p.3 #1 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
jcolwell wrote:
Sorry that I'm grumpy this morning. I'm a Pats fan.
As a Niners fan I feel your pain. The Giants have cost our teams two super bowls each (plus they knocked Montana off the team and ended the chance for the only three-peat ever and your team the perfect seasons (although the head catch was kinda neat, oopps sorry ducking and running away) ).
p.3 #2 · 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.
yeah based on that, the Canon IS version, if they made one, might weight 1300grams
canon uses more metal and they don't ever seem to use hyper refractive elements
p.3 #3 · 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 →
Yeah some lenses use 82mm, but many people don't have any of those and have built-up 77mm filter sets. Top quality 82mm MRC polarizers/etc. = $$ and if you sell off your current 77mm you take a loss and have to mess with step down rings all the time, plus 82mm are harder to find, sometimes anywhere never mind places with good prices.
p.3 #5 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
skibum5 wrote:
As a Niners fan I feel your pain. The Giants have cost our teams two super bowls each (plus they knocked Montana off the team and ended the chance for the only three-peat ever and your team the perfect seasons (although the head catch was kinda neat, oopps sorry ducking and running away) ).
p.3 #6 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
surf monkey wrote:
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?
What did you realistically expect? The lens has the same focal range and VC and it weighs less than the current 24-70...nothing surprising there.
Anyway, if this lens can focus quickly and accurately it'll give the Canon a run for it's money, we'll see...
p.3 #7 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
M Vers wrote:
What did you realistically expect? The lens has the same focal range and VC and it weighs less than the current 24-70...nothing surprising there.
Anyway, if this lens can focus quickly and accurately it'll give the Canon a run for it's money, we'll see...
I'm not complaining about the weight and I'm looking forward to trying both of the new 24-70s. Although I would expect the typically less-solid Tamron build quality to result in a lighter lens than the Canon equivalent. The new Canon is supposedly lighter than the previous version which would make it about the same as the Tamron. Obvious trade-off should be better Canon build vs Tamron VC. Maybe the new Tamron will have Canon L build quality and feel, but that's not typical of the ones I've tried in the past.
p.3 #8 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
All of the Tamron lenses I've owned and used all have pretty solid build--maybe not L quality but seemingly close and probably a lot closer than I think (the 17-50 is a very solid lens). Based on experience the largest difference between third party equivalents and OEM lenses has always been AF speed and accuracy, particularly in challenging conditions.
p.3 #13 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
I had the 17-50, and it is a very good lens. Its weakness is AF speed (accuracy was fine IMHO), so hopefully the new ultrasonic drive improves on that.
p.3 #14 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
From Dpreview:
Tamron has announced a 24-70mm F2.8 zoom for full frame cameras that features inbuilt optical stabilisation - a first in this class of lens. The SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD, to give it its full name, also incorporates an Ultrasonic Silent Drive motor for autofocus, which allows full time manual focus. The lens is moisture resistant, and features a circular aperture diaphragm for the attractive rendition of background blur. It will be produced in Canon, Nikon and Sony mounts, with price and availability to be confirmed at a later date.
p.3 #15 · 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 →
Agreed. We might be seeing an universal migration to the 82mm filter size (up from 77mm) as standard, the same as when Canon updated all their 72mm pro lenses (20-35L, 28-80L, 80-200L) with 77mm ones (17-35L, 28-70L, 70-200/2.8L) circa 1996. Other manufacturers are following suit (Tokina 17-35, Sigma 100-300/4, Sigma 20/1.8, Sigma 24-70 all have 82mm filters).
p.3 #16 · The stabilized (Tamron) 24-70/2.8 is here!
jcolwell wrote:
OK. I can be a little more specific.
A: I never said it was crap. I own the 24-105L IS and most fast Canon primes from 24/1.4L to 200/1.8L. I recently sold my EF 24-70/2.8L because I didn't use it much, not because it has poor IQ. I might upgrade to a 24-70/2.8L IS; otherwise, I have no need to do so.
B: I never said anything about toys. I do expect the 24-70/2.8L IS to be far ahead in IQ.
The image quality, build quality, and AF performance of the SP 28-75/2.8 and SP 70-300/4-5.6 VC are not as good as the equivalent Canon L-series zoom lenses. This does not mean that the Tamrons are not better than other alternatives, nor that they're not worth having. It simply means that I would prefer to wait for the Canon 24-70/2.8L IS, because I'm confident that it'll be better in most, if not all, meaningful performance characteristics. The Canon will probably be heavier, and it will definitely be more expensive.
The Canon is not heavier and tables have been turned. Canon 805g, Tamron 825g. If Tamron IQ is like 95% of Canon mk II as it was with 28-75 and mk I, then with VC and now USD to address AF speed, it'll be a smash hit for the non dyed-in-the-wool Canon guys. Of course it depends on pricing as new Tammy will be at least 2x price of old model, but that could still leave it 40% cheaper than the price of Canon.
