# Tamron's fast 24-70mm zoom rates well in testing compared to Canon and Nikon



## Aglet (Feb 13, 2013)

throw in the stabilization and much lower price this lens is certainly worth considering if you don't have the budget for Canon's latest or the Nikon.
It also beats Canon's f/4 offering at a similar price point.

www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-A-uniquely-versatile-pro-worthy-alternative

Anyone been using it? How is it working for you.. subjectively?
Other than it's less-consistent across-the-range performance and likely less rugged build than the Canon, I don't see much for drawbacks to the Tamron for shooters who don't need best-in-class gear in this range.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 13, 2013)

I think this will be my next lens. It was either this lens or the Tokina 16-28mm for my last purchase. I went with the Tokina for the UWA.

Everything I have heard about the Tamron has been great. Definitely better value than anything Canon or Nikon offers.


----------



## robbymack (Feb 13, 2013)

I love mine. Sharper than the 24-70i it replaced plus IS and a cool $1000 left over in my pocket by not springing for the new canon. About the only thing that annoys me is the direction the zoom turns and if I was really nit picking the af could be a tad faster. IMHO this is the best lens on the market in this range when you consider all the factors. But if all you want to do is look at 100% crops of the sides of brick buildings then by all means get the canon. It's really got me thinking also about the new tamron 70-200 2.8 IS. If that's as close to the canon version then there is a good chance that could end up in my bag as well. I'm waiting for more reviews and real world user comments before making that leap.


----------



## K3nt (Feb 13, 2013)

From what I can deduce from all the different reports regarding this lens is that it is definitely a viable alternative to the Canon one. I got a quoted price of 840EUR for it, which seems decent, other opinions?


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 13, 2013)

Aglet said:


> throw in the stabilization and much lower price this lens is certainly worth considering if you don't have the budget for Canon's latest or the Nikon.
> It also beats Canon's f/4 offering at a similar price point.
> 
> www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-A-uniquely-versatile-pro-worthy-alternative
> ...



Very very good value compared with Canikon. 
IS is awesome and definitely very helpful in a lot of situations especially if you shoot in low-light environments.
Good build quality. Not L grade, but definitely better than average.
Optical quality - very good also. Not the best one, but definitely on pro level. Still I didn't need so far a better quality, speaking practically. If Canon 24-70 MkII would be at the same price I would still choose the Tamron because of the IS. If the Canon would have IS I would pay 200-300$ more for the Canon's MkII quality but not more.
There was some discussion about 'onion bokeh' - the issue is there but way overrated. Till now this issue didn't ruined me any single photo. And I shoot regularly in dim light environments. Same stands with the vignetting at f/2.8 - way overrated on forums. Ok, here you must remember, if you're bothered by this, to not shoot at f/2.8 the sky of the wall or any other monochrome boring composition.

Overall very pleased with Tamron.


----------



## candyman (Feb 13, 2013)

K3nt said:


> From what I can deduce from all the different reports regarding this lens is that it is definitely a viable alternative to the Canon one. I got a quoted price of *840EUR* for it, which seems decent, other opinions?


 
Good price. I see new prices in the Netherlands starting at 999 euro


----------



## candyman (Feb 13, 2013)

robbymack said:


> I love mine. Sharper than the 24-70i it replaced plus IS and a cool $1000 left over in my pocket by not springing for the new canon. About the only thing that annoys me is the direction the zoom turns and if I was really nit picking the af could be a tad faster. *IMHO this is the best lens on the market in this range when you consider all the factors.* But if all you want to do is look at 100% crops of the sides of brick buildings then by all means get the canon. It's really got me thinking also about the new tamron 70-200 2.8 IS. If that's as close to the canon version then there is a good chance that could end up in my bag as well. I'm waiting for more reviews and real world user comments before making that leap.


 
If you consider *all* factors, there is not competitor  Then it is easy the best lens.


----------



## schuy117 (Feb 13, 2013)

Two weeks ago a big electronic shop had a cool deal, so i got one for 800€
I wanted to replace my 18-55 kit lense. Planed to invest in some decent glas for a FF upgrade in 2-3 years.
Unfortunately the one i got was absolutelly crap.
On my 450D the focus hit only 40% of the shots, and when it hit the pictures were much softer then those from the kit lens.
I know these are two diffrent types of lenses, but for this amount of money this can not be the state of art.
Most likely I piced up a veryvery bad one and normaly it is a much better lens, but after being so excited about the lens I was very disapionted.
And with this performance lack I am going to give it back tomorrow.

So let my just say this: If you buy one, buy it at your local camera store where you can test different ones, I don't know if it's a Tamron thing that there are bad ones in each production or whatever.


----------



## candyman (Feb 13, 2013)

schuy117 said:


> Two weeks ago a big electronic shop had a cool deal, so i got one for 800€
> I wanted to replace my 18-55 kit lense. Planed to invest in some decent glas for a FF upgrade in 2-3 years.
> Unfortunately the one i got was absolutelly crap.
> On my 450D the focus hit only 40% of the shots, and when it hit the pictures were much softer then those from the kit lens.
> ...


 
+1

And, I can imagine that the first productionseries have some problems. I'm no ealry adopter in this case


----------



## wayno (Feb 13, 2013)

No doubt its good value but the 24-70 ii is a very, very fine lens. I know it costs a lot more but it is truly best in class - I haven't found the lack of IS to be a problem, personally. I guess it all depends on how much you're prepared to pay.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Anyone been using it? How is it working for you.. subjectively?
> Other than it's less-consistent across-the-range performance and likely less rugged build than the Canon, I don't see much for drawbacks to the Tamron for shooters who don't need best-in-class gear in this range.


I recently bought this lens (about 3 weeks ago) to replace my stolen 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens.
I am no expert who shoots brick walls and what not, but my thoughts on this lens are:

Value for money when it comes to image quality
Build quality is far below the cheapest Canon *L* lens ... (see my youtube video on this here Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Lens Review)
VC on this lens is better than Canon's Image Stabilization on EF 70-200 L IS II lens ... I recently made several test shots, handheld, to compare Image Stabilization at 70mm on both lenses (I will be uploading those images during this weekend).
If you accidently drop this lens even from a modest height, it most likely will break.
Although it is no match to Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II (which is absolutely sharp and a delight to use), the Tamron 24-70 VC is a very decent lens that will statisfy most photographers with its optical performance.
If I had the money I would buy the 240-70 f/2.8 L II again ... but if I lost Tamron 24-70 VC, I would not buy it again.


----------



## Ladislav (Feb 13, 2013)

I bought this lens last week to replace my EF-S 18-135 IS STM kit lens for Canon 650D (Rebel T4i). I was looking for standard zoom with 2.8 aperture and optical stabilization with good cost / performance ratio. While Canon EF-S 17-55 IS should be probably better choice for APS-C sensor I chose Tamron because its focal lengths better match my needs. I don't regret my choice. I cannot compare its build or optical quality but I really like it. 

Unfortunately I have one major issue with my new lens. Since I bought it, I have significant problem with quickly discharging battery. First I thought that the reason is a build size causing higher energy consumption by AF and VC but the issue happens even if I don't use my camera (with Tamron lens attached). Yesterday I found that it is reported issue with yearly "revision" which was released prior to Rebel T4i and 6D: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1216945 

Both 6D and the last Rebel (and probably all upcoming models) are affected by this issue with yearly revisions of Tamron 24-70 VC. According to linked discussion, warranty replacement for newer revision should solve that. Even with this issue there is still no other lens available on the market I would select as replacement of my Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC.

Btw. I'm considering the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC as my next purchase so any hands-on experience is welcome!


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 13, 2013)

K3nt said:


> I got a quoted price of 840EUR for it, which seems decent, other opinions?



I won't get the cheapest offer but I'll buy my 24-70vc either from a bricks and mortar store or at lest Amazon where I can exchange it w/o delay or hassle because Tamron's qc is weak and buyer's have to be ready to get a decentered, less sharp, or broken vc lens.



Ladislav said:


> Unfortunately I have one major issue with my new lens. Since I bought it, I have significant problem with quickly discharging battery.



As you wrote Tamron service is very good, they do free lens-body adjustments (like for Rebels or 60d w/o afma) and replace the old lenses that don't work with the latest Canon bodies - the latter is always a possibility, Canon likes to screw 3rd party manufacturers from time to time.


----------



## robbymack (Feb 13, 2013)

candyman said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > I love mine. Sharper than the 24-70i it replaced plus IS and a cool $1000 left over in my pocket by not springing for the new canon. About the only thing that annoys me is the direction the zoom turns and if I was really nit picking the af could be a tad faster. *IMHO this is the best lens on the market in this range when you consider all the factors.* But if all you want to do is look at 100% crops of the sides of brick buildings then by all means get the canon. It's really got me thinking also about the new tamron 70-200 2.8 IS. If that's as close to the canon version then there is a good chance that could end up in my bag as well. I'm waiting for more reviews and real world user comments before making that leap.
> ...



Very true. Just wanted to be sure the "ultimate sharpness at 100% viewing is the only thing that matters" folks didn't get their panties in a bunch because they spent needless (in my opinion) money on the canon. ;D


----------



## eyeland (Feb 13, 2013)

I guess thatr the Tamron wins hands down for video use over the canon mk2 due to the VC?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 14, 2013)

eyeland said:


> I guess thatr the Tamron wins hands down for video use over the canon mk2 due to the VC?



Only if you use handheld static video, but for most professional applications a body stabilization gear is used which prevents the typical IS/VC "skip" when moving around.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 24, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> eyeland said:
> 
> 
> > I guess thatr the Tamron wins hands down for video use over the canon mk2 due to the VC?
> ...


+1
When handheld the VC is better than my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II ... but once you set it on a tripod and shoot, Canon lenses produce superior clarity, sharpness & colors. The 24-70 f/2.8 VC is a great lens for its price - basically value for money. But if you want tack sharp image across the image, get Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II


----------

