I'm sure that Tamron is chomping at the bit to take away a lot of sales from Canon. If I were working for them, I would be pushing that lens out the door as fast as possible.
you know...I posted earlier saying i had canceled my 24-70L lens and would be ordering this lens but my wife just reminded me...A couple years ago I bought a tamron 18-270 lens. I paid approximately $699 US.
I contacted tamron twice about an issue it was having where the focusing ring would stick about halfway through it's range as you were rotating it. Both times, I received a reply from them saying they would contact me about service (it was under warranty). However, they never followed up and I ended up getting the lens repaired locally and vowed to never again buy another of their products.
It looks like a very good lens but I must admit I hoped it would be a bit sharper wide open. I'll wait for more reviews before making a final judgement. In any case, kudos for Tamron for being the first in this niche.
jzucker wrote:
you know...I posted earlier saying i had canceled my 24-70L lens and would be ordering this lens but my wife just reminded me...A couple years ago I bought a tamron 18-270 lens. I paid approximately $699 US.
I contacted tamron twice about an issue it was having where the focusing ring would stick about halfway through it's range as you were rotating it. Both times, I received a reply from them saying they would contact me about service (it was under warranty). However, they never followed up and I ended up getting the lens repaired locally and vowed to never again buy another of their products. ...Show more →
As I recall, that hitch partway through the zoom was a deliberate design decision on Tamron's part to combat zoom creep. Mine had the same thing, as did my friend's and the one he bought his mother. Never heard if they did the same thing with the PZD version.
(Obviously, if yours wouldn't go past the hitch, that's a bigger issue)
Yakim Peled wrote:
It's not at all surprising that a new design outperforms an old one (introduced in 2002). The real test will be against the new 24-70/2.8 II.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Just because it's an old design doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad design. The 24-70L mk I seems to suffer from a lot of variability issues. Good ones are excellent, but finding them is the key. My Tamron 28-75 was much sharper wide open than a 24070L I tried, but I've seen results from some 24-70's that were superb wide open.
Wasn't there some data on the 24-70L II showing barrel distortion on par with the 24-105L, which would be a disgrace if true.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Just because it's an old design doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad design. The 24-70L mk I seems to suffer from a lot of variability issues. Good ones are excellent, but finding them is the key. My Tamron 28-75 was much sharper wide open than a 24070L I tried, but I've seen results from some 24-70's that were superb wide open.
Wasn't there some data on the 24-70L II showing barrel distortion on par with the 24-105L, which would be a disgrace if true.
I didn't imply nor wanted to suggest that old designs are inherently worse than newer ones. All I said is that - when one is speaking in general terms - it is logical to expect that newer products will offer improvement over older ones. FWIW, I am a living testimony that sometimes old design work much better.
Yakim Peled wrote:
It looks like a very good lens but I must admit I hoped it would be a bit sharper wide open. I'll wait for more reviews before making a final judgement. In any case, kudos for Tamron for being the first in this niche.
While the 24 1.4 II L handily beats it f/4 and lower, at landscape shooting like f/5.6, f/8, f/11 the Tamron actually scores sharper center, mid and edge with less CA!
That is pretty stunning performance. I'm not sure the 24-70 II can beat that level for landscapes although it may tie. I suspect it will do noticeable better f/2.8-f/4 than the tamron though.
Tamron has IS and costs a lot less though.
At the very least this new Tamron will make the 24-105L look silly and should handily beat the 24-70L original (other than for AF speed) and tamron 28-75.
I'd wait on a few more reviews though since lens testing is a notoriously finicky business and trace missed focus or alignment can totally alter things. We also don't know how far they test and what method they test edges using.
While the 24 1.4 II L handily beats it f/4 and lower, at landscape shooting like f/5.6, f/8, f/11 the Tamron actually scores sharper center, mid and edge with less CA!
That is pretty stunning performance. I'm not sure the 24-70 II can beat that level for landscapes although it may tie. I suspect it will do noticeable better f/2.8-f/4 than the tamron though.
Tamron has IS and costs a lot less though.
At the very least this new Tamron will make the 24-105L look silly and should handily beat the 24-70L original (other than for AF speed) and tamron 28-75.
I'd wait on a few more reviews though since lens testing is a notoriously finicky business. ...Show more →
Judging from what I see, my 24-105 might be up for sale very soon.
Interesting side by side comparison of the Tamron and 24-70 Mark I lenses. The new Tamron does a pretty good job beating the 24-70 across the board, especially in the CA department. Very impressive.
PixelPerfect doesn bring up a valid point - there is some variation with the current 24-70 lenses.
This looks like it might be a good option for the 24-70 range. I noticed the filter size is 82mm which is a minor inconvenience. Does anybody know if the front element rotates while zooming or focusing? I would assume that it doesn't, since this is a rather high-end lens for Tamron. But I would also think that it would have "IF" (Inner Focusing system) in the long list of abbreviations that Tamron likes to tack on their lens names. It would be a surprise and possibly a deal-breaker for me if it's not convenient to use polarizers with this lens.
erikburd wrote:
Interesting side by side comparison of the Tamron and 24-70 Mark I lenses. The new Tamron does a pretty good job beating the 24-70 across the board, especially in the CA department. Very impressive.
PixelPerfect doesn bring up a valid point - there is some variation with the current 24-70 lenses.
Let's see what the 24-70 Mark II can produce.
Time to break out the popcorn.
Yes, the variation in a high cost L lens is an issue onto itself. You pay the big bucks for the L lenses not to have this variation.
While the 24 1.4 II L handily beats it f/4 and lower, at landscape shooting like f/5.6, f/8, f/11 the Tamron actually scores sharper center, mid and edge with less CA!
That is pretty stunning performance. I'm not sure the 24-70 II can beat that level for landscapes although it may tie. I suspect it will do noticeable better f/2.8-f/4 than the tamron though.
Tamron has IS and costs a lot less though.
At the very least this new Tamron will make the 24-105L look silly and should handily beat the 24-70L original (other than for AF speed) and tamron 28-75.
I'd wait on a few more reviews though since lens testing is a notoriously finicky business and trace missed focus or alignment can totally alter things. We also don't know how far they test and what method they test edges using. ...Show more →
My Tammy 28-75 was an excellent landscape lens, showed a bag of detail stopped down. The new one is probably better by a noticeable margin and would make it a fair bit better than the 24-105L especially if distortion is under control.
To my eyes, The only f/2.8 shot posted looks soft *but* I think that's because of front-focus. The jacket on the left of the image and the gentlemen's hat appears sharper than the individual's face / eyes. I would blame the 5D.2 for the FF/BF rather than the lens.
Too bad there were no f/2.8 shots done with LiveView.
) and tamron 28-75.