p.2 #2 · Thoughts on the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 Di VC USD
benee wrote:
Yes, I had the 28-75 and the 17-50 from Tamron. Both were optically excellent, but struggled a bit to focus in low light. Perhaps this newer version will focus better in low light with Tamron's version of USM.
It'll be interesting to see if the USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) used in the 24-70 improves focus in low light. None of the previous 'standard' zooms has it. I have a Tamron 70-300 with USD and for a lens of that aperture range it does pretty well in low light.
p.2 #4 · Thoughts on the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 Di VC USD
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think it's a bit more variable in quality. I've heard a good VC version is better than the non VC. As always test for yourself.
In recent years photographers have had to learn far too much about manufacturing tolerances. I've lost track of the number of WTB posts I've seen that demand a "sharp copy" of a lens. The issue is significant enough that all but entry level dSLRs are now expected to allow us to fine tune focus.
On a semi-related note . . . last year I bought a used 17-50 VC from one of my favorite dealers and returned it because it simply couldn't make a clear/sharp image under any circumstances. They sent it to Tamron for repair. To our surprise Tamron deemed it not worth fixing. Our theory was that it had hidden impact damage but I am still concerned that they couldn't make it right again. It's not like the lens is discontinued and parts aren't available. Or, maybe the latter is true and, like so many other high-tech products it's easier/cheaper to replace than repair. Dealer ended up selling it on eeekbay as a parts lens.
p.2 #5 · Thoughts on the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 Di VC USD
I'll be interested to have a look at this new lens. I've currently got the 28-75 and don't think too much of it, sharpness is ok but contrast and colour are poor wide open. I don't use the zoom much at all due to this, it's the second one I've had and they've both been the same. I prefer using primes at the moment so can't justify the expense of the Canon for an occasionally used lens.
