Experience - Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD?

[William W]

Anyone with experience of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD?

I am interested in any comments by those who have used this lens in any manner.
I am a particularly interested in comments regarding the use of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD when shooting video.
Experiences with the lens, handheld, on a 5DmkII or 5DMkIII would be wonderful.
Comments specifically regarding ZOOMING, whilst videoing, handheld: and the effect of the VC would be exceptionally useful.

Thank you,

WW

[mikew09]

Hmm - sorry but not I. I did have a 17 - 50 f2.8 Tamron which was a fantastic lens but I understand the different lens models with Tamron run a bit hot and cold. Have a look on dpreview, I find in general they get the reviews pretty spot on.

[arthurking83]

This lens is very new, and not readily available.
At the moment I think it's still only available in Canon too(I have Nikon).

I went to the recent photography show with the intent to have a bit of a try with this lens on my Nikon to see how it looks, but they weren't available .. only in canon.
They had some canon bodies there for others to try, but I was too impatient to wait my turn.

The lens is large and heavy-ish .. for a Tamron. I have no idea on how the Canon 24-70 looks and feels but I have Tamron's old 28-75/2.8 and by comparison, this thing felt more like a 300/2.8!! :eek:
I think it's fatter than Nikon's 24-70 but possibly not quite a long .... and it uses an 82mm front filter thread! .. which is a PITA, as I'm a major user of polarisers too.

Overall, quite a large lens.

I subsequently had a bit of a sniff around on the nett for reviews(as the Tamron folks at the show suggested) and they look to be quite positive.

There is one comparison made by 'That Nikon Guy' I think, and even tho the name suggests otherwise, his observations were made on a Canon.. comparing it to a Canon 24-70/2.8.

The only aspect of the lens that I can confirm, is that it feels a lot more solid than 'similar' Tamron lenses I've been used too(17-50 and 28-75mm's) .. a lot more solid, and more like the 70-200/2.8
A slight let down with my two shorter Tamrons is the feeling of slight flimsyness of the lens, mainly around the front of the lens.. lens hood, front filter and element.
They kind'a feel slightly flimsy, but the 70-200 feels a lot more solid and sturdy, and the new 24-70 VC feels similarly solid too.

This lens is probably a dead cert in to be added to my collection very soon.

[Tommo1965]

that "Nikon Guy" Matt Granger gave the lens a good vibration test while shooting video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDB8XacUb3s Video

then does a shoot out with the Nikon 24-70 , Sigma 24-70 HSM and the canon 24-70

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9ju8LmRfU

[William W]

Thanks to all for the feedback, ideas and for the video links – have begun watching all 9 episodes
I have seen another video which tests the “jiggles”, also.
I still am seeking info about the VC when zooming: and I believe that I will have that information very shortly, but all comments are always most welcome.


WW

[kobeson]

So on a 5D2/5D3 how does this lens handle:

a) landscapes stopped down? - is it sharp corner to corner?

b) portraits at 70mm wide open, and stopped down? - is the blur nice enough wide open? is it tack sharp stopped down?

c) baby shots around 50mm wide open? - is there enough separation and nice blur?



I guess, apart from having the versatility of a standard zoom, the main reasons I am interested in a 24-70 lens is for landscapes at the wide end, portraits at the tele end, and wide open shots of our daughter. I tried 3 Sigma 50 1.4's and all of them had focus issues on my 5D3. I still have a nifty fity, but am not the biggest fan really, it is just ok.

I upgraded from a 550D + 10-22, but to be honest a lot of the time I found the widest FL (16mm equiv.) to be just too distorted. Sometimes it worked a treat, but I reckon I could live with 24mm. I would get a 17-40 if I craved wider, even though I don't want a lens with soft corners.

I have been waiting for the Canon mk II reviews, but the Tamron looks pretty good as a much cheaper alternative - and for a bit more than the Canon mk II I could also grab a 35L, which would make up for the Tamron's oniony bokeh!

So is the Tamron 24-70 + 35L going to be better than the Canon 24-70 II? I guess only time will tell, but I feel like I am waiting forever!!

[Ventureoverland]

Kobeson,
First up I have no experience with that particular Tamarin.

As a straight shoot out Tamaron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II, I dare say it's a no brainer. Not only will the canon be sharper, it will also be much faster to focus (2 x educated guesses).

However, I your also considering the 35 f1.4, which do you need / want most? the best 24-70 or a fast 35mm?

If versatility at 2.8 will do then maybe you can just use the Tammy. If you need ultimate clarity and response tomes across the focal range then you'll need the canon.

The 35 f1.4 is a different beast to the other two and serves a different market. If you need the results achievable by the f1.4 then the 35 is your first choice plus one of the others.

It's very difficult to advise. Have you considered renting the two canons (obviously when they are available) and see how you get on before you spend the $$$.

Sent using Forum Runner

[I @ M]

Sorry, but I have no experience using either lens but generally Photozone have some reasonably worthwhile readings on lenses and the 2 can be compared here.

Canon 24-70 (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff)

Tamron 24-70 (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff)




Kobeson,
First up I have no experience with that particular Tamarin.

As a straight shoot out Tamaron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II, I dare say it's a no brainer. Not only will the canon be sharper, it will also be much faster to focus (2 x educated guesses).

Maybe during the formation of your educated guesses you should also note the correct spelling of the brand.

[William W]

Kobeson:
Thanks for the feedback and the questions for me to consider regarding the two 24 to 70 lenses: but, for clarity, I am not considering purchasing the Canon EF 24 to 70F/2.8L MkII USM.
In answer to some of your questions from my research:
a) Stopped down the Tamron is very sharp.
b) Wide open the Tamron is sharp in the centre; blur being ‘nice enough’, is subjective.
c) (Subject) Separation is determined by DoF which is dependent upon The Shot and also the Distance from the Subject to Background – DoF is not exclusively dependent upon the Focal Length chosen; Blur being ‘nice’, again, is subjective.

If I were in your position and I were considering buying one of those 24 to 70 lenses and also the EF35F/1.4L: I would not be buying the 35/1.4 to compensate for the bokeh of theTamron zoom – I would be using the 35/1.4 for many other purposes, other than that.

Andrew:
Thanks for the links. The Tamron write up confirms much of the information I had already gathered and makes a couple of new points, also.

WW

[kobeson]

Kobeson:
Thanks for the feedback and the questions for me to consider regarding the two 24 to 70 lenses: but, for clarity, I am not considering purchasing the Canon EF 24 to 70F/2.8L MkII USM.
In answer to some of your questions from my research:
a) Stopped down the Tamron is very sharp.
b) Wide open the Tamron is sharp in the centre; blur being ‘nice enough’, is subjective.
c) (Subject) Separation is determined by DoF which is dependent upon The Shot and also the Distance from the Subject to Background – DoF is not exclusively dependent upon the Focal Length chosen; Blur being ‘nice’, again, is subjective.

If I were in your position and I were considering buying one of those 24 to 70 lenses and also the EF35F/1.4L: I would not be buying the 35/1.4 to compensate for the bokeh of theTamron zoom – I would be using the 35/1.4 for many other purposes, other than that.

WW

Thanks Andrew, appreciate the reply :)