p.2 #2 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
That's ok then. I don't follow closely what happens in the Super Bowl. Of course you don't even consider switching side because of one loss. And, see you tomorrow when Nikon announces my dream camera and I am invested in Canon and ZE glass to fill that Bowl....
p.2 #5 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
An interesting lens!
Still, it weighs 825 grams, which is 60% more than the 28-75 mm. The dimensions are 88.2 x 108.5 mm compared to the old 73 x 92mm. That's despite positive-lead type optics, four aspherical elements, plastic construction, and the usual Tamron design emphasis on reduced bulk. A comparable lens by Canon or Nikon would be larger and heavier, since those brands must offer better optics and "pro" mechanical features in this type of lens.
The Tamron press release talks about switching from moving-magnet to moving-coil stabilisation. I presume that's for the same reason that the best turntable cartridges are MC rather than MM: to reduce the weight of the moving parts.
Pretty impressive stuff, though I still very much doubt Canon's next lens will be stabilised.
p.2 #8 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
I hope that Tamron fixes their VC so that you don't have to wait a second for the VC to stabilize (like the 17-50). I was thinking of putting my tax refund toward the 24-70, but it looks like I'll have to wait and see how this lens performs!
Edit: Censored, since i didn't realize this was in the Canon forums
p.2 #12 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
S Dilworth wrote:
An interesting lens!
Still, it weighs 825 grams, which is 60% more than the 28-75 mm. The dimensions are 88.2 x 108.5 mm compared to the old 73 x 92mm. That's despite positive-lead type optics, four aspherical elements, plastic construction, and the usual Tamron design emphasis on reduced bulk. A comparable lens by Canon or Nikon would be larger and heavier, since those brands must offer better optics and "pro" mechanical features in this type of lens.
The Tamron press release talks about switching from moving-magnet to moving-coil stabilisation. I presume that's for the same reason that the best turntable cartridges are MC rather than MM: to reduce the weight of the moving parts.
Pretty impressive stuff, though I still very much doubt Canon's next lens will be stabilised....Show more →
Interesting stuff (and talk about copying designs; the Nikon 24-120 is all but identical to Canon 24-105!) but it looks like Tamron has solved the problem somehow.
p.2 #13 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
Yes - Tamron may steal some of the 24-70 II's thunder if they can get it to market and it is reasonably sharp. If they announce a 70-200 VC with their USD, they could make that market more interesting too.
It's also very interesting to see that they've added "moisture resistance" to this lens.
p.2 #14 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
jcolwell wrote:
Well, based on the performance of the SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di AF and SP 70-300/4-5.6 VC (both of which I own), I'll wait for the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L IS
Funny, I thinking the opposite and was going to say if it performs anything like the 28-75 (I owned) or the 70-300VC (I currently own), I'm in for one. Then again, I don't demand nor expect the fastest AF or best build quality from Tamron lenses- thats what my primes are for.
p.2 #15 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
Thank God for this lens. Finally we'll be able to put an end to the perennial threads of 24-70 vs. 24-105 since late 2005 when the 24-105 was introduced.
I'll have to get this lens, and perhaps sell off my 24-105.
p.2 #16 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
The weight is a bit disappointing. Almost as much as the current Canon 24-70.
29.1 oz Tamron vs. 32.5 oz. Canon
Maybe they put some added weight into have a faster AF motor?
p.2 #17 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
can i ask what the big deal about 82mm filters is? just trying to understand since it aways comes up as a perceived negative. if it's about common sizes, don't the 16-35, 24 TS-E, Zeiss 21mm, and other use the 82mm size? If it's about price, isn't the difference negligible between a 77m and 82mm filter? some enlightenment would be appreciated.
i for one would don't care about weight or IS or lens hood design (although the current one is brilliant), as long as the IQ increase is similar to the 70-200 II jump in optics and AF is good.
p.2 #18 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
charliebs wrote:
can i ask what the big deal about 82mm filters is? just trying to understand since it aways comes up as a perceived negative. if it's about common sizes, don't the 16-35, 24 TS-E, Zeiss 21mm, and other use the 82mm size? If it's about price, isn't the difference negligible between a 77m and 82mm filter? some enlightenment would be appreciated.
i for one would don't care about weight or IS or lens hood design (although the current one is brilliant), as long as the IQ increase is similar to the 70-200 II jump in optics and AF is good....Show more →
It is about common sizes, price and availability. The filter I use most is a ND110 (10 stop gray filter). I don't even know where to get one in 82 mm.
p.2 #19 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
charliebs wrote:
can i ask what the big deal about 82mm filters is? just trying to understand since it aways comes up as a perceived negative. if it's about common sizes, don't the 16-35, 24 TS-E, Zeiss 21mm, and other use the 82mm size? If it's about price, isn't the difference negligible between a 77m and 82mm filter? some enlightenment would be appreciated.
i for one would don't care about weight or IS or lens hood design (although the current one is brilliant), as long as the IQ increase is similar to the 70-200 II jump in optics and AF is good....Show more →
The price difference may be small between filter sizes, but that doesn't matter if you're heavily invested in the 77mm size, which seemed like the standard for top many lenses before the 16-35v2.
p.2 #20 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
ciprian.trofin wrote:
I hope the build quality is better than Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8.
Tamron 24-70 (A007) vs 28-75 (A09):
---------------------------------------------------------
Stabilized: YES / NO
Lenses Construction (Groups / Elements): 12 / 17 vs 14 / 16
Diaphragm Blades: 9 vs 7
Minimum aperture: F/22 vs F/32
Filter size: 82mm vs 67mm
Minimum focus distance: 38cm vs 33cm
Maximum magnification ratio: 1:5 vs 1:3.9
Weight: 825g vs 510g
sure has gone up in weight, but wow filter size is huge now, but maybe that means the edge performance will be much better on FF?
