Ernie Aubert wrote:
The Tamron site does have a few f2.8 shots. They're pretty small, though, and don't reveal anything about the corners.
.. which doesn't bode well. Those shots are barely more than thumbnails, which suggests (to me) that the corners and even midframe were likely too soft for normal size. I hope that's not the case, as I am really interested in this lens.
The 24-70L and 24-70Lmk2 being discussed in this thread don't have I.S. either. It looks to me like a $800 Sigma alternative to those lenses is much more reasonable than a $1300 Tamron alternative.
Frankly, I'm not optimistic about the 24-70 VC. The original Tamron 17-50 f2.8 was a highly regarded lens, but when Tamron added VC to it the results were downright terrible. I reckon that a full frame version of that lens poses an even tougher challenge for Tamron's engineers.
You do realise the Sigma had a list price well over a $1K when released. There's not a snowball's chance in hell the Tammy will stay at $1299 for long (not that's that a bad price at all for what it offers IMO). Like it not third party lenses usually get discounted quickly to compete. There a re a lot of lens snobs out there and the only way to get you product noticed sometimes is by price alone. Tammy is already $1K cheaper than 24-70L II and has IS and unlike the 28-75, now has USM so focus speed will be much better. I'm guessing Canon will really only have a build quality advantage. Unless there's been a total screw up by Tammy I'll be replacing my 28-75 with the 24-70 VC. No way am I paying more for a 24-70 than a 70-200 IS costs. Canon is smoking crack!
jzucker wrote:
is *IS* really that important on this size lens? I just ordered the canon MK I for the same price.
In a museum, art gallery, or other low light interiors where movement isn't an issue and tripods are banned it'll be a godsend. Tamron do very good IS as well. Makes a lot more sense than IS on a 24mm prime IMO.
i dunno...I'm still not convinced of the big need for IS in that focal range. How many people are taking $1300 lenses to shoot static artwork in a museum?
jzucker wrote:
i dunno...I'm still not convinced of the big need for IS in that focal range. How many people are taking $1300 lenses to shoot static artwork in a museum?
So what would you use
I tend to use what I own. I know I don't have a special crap lens I reserve solely for interior work. Hey I'm going to the museum today, where's my Vivitar 28-300 because I like soft mushy crap. 24-70 is a work horse range in my books.
jzucker wrote:
i dunno...I'm still not convinced of the big need for IS in that focal range. How many people are taking $1300 lenses to shoot static artwork in a museum?
Why what else would you take?
Imagine your in a church or cathedral . Great to stunning interior in front of you . Now lots won't let you use a pod due to possible floor damage and or other peoples inconvenience .
You could have a bag of fast (1.4 or faster) primes , or a 2.8 zoom with 3-4 stop IS
Or
Remember it's not compulsory to use a fast 2.8 zoom at the wide open setting. Maybe you want a slowish shutter speed at f5.6 or f8 . IS/VC/OS will be a help there as well
Or
Maybe you just don't have as steady hands as some of the human tripods around here can manage.
Too much caffeine or worse the onset of the jitters and some for of stabilisation could extend your photography enjoyment a few years . No that's got to be worth it.
duet wrote:
As a wedding photographer, IS in this focal lengths can open a whole new door for me.
Interesting. I was just watching some instructional videos of fashion photographers doing location shots all over NY using the canon 24-70 and they managed to take beautiful images in all kinds of weather/light without IS and without a tripod. Anyway, i'll bow out. Carry on.
jzucker wrote:
yeah, i hear you. Still not convinced it's needed in this focal range. as much as in a bigger lens.
IS is an asset at every focal length. I appreciated the in body stabilizer of old KM cameras when shooting with wideangles in dark places, sometimes even in pitch darkness + a few lanterns. And no, it wasn't a cathedral I was shooting on vacation for my own enjoyment, but a disaster site so I HAD to get that photo done well.
And last but not least, when I hear the argument about IS not necessary for these focal lengths, I point to Canon's own example. Not even the new 24/28 primes - that'd be an easy target - but something like 17-55 IS which trounces Nikon's 17-55. I used it and it was a great lens (QC notwithstanding). And 24-105 as well - it's immensely popular and no one probably switches off IS whenever they go below 80 mm.
This Tamron also has a DOF advantage over faster primes for my intended (hopefully) use. That said, I'll probably still shop around for a Sigma 85/1.4 or something else, but for most shots in low light I'll likely need more DOF than that one, and certainly more than f/1.4 lens would provide.
jzucker wrote:
is *IS* really that important on this size lens? I just ordered the canon MK I for the same price.
For me it's immensely important. 90% of what I photograph is in low-light performance venues, at iso 1600 or higher. Being able to take my motion out of the equation means the percentage of photos that work, even at 1/50th or slower, goes way up because can capture a moment when the musician is relatively still without camera shake ruining it. It's annoying that I can use the 70-200/2.8L IS II effectively in situations where the current 24-70 is useless.
For other applications, having IS on the lens means you can close down for greater depth of field than would be possible otherwise.
I'd really like a good mid-range zoom with stabilization. I keep a 7D around just to be able to use the 17-55/2.8IS. Where's the equivalent for full frame?
Jim Levitt wrote:
For me it's immensely important. 90% of what I photograph is in low-light performance venues, at iso 1600 or higher. Being able to take my motion out of the equation means the percentage of photos that work, even at 1/50th or slower, goes way up because can capture a moment when the musician is relatively still without camera shake ruining it. It's annoying that I can use the 70-200/2.8L IS II effectively in situations where the current 24-70 is useless.
For other applications, having IS on the lens means you can close down for greater depth of field than would be possible otherwise.
I'd really like a good mid-range zoom with stabilization. I keep a 7D around just to be able to use the 17-55/2.8IS. Where's the equivalent for full frame?...Show more →
Indeed.
Just think with the great HI-ISO performance of the current bodies + 3-4 stops of IS/VC/OS available from the latest lenses you could shoot in very dark places and get great images.
