostly with the purpose of using it for video filming. I compared it to my Canon 24-70, my pros and cons are based on the results I got out of that.
I put up some example pictures comparing the bokeh of both lenses... subtle difference but that onion bokeh is quite annoying I think: http://www.fotograf-stockholm.nu/tamron-24-70-vc-vs-canon-24-70-for-stills-and-video-filming-image-stabilization-and-bokeh-test/
Anyways, for that price it's a good lense when you factor in the image stabilizer.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013
|
|
leedye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2013
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great image Quality
Vibration Control for videos
f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Tad slower focus vs. Nikon version
|
|
|
When I switched from Canon to the Nikon D800E I wanted an excellent walk around lens as I have always been a fan of Canon L lenses.
Came across this lens and am impressed. Never thought I would praise a none Canon or Nikon lens being the brand snob I 'was'.
Image quality is outstanding with a little micro adjustment needed to be dialed into the camera. This is with all lenses though.
Bit if vignetting as to be expected and the same compared to my Nikon.
Image quality is the same as the Nikon, however video is where it is at with this lens. With the vibration control, WOW! HD video is incredible, whether following my dogs or chasing my kids. No more headache just trying to watch the video from none vibration control glass.
Focusing is a tad slower vs the Nikon and though plastic the build quality is top notch.
Overall, absolutely impressed with what Tamron put out and a 5 year warranty to boot. Or is it 6?
Overall, highly recommend his lens, and yes ,even over Nikon's version.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2013
|
|
Rrexy
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 910
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, Build & VC
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I've never posted a lens review prior to this, but this lens deserved the time to do so.
I've owned it for almost three months now and the only negative thing I can say about it is that it requires micro-adjustment.
It's been everything I had hoped it would be and more.
Amazing clarity, sharpness, contrast & color from f2.8 and up.
Auto focus has been fast & accurate (once micro-adjusted) even in low light. The VC operates flawlessly.
Since purchased, it has been my "go to" lens.
An excellent example of what a third party lens can and should be.
Randy
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2012
|
|
vaflower
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 21, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 73
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Vibration control, price, image quality, 6 years warranty
|
|
Cons:
|
bulky
|
|
|
Love the Tamron 24-70 VC. Tamron deserved to be praised for being the first designing a 24-70 f2.8 VC lens, and its image is also super.
It is as sharp wide open at f2.8 as Canon 24-105 at F4. The autofocus is silent and accurate. Price is high by Tamron's standard but it is a bargain compared to Canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 counterparts.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2012
|
|
ic2foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent build quality and a very useful zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy has issues and I'm not sure a good copy would be a worth the asking price
|
|
|
I'm currently renting this lens and several others for another round of testing ahead of my next purchase. I had high hopes for this lens but my rental copy is not sharp on the right side of the image and it's quite obvious. For one of my test images I had a prominent figure on the right which really pointed out the flaw in this copy. Discounting what is hopefully a QC problem or poor treatment by another renter I would still find it hard to recommend this lens. For Canon users a trio of the EF 24mm 2.8, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 will give as good or better IQ for less than 1/2 the price. My Tamron 24-135mm SP might not be as critically sharp in the center as this lens, but has much more even performance across the frame and can be found used for a small fraction of the price asked for this lens. In comparison to the Canon 24-70 LII which I'm also renting, this lens somewhat competitive in the center of the image, but I still wouldn't recommend it for the very critical user. A better copy might change my mind, though there are other options for a lot less $$ as mentioned above. I have had overall good luck with Tamron lenses over 30+ years so hopefully this rental copy is an outlier.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2012
|
|
Ralph Conway
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 31, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 3611
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, speed, IS (VC), Scharpness, aperture, weight, build, prise, guaranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
Do not see any now.
|
|
|
Yesterday I tested this lens. Amazing! Three years ago I decided to buy not again any 3rd party lens. This decision has gone.
The Sigma 24-70 imo is by far better than the Canon "L" in any aspect. It may be topped in IQ by the new announced II Version. But this one is priced 2.5 times as much and lacks an IS. And Tamron next to this offers a 5 year guaranty, too.
This lens is my choice for this range. I was shooting the 24-105 L before (because of IS and weight). The Tamron outperformes the 24-105 IQ easyly (and the 24-70 2.8L ones imo, too) and adds an fantastic IS. Imo there is no competitor for this Lens in the Market.
Ralph
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2012
|
|
tanikon58
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 679
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I sold the Canon 24-70L to try out this lens and am astounding of its performance compared to the so-called main stream "L" lens. It is sharp and very nice color rendering. AF is fast and accurate using with Canon 5D3. Well built but lighter than the "brick." Look nice with FF body. I do not know this lens is better and cheaper than 24-70L II but it has Vibration Control which seems Canon does not include in the mark II one.
|
|
Cons:
|
It has vignetting because of the 82mm I guess and does not have glass covering in the back element like most lenses. Focal window is easy to break (did not know why?) since I had to send back to Tamron to replace it.
|
|
|
I would prefer to use the FL of this lens on my 5D3 99% of time I went out shooting or walk around.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2012
|
|
Charlie N
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VC, f2.8, prime sharp center and edges, af fast and accurate.
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting requires post occasionally, slightly busy bokeh, both rings initially too tight(loosen over time), extreme corners are a little sloppy.
|
|
|
I've had this lens from launch, and following a month long vacation, this lens is a 10 for sure. It's the best 24-70 available. Optically, it's fantastic, not sure how it can be improved, save the extreme corners. I didn't even know my 24-70L was soft until I compared it to this lens.... then promptly sold it. The 24-70L can get soft over time, so that might be one reason canon is coming out with the mark 2.
The VC is godlike for video, and for photos, stabilization is great for ANY focal length. Solid three stops using the 1/FL rule.
I feel that AF is on par with the L. Hardly ever miss a shot, using outer points on my 5d2. My other main lens is the 50L, and I'm not even sure it can match up with the tamron's sharpness. It's just that my 50 is shot from 1.2-2.8 so often that it seems so much softer than the tamron.
If you can look past the branding, easily worth the asking price IMO. Great FL, very sharp at 2.8, excellent VC/stabilization, weather sealed, damn close to L build, L features.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2012
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I LOVE THIS LENS!
Color/Sharpness/Contrast is in very good range @ f/2.8 - Color/Sharpness/Contrast is in excellent range from @ f/3.5 on up - Build quality for Tamron is very good but not up to the 24-70L build quality- VC works great for hand holding shots @ 1/5th sec @ 70mm - VC works much better for video than the non IS Canon 24-70L - Worth every penny of the $1200 asking price - Bokeh is smooth and pleasing to the eyes - Smooth zoom/focus rings work good for video - AF focuses great on my 5D Mark II/III and my 1D Mark III- Overall Score 9/10!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
For price/quality comparison to the Canon 24-70L MKI I have no complaints at all. My 24-70L needed servicing every 9 months or so due to focus plane shift from the heavy front element wobbling. The Tamron 24-70 VC has no wobble when extended like my old Canon 24-70L.
|
|
|
I was initially skeptical about the $1200 price for a Tamron but its no contest that this lens out performs the Canon L in every aspect except for build quality. 6 year factory warranty is a great bonus as well. If you shoot video this is the only choice that makes sense!
Overall Score is 9/10!!!
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2012
|
|
Thomas Richter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp (enough), precise AF, solidly built, efficient VC plus f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter (whereas that's a feature...), some vignetting wide open, zoom ring quite tight
|
|
|
Having upgraded now to FF (5D3), this lense replaced my very good EF 15-85 as standard zoom. The more than 1k Euro I saved from the not yet available EF 24-70 2.8L II I rather invested in a EF 85 1.2L II. Therefore this lens is expected to deliver good but not stellar performance in many disciplines, and it does that very well. You can do portraits with nice bokeh, take indoor and available light shoots at f2.8, and the VC is helpful for taking videos too, though I haven't tested that yet. So its very versatile, and if I need outstanding IQ I just take one of my primes. There are several lenses or even zooms that perform as good or slightly better in this or that situation, but considering the overall features, performance and price this lens is unique on the market at the moment.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2012
|
|
gwaww
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 196
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VC, sharpness, color, contrast, build, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter, distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
The first reviewer gives this lens a 7 and he doesn't even own it. "Canon MK II is 1/3 sharper?" What does that mean? Every review I've read gives this lens a higher rating than the org. Canon 24-70. I agree. I've had the Canon L, the Sigma HSM, the 24-105L, the Tamron 28-75 and this is the best. I use it on a 5D MK II and it makes a perfect walk-around for me. The VC is amazing on this lens!
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2012
|
|
dwarf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap compared to competitors, Image stabilisation, good bokeh, accurate contrasty colours, well built, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp as mainstream competitors, less weather resistant.
|
|
|
I had a chance to test this lens on my 5d m2. I compared it with the canon 24-70 ver 2.
Autofocus: Canon is twice as fast(probably because there was more light in the Canon's stand) but it's not precise. The Tamron nails the focus every time.
Build quality: They both feel well built, although i suspect he Canon should be better built. I like the feeling of the Tamron better.
Bokeh: Amazing! I don't know why some people complain about it. This one had no problems at all. The Canon bokeh was more like Gaussian blur...
VC: The Tamron is the only 24-70mm with VC.
Zoom and focus rings: Soft and accurate. Both lenses have full time AF overdrive.
Optics: Very sharp. The Canon is 1/3 sharper and has better resolving power. I wouldn't use these as portrait lenses. They are TOO sharp(with Canon having the lead). Not recommended for people with skin other than perfect.
Price: 1200$ VS 2400$+ Absolute bargain!
I have this lens on pre-order. Arriving in 1 week. I will make a better review then.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2012
|
|
myy001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 454
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, f2.8 usable, great VC
|
|
Cons:
|
AF not accurate
|
|
|
A near perfect lens if it could focus accurate. Not recommended for cameras without microadjustment. Some vegnitting @70mm but can be corrected and not severe in normal shootings.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
18
|
49134
|
Apr 30, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$1,254.60
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.78
|
8.72
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
