wtf, a local shop here is selling this for 1135$ CND (USD and CND are pretty much side by side at the moment), which is 165$ cheaper than B&H, which is very unusual since this local shop is never even close to other stores usually... Might be a mistake, will run down there tommorow to check this out. Might come back with the lens...
Not sure what's going on with Adorama or B&H. But I ordered mine from Canoga Camera yesterday and they shipped it out same day. I should have it by Monday.
Bullseye5d2 wrote:
wtf, a local shop here is selling this for 1135$ CND (USD and CND are pretty much side by side at the moment), which is 165$ cheaper than B&H, which is very unusual since this local shop is never even close to other stores usually... Might be a mistake, will run down there tommorow to check this out. Might come back with the lens...
I just got a couple of copies and ran them through Imatest. Definitely higher MTF 50 than the Canon 24-70 both in the center and in the corners. Autofocus is a tiny bit slower than the Canon but accurate, at least in good light. It's shorter than the Canon 24-70 in reach: we measure the Canon at 68mm on the long end, the Tamron at 64. It's a mm wider at the wide end compared to the Canon, though.
My issue with Tamron lenses has always been AF. My 17-50 is pretty snappy and accurate in good light and high contrast but anything outside of that it's pretty unreliable. I wonder how the new 24-70 compares to the 17-50 in this regard.
RCicala wrote:
I just got a couple of copies and ran them through Imatest. Definitely higher MTF 50 than the Canon 24-70 both in the center and in the corners. Autofocus is a tiny bit slower than the Canon but accurate, at least in good light. It's shorter than the Canon 24-70 in reach: we measure the Canon at 68mm on the long end, the Tamron at 64. It's a mm wider at the wide end compared to the Canon, though.
Thanks Roger, interesting in particular about the focal length discrepancy. Rounding up to 70mm from 64mm seems a bit over-generous from Tamron!
(btw...noticed a typo on your page with the lens, lists the filter size at 77mm, it should be 82mm).
RCicala wrote:
I just got a couple of copies and ran them through Imatest. Definitely higher MTF 50 than the Canon 24-70 both in the center and in the corners. Autofocus is a tiny bit slower than the Canon but accurate, at least in good light. It's shorter than the Canon 24-70 in reach: we measure the Canon at 68mm on the long end, the Tamron at 64. It's a mm wider at the wide end compared to the Canon, though.
I know it's still a small sample size, but any feeling on copy variation?
ScooberJake wrote:
If you shoot a lot at f/8, the 24-105L is plenty sharp. Again, it all depends on your needs.
Not the ones I tried at the edges on FF at the wide end.
My tamron 28-75 was sharper f/8 28mm edges and my 24 1.4 II is wayyy sharper there, yes, even at f/8-f/10.
I am getting a kit (planning to sell 24-105 again, I will take a few snap, it will be interesting to see if this one does better than the other two).
I tested 4 copies and sample variation was pretty small. I'll feel better when I've tested a dozen, but on the other hand I've had some lenses where by 4 copies it's been obvious there were going to be problems.
I did nothing but testing and playing around today, but on 5D IIs the AF was certainly acceptable. I think perhaps a hair slower than the Canon, or even. Not bad.
I'm looking forward to seeing some more real world reports. It passes the resolution tests, that's for certain, but that's just one thing.
artd wrote:
Thanks Roger, interesting in particular about the focal length discrepancy. Rounding up to 70mm from 64mm seems a bit over-generous from Tamron!
(btw...noticed a typo on your page with the lens, lists the filter size at 77mm, it should be 82mm).
Bullseye5d2 wrote:
Some people couldn't care less, other people crave it. I am part of the latter. For me IS is an extra tool in my bag that raises the % of good shots I take. I am willing to pay several hundred of dollars extra for a lens with IS compared to an identical non-IS version, even in the standard focal lenght range
+1
One of the main reasons I didn't go FF till now is the 17-55/2.8 IS. As I see it, f/2.8 + stabilization equals a very useful lens in a wide variety of photographic situations. That, and the poor AF in the 5D and 5D2. Now, with the improved AF of the 5D3 and the existence of the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC I can certainly see myself finally going FF. The tele end is already covered by the wonderful 70-200/2.8 IS II.
I only wish the IQ difference between it and the 24-70/2.8 II will not be too big.
