# Why buy Canon when third party are this good?



## Flake (Apr 26, 2012)

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

This lens is half the price of the Canon version and it has VC (IS), when the results are this good what is the point in paying twice as much for a lens which hasn't even made it to market properly yet, weighs a ton & doesn't have IS?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2012)

Very interesting article. Canon will definitely loose some sales to this lens, but I wouldn't buy it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 26, 2012)

Interesting, I'll be watching for other testers and see what they say. It looks like 70mm is the weak spot.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 26, 2012)

I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 27, 2012)

Probably the biggest difference between buying a genuine Canon lens or an alternative brand is resale value.
A good Canon lens will hold its value, whereas third party leneses do not.

Also, you have to consider the build quality and reputation, and I think that Canon has that in spades.

Tamrons are usually considered to be "cheap" lenses.
I'm not saying they are bad, as I own a few third party lenses that perform very well, but if I went to sell them, I wouldn't get anywhere near what I paid for them.


----------



## mws (Apr 27, 2012)

No weather sealing, which is very important to some people. But for a more casual shooter, or someone who is just a hobbyist, there are some really great third party lenses.


----------



## lol (Apr 27, 2012)

The backwards zoom is still an instant dealbreaker for me.


----------



## tron (Apr 27, 2012)

I copy from another post of mine the reason I would think twice of buying 3rd party lenses:

I bought the Tokina ATX28-70 f2.8 by the year 1993. It worked fine on my EOS600 and EOS620 (and later I found out that it worked fine on EOS1n). When I tried to use it on a EOS50E (1996 or 1997) the camera was blacking out when I pressed the shutter release. Needless to say it does not work with digital bodies too 

My old Sigma 14mm - I say old because there was a newer edition of that lens - works ... a little on my EOS5DmkII Only when the aperture is fully open (You can only imagine the vignetting I get! I didn't even care to check the optical quality).

I didn't even know that there was at least a specific usable aperture until I saw at ebay a listing of a very old SIGMA 500mm that was reported to work with analog bodies plus with EOS5DmkII at open aperture (only). That gave me the idea to check my SIGMA lens. 

Check:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-Sigma-APO-500mm-1-4-5-Case-/170784321711?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27c389f0af

"This lens will only focus on digital cameras like the 5D or 50D and work with an open aperture, you will get an error message if you stop down "


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 27, 2012)

Tamron will sell a boatload of these things. I know I'd certainly consider it if I were looking for a 24-70.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 27, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.



+1 I don't think I could ever buy Tamron again. The AF was a complete and total disaster. I'll take AF the way it was suppose to be over VC or IS (not needed on this focal length anyway) any day. I know this Tamron is half the price but it's not even an option in my mind.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 27, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.



+1.....sticking with Canon L glass, and in some cases Carl Zeiss. Only lens other than these I might consider is the Sigma fisheye.


----------



## mws (Apr 27, 2012)

Must have misread, I thought I saw a part about no weather sealing. Need more coffee.........


----------



## stabmasterasron (Apr 27, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> mitchell3417 said:
> 
> 
> > I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.
> ...



++1....sold my 17-50 VC. Image quality was OK, but autofocus was a joke compared to ultrasonic from canon. Maybe the new USD from Tamron will be good.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 27, 2012)

1. I have a hard time spending over 1000.00 for a 3rd party lens.

2. At that price, I'm expecting to last a long time. How will this Tamron lens look and operate after 5+ years of use?

3. I know that Canon lenses hold their value really well. Who is going to pay you close to 1000 down the line for a used Tamron lens?

4. They are also reversed engineered, what if Canon makes a change in the future that affects how 3rd party lenses play with them?


----------



## nda (Apr 27, 2012)

I have an old Canon 28-70mmf2.8L and I still get asked by pro photographers if I would be interested in selling it. It's in average condition, 12 years old, heavy and I have been offered AU$1000. What do you think the Tamron will be worth in 12yrs time?


----------



## AJ (Apr 27, 2012)

I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years. I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine. It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again. I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it. If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything. I got my money's worth a long time ago. That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).

As for autofocus - yes it's loud. But it's very accurate and not bad in low light. Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.


----------



## Policar (Apr 27, 2012)

The flip side of bad resale is you can get used lenses affordably. I couldn't afford the zoom I wanted, but I picked up a used 70-300mm Tamron VC for about half the cost of the Canon version (used) and it's not bad at all! Fast AF and great stabilization, acceptably sharp, too. And then there are the unique third party lenses (11-16mm Tokina, which is pretty good, and the 20mm f1.8 Sigma, which is not so good) that seem to hold their value...

Canon's more expensive lenses usually seem really refined, whereas the competition comes close but misses a bit. The 17-55mm IS f2.8 isn't much sharper than the Tamron or Sigma equivalents, but it's more consistent across focal lengths at the edges and manages acceptable bokeh and low distortion and is a bit longer. This 24-70mm VC looks good in terms of performance, but the bokeh looks terrible. But the price of the 24-70mm II will probably make this a popular lens.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 27, 2012)

AJ said:


> I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years. I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine. It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again. I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it. If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything. I got my money's worth a long time ago. That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).
> 
> As for autofocus - yes it's loud. But it's very accurate and not bad in low light. Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.



+1 I don't understand what issue people have with the AF - it works perfectly well on my 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC and I get great pictures out of this lens. Do I sometimes think about upgrading - yes, but overall I'm really happy with my Tamron.

And my Tokina 11-16mm is just a dream - I don't believe that the Canon UWA is even coming close in color, contrast and sharpness.

However, I also own a Sigma and it's a super soft lens. Might be a bad copy, but for me Sigma's are something I won't touch again.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Interesting, I'll be watching for other testers and see what they say. It looks like 70mm is the weak spot.



Good thing we some flavor of 70-200 to make up for that


----------



## hyles (Apr 27, 2012)

I think what is wort is how reliable is AF in low light condition and how is IQ wide open.
In good light condition it may even be good, but pro that need to work in low light using it wide open, with the canon they can be save that the lens deliver execellent IQ. If this lens shows good IQ in difficult condition it may sell well.
I used the tamron 17-50 2.8, Af was slow and noisy, but quite accurate. IQ wide open wasn't great. 
The canon 17-55 2.8 AF is fast and accurate and IQ wide open is very good. I would not trade the canon for the tamron. What about the 24-70? It dipends how it will behave @ 2.8
Diego


----------



## epiem (Apr 27, 2012)

I have had TERRIBLE experiences with Tamron.

Out of the 4 Tamrons we have, 3 of them are completely broken and 1 the focus barrel is about to break.

Our little Nikon 18-55 pieces of crap withstood more and lasted longer than our Tamron equipment.

I will ONLY buy Camera Manufactures lenses now. I won't touch a 3RD party lens (except Zeiss for video) for anything. 

Oh and good luck selling them for what you paid....


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 27, 2012)

Here’s a very unscientific first impression of the lens, including photos taken handheld with a shutter speed of half a second:
http://www.photographyri.com/index.php/2012/04/27/brief-review-tamron-24-70mm-f2-8-vc-usm-1


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 27, 2012)

First thing that comes to mind as to the thread title is, resale value, especially as the years go by.

Other than that, from the posted article "Focusing speeds may not be up to the speeds of Nikon and Canon equivalents, but they are not too far behind in all but the darkest conditions." That could prove troublesome for some. Otherwise, some of the sample shots looked pretty good. Why not just get it. IS/VR could be nice for video work.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 27, 2012)

Is really Canon lenses get better resale value? I got my Tamron 18-270 about 2 year ago for 500 and just sold it on CL for 400 about month ago. Now I am selling my Canon 17-55mm which I got for 1100 and asking 900 on CL. Few people is asking for 800. Now I am still holding it because 800 is too low for me. The resale value of the Tamron lens is about 80%, and the resale value of Canon 17-55mm would be expected lower than that. How you guys can say Canon lenses have better resale value. Go to CL and check Canon 24-105mm and 24-70mm. You will see people want to buy them for 65% to 75% of their value. Wake up guys.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 27, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Is really Canon lenses get better resale value? I got my Tamron 18-270 about 2 year ago for 500 and just sold it on CL for 400 about month ago. Now I am selling my Canon 17-55mm which I got for 1100 and asking 900 on CL. Few people is asking for 800. Now I am still holding it because 800 is too low for me. The resale value of the Tamron lens is about 80%, and the resale value of Canon 17-55mm would be expected lower than that. How you guys can say Canon lenses have better resale value. Go to CL and check Canon 24-105mm and 24-70mm. You will see people want to buy them for 65% to 75% of their value. Wake up guys.



By the way, I just sold my Sigma 30mm F/1.4 for 400. I bought it for 450, so the resale value for this THIRD PARTY lens is about 90% of it original value. It's much higher than Canon lens's resale value.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 28, 2012)

LensRentals did a test of the new 24-70: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data


----------



## cezargalang (Apr 29, 2012)

We'll really just have to wait for really good reviews. So far i'm more interested in this lens than the 24-70L I of Canon. Resale Value? I dont really care about that, if i'm going to be really happy with this lens if i ever get it, why would i sell it? Just my thoughts.


----------



## AJ (Apr 29, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> LensRentals did a test of the new 24-70: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data


Those numbers look very encouraging!


----------



## peederj (Apr 29, 2012)

The miserable onion bokeh on the portrait shot was all I needed to see to wait for the Canon II instead. Though the 24-105L serves me very well and has IS...


----------



## fotoworx (Apr 29, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> I really hope this lens sells well. If third-party manufacturers elevate their game, Canon may be forced to be more innovative in their products and more prudent in their pricing.



Yes for the same reason as you quoted I hope they sell a boatload of them, though personally I would never own a Tamron.


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 29, 2012)

peederj said:


> The miserable onion bokeh on the portrait shot was all I needed to see to wait for the Canon II instead. Though the 24-105L serves me very well and has IS...



If you can afford the Canon MkII, that’s probably the better choice in terms of performance. However, I did have the 24-105mm before I sold it, and its IS is quite old and simply not as good as the Tamron promises to be (look it up on youtube). I’ve actually never felt as if I needed it on the 24-105mm – but that’s just me. That being said, the guy who reviewed the Tamron in the review you are referring to, says in the comments-section that the onion bokeh was due to water droplets on the front element as it was raining. I’d wait to see some more tests before I write it off.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 30, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> Probably the biggest difference between buying a genuine Canon lens or an alternative brand is resale value.
> A good Canon lens will hold its value, whereas third party leneses do not.
> 
> Also, you have to consider the build quality and reputation, and I think that Canon has that in spades.
> ...



But when it is half the cost what resale is there to worry about? You are already a $1000 behind to start!

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the two compare. Some say the tamron has very nasty bokeh and is not very sharp f/4 and under (but it might be a way to get top landscape quality at a decent price).

I actually liked the Tamron 17-50 2.8 better than the Canon 17-40L and sold the L. Found the Tamron 28-75 to be sharper, center and edge, than the 24-105L although having a bit worse contrast and much slower AF (and of course no IS and less range).

On the other hand the Canon 70-300 IS L is definitely better than the Tamron 70-300 VC (although the Tamron is a steal for the price).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 30, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > mitchell3417 said:
> ...



In the field, I actually got more shots with ideal focus from the 17-50 non-VC than from my 17-40L.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 30, 2012)

epiem said:


> I have had TERRIBLE experiences with Tamron.
> 
> Out of the 4 Tamrons we have, 3 of them are completely broken and 1 the focus barrel is about to break.
> 
> ...



My tamrons have held up vastly better than some canon such as canon 50 1.4 and they certainly have better build than the canon 70-300 IS non-L.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 30, 2012)

your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

bycostello said:


> your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
> your canon lenses will retain value more
> your canon lenses are just better


+1
+1
+1


----------



## iaind (Apr 30, 2012)

bycostello said:


> your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
> your canon lenses will retain value more
> your canon lenses are just better



Couldn't agree more


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 30, 2012)

bycostello said:


> your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
> your canon lenses will retain value more
> your canon lenses are just better



I don't know if the first reason is true or not. I just wonder how many old third party lens cannot be used on Canon's new bodies. However, I really question your second and third reasons. I mentioned that Canon's lenses do not always have better resale value in my earlier post. Most resale values of Canon lenses are below 80% of it original value. I am still trying to sell my Canon 17-55mm which I bought @ 1100 plus tax. If you like, I would like to sell you 900 without tax. 
Here is the link to show you this lens is better than Canon 24-70mm Mark I. Please don't tell me Mark II is better because they are not in the same price range and lack of IS feature.

Edit: forgot the link.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

By the way, people are posting some pictures taken by the lens in the past two days in this thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
They look great.


----------



## pj1974 (May 2, 2012)

This has been an interesting thread to follow. 

I think that third party lenses (eg Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and others) have their place, particularly when the prices are much lower than similar lenses

Some time ago, I was looking at replacing my Canon 100-300mm USM which I had for some years. For replacements, I was thinking of the Canon 70-300mm (micro)USM IS, and was also considering the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD which I had seen some good reviews of. I didn't want the Canon 100-400mm L USM IS (because of its weight / size, older IS, push-pull action and design). So after reading various reviews (professionals and 'in the field user reviews') - as well as knowing how good the Canon 70-300mm was... I basically thought I would go with the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD, and even bought a good quality 62mm filter for it - that came up at a good price. Neither the Canon 70-300mm or Tamron 70-300mm had quite the quality I wanted, but I NEEDED both IS (or VC) AND more contrast & sharpness than my Canon 100-300mm could offer at 300mm, as well as being sharper wide open. So I was on the edge of this purchase 'with a sigh'.

Then the Canon 70-300mm L USM IS was announced. While it was a higher price... I immediately was interested, but thought... hmmmm maybe not - it's a big white L (whereas I wanted and needed something portable). However a few weeks later - when I had tried the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD in store, I asked to see the Canon 70-300mm L. I was immediately impressed how portable it was - and yes, it fit attached to my 7D in my existing LowePro shoulder bag. The salesperson offered me a good price, and would throw in a quality Hoya CPL filter at a discounted price too.

After going home and checking some more early user reviews as well as pro and site reviews, I decided I would purchase it... as it really met all my needs (in terms of IQ, USM, IS). I have not looked back. A few years ago I was looking at purchasing a telezoom - and was looking at a few Sigmas (eg 80-400mm, 50-500mm, 135-400mm, etc)- but none of the lenses, including the more recently introduced 'OS' versions had as good image quality AND HSM focus and OS, in a truly portable and 'shoot all day without any strain' size / weight. Also, generally I found some of these lenses did not have the best bokeh. Some of them did 'some things' well - but not 1 lens met exactly what I was looking for.

When I was looking to purchase an ultra-wide zoom, I ended up looking at the Sigma 10-20mm HSM f4-5.6 as well as the Canon 10-22mm USM f3.5-5.6. I ended up getting the Sigma 10-20mm mainly because the image quality was basically identical on both lenses (both are capable of producing great, sharp, contrasty photos) - whereas the Sigma's price was almost half that of the Canon's... plus the build quality of the Sigma is a bit better, plus it came with a lens hood included (and the size / shape of the hood much better than the Canon version). However, there is one 'niggly little thing' with my Sigma lens (apart from the 'different zoom ring direction' to Canon lenses)- and that is that the Autofocus is not always consistent, nor 100% accurate. Thankfully the way that I use my ultrawide lens (for 90% of the time it's for landscapes) - I just use manual focus, and because of the extremely wide depth of field, all the shot is in focus (and sharp!) The remaining 10% of my use of this lens is a mix of architecture (still use MF) and some 'special effect' photos - which occasionally benefit from AF. Still, for the very few times I use it on AF, it's not an issue. (PS - and the Sigma 'yellow cast' is not really a noticeable issue on my lens, if I need to I adjust in post processing).

Then when I was looking to purchase a macro (I wanted something around 90mm - 150mm) - I didn't find a lens that had the focus I needed (true USM / inner focussing) as well as the optical quality and size. Whereas there are many very good, ultra sharp macro lenses out there, also from third parties- I ended up buying the Canon 100mm (non L). It has the characteristics that I needed, without a compromise on IQ.

Ok, the point of all the above is that I do think there are many great third party lenses... and indeed there are some lenses made which the original camera body manufacturers do not have an exact equivalent to (eg the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, or some ultrawide primes, or the Tamron 60mm f2 macro). However where there are very similar or equivalent lenses, generally speaking - the original manufacturers lenses seem to have a bit of an edge. Note I say 'generally'. Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh.. I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II. There is a place for both. 8)

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul


----------



## cliffwang (May 2, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh.. I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II. There is a place for both. 8)
> 
> Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.
> 
> Paul



I believe most people buy Tamron 24-70mm VC for two reasons.
1. It has better IQ than Canon 24-70mm Mark I(not Mark II)
2. VC feature.

If Canon 24-70mm Mark II is 1299, I believe people wouldn't be interested in Tamron 24-70mm VC. Remember this lens is even cheaper than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.


----------



## squarebox (May 2, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
> ...



your 17-55 example of selling at a rate below other 3rd parties is slightly flawed. While everyone is stating canon lens hold their values, it needs a qualifier and that's canon EF mount lens. I've seen ef-s lens lose quiet a bit more value than EF lens.


----------



## cliffwang (May 2, 2012)

squarebox said:


> your 17-55 example of selling at a rate below other 3rd parties is slightly flawed. While everyone is stating canon lens hold their values, it needs a qualifier and that's canon EF mount lens. I've seen ef-s lens lose quiet a bit more value than EF lens.



May people here said "Canon lenses have better resale value". None of them said "Canon EF Mount lenses have better resale value". By the way, you know the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 is EF-S mount, right?

Edit:
Let me make it clear.
1. Canon really makes a lot of good lenses. That's why I have many Canon lenses.
2. A third party lens can hold it value well if the lens is really good. I don't know how good the Tamron 24-70mm is yet because I haven't see some helpful reviews.
3. Canon lenses DO NOT always have good resale value. Please search Canon EF 24-105mm L on CL. The resale value is low as well.

Too many people just post here without proof. Some of the posts really bias on Canon. They just against anything not good for Canon. That makes me feel they are posted by CANON EMPLOYEES.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

IMO the 24-105's low resale is strongly linked to the fact that it has been the kit lens of the 5D MK I, MK II and now MK III. Some people no doubt get it as a kit lens because it's a good value and then find that they want the 24-70 or something else...


----------



## cliffwang (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> IMO the 24-105's low resale is strongly linked to the fact that it has been the kit lens of the 5D MK I, MK II and now MK III. Some people no doubt get it as a kit lens because it's a good value and then find that they want the 24-70 or something else...


Agree. That's why the resale value of 24-105mm is below 80% of it value. However, the resale value of Canon 24-70mm on CL is also about 80% of it value. It's only slightly better than 24-105mm. You can check it on CL. By the way, the WANTED price from buyer for 24-70mm is only about 900USD anywhere on CL.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > The miserable onion bokeh on the portrait shot was all I needed to see to wait for the Canon II instead. Though the 24-105L serves me very well and has IS...
> ...


Any news on the "onion bokeh"? The LenRentals review didn't change, and I just saw that the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from it (, too?): http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review ... Does anyone have the Sigma and feel that it's bokeh is bad due to this effect?


----------



## cliffwang (May 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Any news on the "onion bokeh"? The LenRentals review didn't change, and I just saw that the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from it (, too?): http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review ... Does anyone have the Sigma and feel that it's bokeh is bad due to this effect?


Check this thread. Many people posted Tamron 24-70mm samples here. Looks the lens do have onion bokeh effect. The poster say that's okay. However, I will just wait for more information.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772


----------



## iso79 (May 3, 2012)

Avoid 3rd party lenses except for Zeiss lenses ;D


----------



## cliffwang (May 4, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Avoid 3rd party lenses except for Zeiss lenses ;D


This lens might change your mind. In many forums people love this lens and are selling their Canon 24-70mm MK1. I actually are waiting for three things.
1. The price drop. The price of third party lenses usually drops in 6 months after they are released.
2. Self improvement. All first shipment of new products are not perfect. In few month they will have new internal reversion.
3. More reviews. This will be the key to make me switch to this lens from my MK1.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> I actually are waiting for three things.
> 1. The price drop. The price of third party lenses usually drops in 6 months after they are released.
> 2. Self improvement. All first shipment of new products are not perfect. In few month they will have new internal reversion.
> 3. More reviews. This will be the key to make me switch to this lens from my MK1.



Me too  ... but:

1. Is this really likely to happen given the demand? The 24-70ii is so much more expensive and hasn't got IS I doubt there will be the usual drop. And the 24-70i brick doesn't work well on crop and thus doesn't qualify as a "stepping up lens" for me.

2. There might be more production variance in the first samples, but are there really usually new "revisions" like in cpu designs? Looking at the current reviews, apart from the "onion" bokeh that is due to the design there doesn't seem to be any shortcomings.

3. More reviews won't tell me how much the "onion" bokeh affects my pictures, I guess I'll have to try it myself.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 4, 2012)

Although this lens won't affect the new MKII, it could throw a wrench in the used MKI market.
I only have a very old Sigma 24-70 that I almost never use so that might get me to update to a MKI. It doesn't make sense in my case to spend too much on a lens that I'd still use only rarely, so a bottoming out of the MKI market will work nicely.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 5, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.


+1 I'm in the same boat once bitten twice shy, I am looking forward to seeing how the 24-70L II is going to perform


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...



I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample and will re-test (he got another 70-300L for the same reason) because the iso chart shots contradict everything else said/written about this lens. The sharpness falloff should not be that bad.

But I really hope people will stomp the Tamron into the ground, because then it'll drop in price faster than usual and I can get one  ... the only drawbacks to me are really the "onion" bokeh and that its no Canon lens (ie. no cps).


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample



this is the whole problem with tamron in general its a complete lottery as to how it will perform


----------



## cliffwang (May 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample
> ...



Tamron gives you 6 years warranty and you can return it in 30 days if you purchase it from Amazon. What I don't understand is why people don't return the lens if they get a bad copy. By the way, Do you really think Canon 24-70mm Mark I is better than Tamron? I believe many people get a bad copy of Canon 24-70mm L.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I returned the tamron lens i had after 2 days

I have never been really happy with the canon 24-70 mk1 so i dont own one as when i have tested it I wasnt impressed (I know lots of owners are happy though) I would say the mk1 has a stellar track record in this regard. so currelty I use the 16-35 or the 24-105 or primes dependign what i am doing
I am lokoing forward to testing the canon 24-70 mk2 though to see how it stacks up 
I would be pretty happy if sigma released an IS one with the same build and quality of their 85 1.4 which I love


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...



We'll see. It did better on the LensRentals tests and on a test some european magazine carried out.
For whatever reason, my results often don't match TDP and he seems to often have Tamron stuff test out poorly, for whatever reason.


----------



## RuneL (May 7, 2012)

I've never tried a Tamron lens but I've had sigma and my overall impression is bad. AF-motors froze, AF is slow and extremely noisy, no constant manual focus, poorly built and they do not last and they freak out in moist conditions. The only Canon lens I've had break was a 50 1.8. I have a working 16-35 2.8 from 2001 and a working 70-200 2.8 from 1996-ish, they do tend to last, at least the old ones did, the newer I'm not so sure, the overall build quality seems more flimsy and they have too much plastic on them.


----------



## dswatson83 (May 8, 2012)

The main reason I want this lens is for f/2.8 with stabilization. I WISH Canon had something like this. Either I loose the 2.8 or I loose the IS with a Canon product. If Tamron can do this with the IQ of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 at a price that is $300 cheaper, it is tough to say no. I'm looking for a lens that stays on my camera 80% of the time. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the best lens I own but it is really heavy, large, and too long for indoors. But I love shooting at 2.8 and the IS is great to have for stills and just about mandatory for handheld video. I'm sure most of us wouldn't even be talking about this lens if Canon offered one. Even if it was $2000


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> I'm sure most of us wouldn't even be talking about this lens if Canon offered one. Even if it was $2000



Well, maybe *most* of us - but given the choice, with my budget I'd still get a 35L + Tamron 24-70is for the price of ob one Canon 24-70ii ...


----------

