I've got a couple of events to photograph the week after they say it will ship so I went ahead and pre-ordered mine despite having no F2.8 sample images.. It may go down a little in a few months but I'm not so sure. With the Canon II at $2299 and Canon I at $1329.00 with no IS at B&H, the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC $1299.00 doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Besides, B&H is so good about returing merchandise I don't think I can go wrong. If it doesen't live up to expectations I'll just send it back for a replacement or refund.
This is a case where B&H's company policies and good service got them an order from me now instead of my waiting and shopping around for a price break from someone else later.
I did the same as you, DonR (pre-order from B&H) for the same reasons. My sense from the MTF charts is that the new Tamron can at least run with Canon's ver. 1 of the 24-70, but I wonder if it looks any better re the charts?
It's not clear that the other lens charts use the same lp/mm, so I'm not sure that it's apples to apples. I also thought that Australia took earlier delivery and that our friends there might be able to inform the rest of us?
JoelWilcox wrote:
Now that the VC/IS discussion has had its run, anyone care to make sense of the MTF charts on page 2 of this thread? -- On full-frame?
Recall 10lp/mm is a measure of contrast and 30lp/mm is a measure of detail or resolving power.
Looks like it's better than the mk 24-70L throughout the FL range; it seems the mk II is better at wider FL and in corners but Tammy is very good out a fair way. It looks better than Nikon and Zeiss overall, and a bit better than the Sigma. If these MTF's are in any way indicative of reality it should be a very good performer overall. Sagittal and meridional performance is close too across the frame which is also good.
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.
Why? Worse IQ and no IS and not cheap at $800, could get a $300 tamron 28-75 then.
RobertLynn wrote:
Anyone can tell you, I'm one of the ones that thinks you don't have to have IS at this range...but
If I can have cake...
and eat it...
why the heck not?
Having MORE tools and MORE options at my disposal will help me to offer more products to more clients.
It's a lucky man or women that is rock steady enough not to need or be able to take advantage of IS. I have to have IS because I have what is called Essential Tremors. Before IS was introduced in consumer cameras and lenses I could not shoot without using a tripod 100% of the time. I disliked having to carry a tripod even for the simplest of shots so I just didn't do photography. It wasn't until 2004, when Panosonic introduced IS in the FZ-1 P&S that Image Stabilizing cameras or lenses changed everything for me. I shot with Panisonic P&S and Olympus DSLR's until recently when I changed over to the 60D and all IS lenses.
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....Show more →
Jim Levitt wrote:
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?
The only one I'm aware off is the A900 + ZA 24-70/2.8 but if I am to be honest, with this kind of ugly bokeh, I'd pass.
I disliked having to carry a tripod even for the simplest of shots so I just didn't do photography.
Wow, that was a shame. There are amazing areas of photography that are only open to photography on a tripod. The most amazing macro work, for instance, becomes accessible only on a tripod. Some amazing landscape work only becomes possible with long exposures on a tripod.
This is true but not even being able to take family shots or just snaps on vacation I could not see investing in equipment on the chance I might find Macro work. Luckily, I'm enjoying every minute with my new found love of photography.
I changed my mind. I canceled the order for my 24-70L after reading numerous reports on soft lenses and I've already had 2 canon L lenses that were soft so I think I'm going to give this one a try. I'm on the waiting list at B&H.
Joel to be clear I just tracked down the MTF charts from the Korean website with the samples. I was randomly clicking links when I stumbled across the charts. Some else did the hard work. All I did was offer a few lines of input on what they are telling us.
Can anyone guess as to why copies of these aren't landing on review sites as we speak? Photozone? DPreview? Etc. Is it a dud? Is Tamron not proud of their product?
If I were proud of my product, I would send copies to the four corners for review and really hammer the nail into the coffin!
Now the 24-70L II is delayed (surprise, surprise, surprise) Tamron should make hay while the sun shines. It won't matter how good it is, the fanbois will still ignore it.
