 |
|
|
Klem Photograp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 27, 2021
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2021
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,272.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
zoom capability without having to move around alot especially during busy weddings
|
|
Cons:
|
at times there are focusing issues
|
|
|
I am obsessed with this lens as it has been a game changer for my weddings. I love that I am able to zoom in and out for weddings in which I may not be able to be directly at the front. At times I feel as if it does not have as sharp of a focus or a great bokeh like my prime lenses do, but overall it is great for fast changing environments in which I may miss a part of the ceremony or reception if I did not have the lens on and was only using a prime and had to move more.
|
|
 Nov 27, 2021
|
|
marks1953
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 26, 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2021
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good autofocus
Good stabilisation
Sharp
Solid workhorse
|
|
Cons:
|
Maybe a bit large but it is f/2.8
|
|
|
I have used this lens on my Canon 5D3 for many years as a wedding photographer. I doubt if any of my clients suffered from me not using the Canon lens. This lens was 1/3 the price of the Canon at the time. This was my main wedding workhorse lens and has stood up to 100's of weddings. Can';t fault it. Now 2021, I have sold my 5D3 and got a Sony A7R3. I have the Sigma MC11 adapter and the Tamron lens works well on the Sony. I still have good autofocus and even eye detect. Maybe I can get a Sony lens to replace it one day but I would have to spend over $1000 Au.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2021
|
|
KeithRyan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2021
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2021
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
Didn't adapt well through our Z adapter for mirrorless camera (glitched while focusing most of the time), soft-focused even with our DSLR camera.
|
|
|
Overall great starter lens for DSLR due to affordability. I wouldn't recommend this if you're going to use a mirrorless adapter though... Ours focused well on our DSLR but glitched while adapted to our Z6(a mirrorless camera). Not bashing Tamron though, as we've gotten where we are using several of their lenses.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2021
|
|
ecphotonola
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2020
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Love the versatility!
|
|
Cons:
|
I bought mine used and it has had some focus issues. It is also a heavy lens and, when combined with an on-camera flash, can be tiresome to lug around.
|
|
|
I love the capability of the zoom. It is great for portrait photography and I use it all the time at weddings. It is my first Tamron lens, so I have had some issues calibrating it to my Canon camera, but it was an easy fix!
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2020
|
|
kenwood
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 216
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2019
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
Half the price of canon 24-70 2.8 mk2
One of the first 24-70 f2.8 lense with image stabilization
Cheap compare to Canon lenses
Comes with 6 year warranty (vs 1 for canon lenses)
|
|
Cons:
|
No red ring and does not look expensive - may matter if you are shooting in front of clients
The manual focusing ring is thin, so harder to turn if you need need to do manual focusing.
|
|
|
I have been using the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC on Canon 6d and Canon 5dmk3 for 2-3 years. I use it mostly on events such as weddings and business functions, as well as portrait sessions. I compare it against the Canon 24-70 f2.8 mk2, and found its image quality and sharpness to be very close. I can not justify spending an extra 800 on the Canon when the Tamron meets 90% of my needs. The focusing is fast and silent. The VC (image stabilization) works with slow shutter speed. I don't shoot in extreme conditions so I can't comment on how weather resistant it is. I would highly recommend this lense, unless you care for the red ring on canon lenses.
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2019
|
|
abhu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2016
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2019
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good IQ, nice price, VC
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality, average AF, not that cheap, not that good VC
|
|
|
So I have it for about 3 years and I use it on every day, and it does the job.
IQ is good, no dramatic CA, not bad flare, good resolution and it has a good price/ value rating.
But the AF is only average- sometimes misses the point quite bad, the building is not great not terrible- no full wethearsealing, the VC got about 1-2 steps adventage, not a cheap lens- except if you buy it used. Than its very good business.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2019
|
|
marko1953
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 695
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness
Quick Af
Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Size and weight
Not sure about really crisp rendering
|
|
|
I was really surprised when I opened the box and put this lens on my 5D3. It is huge and heavy! So much more than its predecessor which I used as work horse for weddings. This new lens is very sharp but I am not sure I like the rendering that much...too sharp? not sure what it is. I like the versatility of a zoom but I don't think I can keep lugging this weighty combination around. If you are thinking about getting this lens make sure you handle it in person in a camera shop on your camera body. Very big and very heavy.
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2016
|
|
apple787
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Simply Better than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and much less expensive. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus!
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality unacceptable in corners, needs to be better. I need better image quality, even if I have to pay more to get it. Bokeh can be objectionable in some situations.
|
|
I saw this lens reviewed and advertised and it seems to be the only alternative to the Nikon 24-70 f 2.8. I really want/need VC (VR), but I doubted that the Tamron optical quality would be acceptable. Up till now, I have only bought Canon or Nikon lenses (not including my view camera lenses).
I ordered 2 copies of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and also 2 copies of the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, all from B&H (they are always great).
I tested all 4 lenses scientifically and rigorously. Studio shooting with flash, architectural, landcapes @ infinity. One of the Tamrons was the clear winner. The other copy of the Tamron and both copies of the Nikon were unacceptable for my work. None of the lenses give truly sharp corners at any aperture or focal length. But the one Tamron was close enough to get by (I hate just "getting by") (f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron).
Anyway, the better of the two Tamrons clearly beat out both copies of the Nikon. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus! The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light, but in my studio people focus tests, I got more hits with the Tamron than with the Nikon. And of course the Tamron is about $1300 and the Nikon closer to $2000.
I would be GLAD to pay $2000, or even more, for an EXCELLENT lens. Nikon needs FAR better quality control - they should be ashamed.
Get the Tamron. It is not perfect, but is the best option available.
But whatever lens(es) you get, be sure to order at least 2-3 copies and test rigorously (if you care at all about image quality), as there can be huge variation from one copy to the next.
http://www.hitsticker.com | http://www.printradiant.com
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2016
|
|
Mond
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a tack, Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting, Lens hood very stiff, Overexposure
|
|
|
Big and heavy, but first class IQ. Some distortion at wide angle also vignetting if hood is fitted. Excellent neutral colour rendition and contrast. Can't be beaten at this price.
Update: Have noticed that at f/2.8 exposure is spot on using standard camera settings but at smaller apertures the lens consistently overexposes by 0.7EV. An Internet search reveals that this is a common but annoying fault with Tamron lenses.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015
|
|
Soulphoto2014
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Best 24-70 2.8 zoom out there (the Canon is priced ridiculous!)
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Ok the backward zoom is a bit awkward in the beginning, but this lens is :
-Almost equally sharp as the 24-70 2.8L II
-Is the only f2.8 lens that has VC, the 24-70 2.8LII has not!
-Half the price of the 24-70 2.8L II
-Way sharper wide open than the 24-70 2.8L MK I
If you see Tamron can deliver such a perfect price/quality lens you wonder why you should pay double the price for the Canon brand name/red ring.
Alternative brands are getting better day by day, also check the Tokina's if you are looking for a wide angle and the Sigma Art's if you are looking for 35/50mm primes.
You could say Canon would lower the price seen these better alternatives, but they don't. So they definitely will lose market share if smart buyers choose the right thing (and check FredMiranda  )
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2014
|
|
gorku
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2014
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2014
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $995.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness, VC, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
vignetting, poor QC
|
|
|
I was really worried about buying a third party lens for my 6D so I waited more than a year and read a ton of reviews before getting this lens. I was seduced by the VC and the price
Well my fear became reality: I simply could not get it to work properly. I constantly got the error 01 - bad communication with lens. It always happened when I changed aperture and you could hear a crunchy noise.
In the end I had to send it back - there was just no way the message would go away and I suspect it was the aperture blades.
I have never seen the message since nor prior to buying this lens so I guess it was a quality issue. Back with Canon again!
|
|
|
May 10, 2014
|
|
Trezeke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2013
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Almost everything for a very good price: VC, build quality, sharpness, contrast and colours, f/2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel distortion at 24mm.
|
|
|
This lens takes great photos. For that price it's a good lense when you factor in the image stabilizer.
|
|
|
May 9, 2014
|
|
feverish99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VC - sharper pictures and more keepers in low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Fair amount of barrel distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
Had it for 2 weeks and first non-Canon lens owned. Quite satisfied. Was using the Canon 24-105L F4 so I will be comparing this with that. IQ is very good, sharp. I have not done enough comparisons but on the eye it's hard to distinguish between this and the Canon. Tested 3 copies before deciding on one, so some copy variations. Barrel distortion is quite noticeable at 24mm (slightly worse than the Canon) but can be easily fixed post if needed. Onion bokeh exists but only noticeable when heavily cropped. 70mm is a little short for some purposes but F2.8 compensates as it's more useable at low light. Excellent value for the quality of the output since the Canon 24-70L 2.8 II costs twice as much and without IS. The reverse zoom ring is a little difficult to get used to. Overall, a great lens from Tamron and highly recommended even for perfectionists.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2014
|
|
fozzybear69
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,355.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
VC, f/2.8, build quality, price, sharpness, nice contrast, nice colours, USD. 5 Years warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood useless at longer focal lengths. Zoom ring at the front of the lens. 82mm filter size makes for expensive filters. Resale value does not hold like Canon L lenses.
|
|
|
This lens rivals the new Canon 24-70 mark 2 in almost every aspect. Except it offers VC and is cheaper than the Canon. This lens does not disappoint, image quality is almost as good as the Canon 24-70 mk2 but the difference is very minor. I am photographer who cares more about creativity while image quality is important, I am not one of these who fusses over minor technical details about image quality.
I love Canon L glass, they are the Gucci of camera lenses, I have the 70-200 L f/4 but I am not going to spend $2000 for the new Canon 24-70 (with no IS) when Tamron can save me $600 or $700. That said if money was no object, I would opt for the Canon 24-70 mk2.
The thing that annoys me most about the Tamron 24-70 is the zoom ring at the front of the lens. It takes getting use to, but it's difficult to zoom when using it with an Alien Bees ring flash.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2013
|
|
Mauritz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, even at f/2.8 - it rivals my primes at f/5.6
superior to Canon 24-105 f/4 IS if you do not need the extra reach
very effective VC closes the deal for me
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm makes for quite expensive filters
pronounced focus breathing
|
|
|
I bought this lens together with my Canon 6D. I wanted something better than the 24-105 kit lens, especially with a larger aperture, and for the small premium I was not disappointed. The lens is very sharp and really tack sharp at f/5.6. I find myself using my primes less often (50 and 85mm) because of the excellent sharpness and very decent bokeh of this lens. Focusing on the 6D is very smooth and fast, even in low light. Even if I could afford the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, which costs twice as much, I would find it very very hard to justify the extra optical performance, especially since the lack of IS is a serious drawback for a lens that expensive. The very effective VC on the Tamron really closes the deal. The combination of this lens with a full frame body with decent ISO performance makes for an excellent combination for low light photography.
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2013
|
|
ryan00013
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 132
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great VC (IS), well built, sharp enough, affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
not quite as sharp as Canon's V2, backwards zoom.
|
|
|
This lens is absolutely wonderful. It is sharper than Canon's 24-70 2.8L V1, but not quite as sharp as Canon's 24-70 2.8L V2. Having said that, I have never felt my Tamron lens this lens lacking in sharpness in real world situations. This lens takes great photos. The zoom ring take a little getting used to, but it is worth it. This lens is near HALF the cost of Canon's latest, AND has VC. Buy this lens, try it out, and you'll never feel the need to upgrade.
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
131550
|
Nov 27, 2021
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$1,114.41
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.65
|
8.89
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
;)
