# Review: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 18, 2017)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their exhaustive review of the brand new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 lens. A direct competitor to the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS Art lens.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Putting the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 Lens to the test … the wide-open aperture center-of-the-frame results at f/2.8 are very sharp at 24mm and 35mm. By 50mm, a slight degradation is seen and at 70mm, center-of-the-frame results are somewhat soft at f/2.8. In the wider half of the range, stopping down to f/4 makes little difference in center-of-the-frame sharpness and really, none is needed. In the longer half of the range, especially at 70mm, stopping down to f/4 brings a very significant improvement in image sharpness. This lens is very sharp in the center and mid-portions of the image circle at f/4 with little improvement seen at f/5.6 aside from the mid-frame areas showing slight further improvement at 70mm. <a href="https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p>

</blockquote>
<p>We have lots of options at this focal range from Canon, Sigma and Tamron and it may be hard to choose which way to go. One thing is for sure, Sigma and Tamron have proven that the market wants a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 lens and it might be time Canon answered the call as well.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## NancyP (Oct 18, 2017)

If Canon could make a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8LIS with good image quality at all focal lengths, it would have a winner.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 18, 2017)

Not long bought my EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM , its a good lens but the majority of my lenses have IS and on cameras like the 5DS it makes sense to add it. Mind you at £ 1,684.00 for the non IS lens god knows what they would charge.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 18, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Not long bought my EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM , its a good lens but the majority of my lenses have IS and on cameras like the 5DS it makes sense to add it. Mind you at £ 1,684.00 for the non IS lens god knows what they would charge.



Add another 280 pounds mate! Cheers. I would guess a USD of $2,299 at introduction. But maybe they would only charge $2,099...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2017)

Caveat emptor, yo:

_"Focus accuracy is of course quite important and this lens is also a decent performer in this regard, delivering roughly 90-95% of images in-focus when using the center AF point. Peripheral AF point performance did not fare as well, with this lens exhibiting noticeable front-focusing from both EOS 5Ds R models it was tested with."_

Again, we lack a great AF hit rate database to go from and Mr. Carnathan did not state a test method this time, but a 90-95% hit = _5-10% miss rate..._ for an f/2.8 lens... through the center point only. I'd expect some percentage of AF whiffing with a fast prime, but f/2.8 has considerably more working DOF to get by. This is not encouraging at all.

Also:_ "Of interest to some is that subjects change size a noticeable amount during focus distance adjustment. Photographers using focus stacking techniques, videographers pulling focus and anyone very-critically framing a scene will want to be aware of this common issue."_

And there's subsequent commentary on focus breathing at play. 

- A


----------



## tron (Oct 18, 2017)

Brian's image quality tool shows the Canon better at corners at 24, 35 ,50 and better at center at 70. I checked only at f/2.8. For me it's Canon 24-70 2.8 II hands down exchanging it only with a future Canon 24-70 2.8L IS version (at least equally good optically).


----------



## Jopa (Oct 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Caveat emptor, yo:
> 
> _"Focus accuracy is of course quite important and this lens is also a decent performer in this regard, delivering roughly 90-95% of images in-focus when using the center AF point. Peripheral AF point performance did not fare as well, with this lens exhibiting noticeable front-focusing from both EOS 5Ds R models it was tested with."_



The lens doesn't have much value to me because of unreliable AF. But imagine if Canon releases an EF-mount mirrorless that would be relying on DPAF, and out of sudden all those focusing issues become non-existent! If it happens, the first thing I'm going to do is to buy the Sigma 50A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2017)

tron said:


> Brian's image quality tool shows the Canon better at corners at 24, 35 ,50 and better at center at 70 (I checked only f/2.8). For me it's Canon 24-70 2.8 II hands down exchanging it only with a future Canon 24-70 2.8L IS version (at least equally good optically).



Even if the Tamron IQ was better, I'd pass. IQ is important, but a 5-10% miss rate with a zoom is eye-popping, IMHO.

That said -- for an N of 2 -- the IQ is promising. It may not stack up to Canon's flagship standard f/2.8L II, but at f/4, TDP's first copy is better than the 24-70 f/4L IS at both 24 & 70, while this is less so for the 2nd copy (but still comparable). 

Tamron and Sigma continue to deliver strong sharpness per dollar -- there's no doubting that.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 18, 2017)

I want to know what bizarro faerie land y'all live in where 90%+ AF accuracy rate for an all-rounder zoom at its widest aperture is "not encouraging". Aside from easily being within the margin for user error and/or camera error, 90%+ accuracy is no worse than I've ever had from any first-party combination (including 'god AF' things like the 1DX2 and 500mm f/4 mk II, and recently trying the D850 and 200-500), let alone third-party. The Canon 24-70 II sure as hell does no better. (In fact I _never_ use that lens when I need really critical focus.)

The rest of it is in keeping with both what was expected and what everybody else is finding out. The last version had focus breathing at minimum distances, too, so that's nothing new; would have been nice if it'd been sorted out but it's not like this is the kind of lens you buy for focal length-critical macro work. General IQ on Bryan's copy(/ies) seems to be a fair bit worse than any anybody else has reviewed with. 

I'm waiting on a loaner to evaluate it myself—unsurprisingly there's been quite a waiting list for it—but I have a strong suspicion already that it's going to end up in one of my bags. The previous version was superb at f/4 and fair enough at f/2.8, and including stabilisation made it invaluable for everything outside of the studio. I only ditched it when A) it fell out of a fourth-story window and did not, unsurprisingly, survive, and B) I got a nice discount on the Canon, enough to make me give up stabilisation. (Which I regretted almost immediately.) Again, I'm waiting on one to be sent before I make a firm decision, but so far all the reviews _except_ Bryan's point toward this being basically everything the previous version was but just all-round better-corrected, so if my loaner turns out the same way I'm pretty sure my Canon will be retired. For the purposes a 24-70 actually gets used for, stabilisation is just too invaluable. I'll gladly take a slight step back in f/2.8 image quality for the sake of stabilisation.



jeffa4444 said:



> Mind you at £ 1,684.00 for the non IS lens god knows what they would charge.


The general rule so far as been when Canon puts IS into a lens which previously lacked it, they near-double the price at launch, then settle at about 165% of the original's price. I would expect £2,000 as a launch MRRP. Pushing the limits of what's really worth it, for sure.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> I want to know what bizarro faerie land y'all live in where 90%+ AF accuracy rate for an all-rounder zoom at its widest aperture is "not encouraging". Aside from easily being within the margin for user error and/or camera error, 90%+ accuracy is no worse than I've ever had from any first-party combination (including 'god AF' things like the 1DX2 and 500mm f/4 mk II, and recently trying the D850 and 200-500), let alone third-party. The Canon 24-70 II sure as hell does no better. (In fact I _never_ use that lens when I need really critical focus.)



I hear you, but it all depends on how it was tested or what he shot with it.

I shoot generally stationary stuff handheld in one shot AF. Provide I'm not in a terrible indoor concert sort of lighting situation, all four of my ring USM lenses capable of f/2.8 simply do not miss on my 5D3. It's a near 100% hit rate. But if I'm working quickly, chasing running kids/pets, shooting high burst rates, etc. then sure, the hit rate is going to suffer.

So:


If this was a randomly defocused camera on a tripod aimed at a test target, then 90% is an outright wretched result.


If this is from general overall use sort of shooting, then 'decent' is the right finding. It's entirely possible the lens was put to work in more-demanding low light / backlight situations.


If this was from shooting one of his kids' track/equestrian events, that's an outstanding result.

The fact he chose 'decent' to describe it without stating a method implies that we're in the second bucket above, but that should be verified. I just asked Mr. Carnathan to clarify how he landed on that number and will follow up.

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Caveat emptor, yo:
> 
> _"Focus accuracy is of course quite important and this lens is also a decent performer in this regard, delivering roughly 90-95% of images in-focus when using the center AF point. Peripheral AF point performance did not fare as well, with this lens exhibiting noticeable front-focusing from both EOS 5Ds R models it was tested with."_
> 
> ...



I suggest you also check out Dustin Abbott's just completed review of the same lens. He did some comparison shooting with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II and the just released Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 OS.

Very interesting results. With some real world emphasis. And he did source 2 different copies of the Tamron - one from a Canadian source and one from a US source...


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 18, 2017)

Jopa said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Caveat emptor, yo:
> ...



It doesn't have unreliable AF. I recommend going into a local shop and trying it on your camera body. And read some actual end user reviews like found at B&H or Adorama.

By all intents a very, very good lens. Especially when considering the price. Like I encouraged Mr. Sanford to do, check out Dustin Abbott's review too.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2017)

Okay, straight from Mr. Carnathan himself. This was from a controlled AF test on two 5DS R bodies, parameters below.

In light of this, I'll double down on my caveat emptor from before. In a test where shutter speed, hand shake, mirror slap are eliminated and you are shooting at a high contrast target, the hit rate of an f/2.8 lens through the center point should be nearly perfect.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> I suggest you also check out Dustin Abbott's just completed review of the same lens. He did some comparison shooting with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II and the just released Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 OS.
> 
> Very interesting results. With some real world emphasis. And he did source 2 different copies of the Tamron - one from a Canadian source and one from a US source...



Thx, just checked it out. I generally don't watch his video reviews (hard to keyword search those!), but I do read his written stuff. He did see peppy/accurate AF with the G2 after he calibrated the lens with the Tap-in console, which is encouraging.

I didn't see a hit rate, however, something he has reported on in the past. Dustin, care to comment on that? We don't need a number, but do you trust the AF of this lens as much as... an a 24-70 f/2.8L II? As little as a Sigma 35 Art? Somewhere in between?

- A


----------



## danfaz (Oct 19, 2017)

I have this lens, and have not had any concerning issues with autofocus accuracy (or sharpness after AFMA). I even shot my son's birthday party recently, and maybe 2 or 3 of well over 100 shots were out of focus. Real world shooting to me means more than lab tests.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 19, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> I want to know what bizarro faerie land y'all live in where 90%+ AF accuracy rate for an all-rounder zoom at its widest aperture is "not encouraging". Aside from easily being within the margin for user error and/or camera error, 90%+ accuracy is no worse than I've ever had from any first-party combination (including 'god AF' things like the 1DX2 and 500mm f/4 mk II, and recently trying the D850 and 200-500), let alone third-party. The Canon 24-70 II sure as hell does no better. (In fact I _never_ use that lens when I need really critical focus.)
> 
> The rest of it is in keeping with both what was expected and what everybody else is finding out. The last version had focus breathing at minimum distances, too, so that's nothing new; would have been nice if it'd been sorted out but it's not like this is the kind of lens you buy for focal length-critical macro work. General IQ on Bryan's copy(/ies) seems to be a fair bit worse than any anybody else has reviewed with.
> 
> I'm waiting on a loaner to evaluate it myself—unsurprisingly there's been quite a waiting list for it—but I have a strong suspicion already that it's going to end up in one of my bags. The previous version was superb at f/4 and fair enough at f/2.8, and including stabilisation made it invaluable for everything outside of the studio. I only ditched it when A) it fell out of a fourth-story window and did not, unsurprisingly, survive, and B) I got a nice discount on the Canon, enough to make me give up stabilisation. (Which I regretted almost immediately.) Again, I'm waiting on one to be sent before I make a firm decision, but so far all the reviews _except_ Bryan's point toward this being basically everything the previous version was but just all-round better-corrected, so if my loaner turns out the same way I'm pretty sure my Canon will be retired. For the purposes a 24-70 actually gets used for, stabilisation is just too invaluable. I'll gladly take a slight step back in f/2.8 image quality for the sake of stabilisation.



I had the Tamron 45 f1.8. I guess it had a hit rate with the center AF point on my 1DXII at about 90 percent, which was acceptable. However, the off center AF points did consequently back focus, much like mr Carnathan reports on the Tamron 24-70. This focusing issue was very annoying and I sold my 45mm, even though I liked it on almost every other way.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 19, 2017)

Exact the same issue I was fighting with my previos generation Tamron 24-70 lens. Framing shift was very annoying.
The lens was repaired by Tamron but IS issue has never been fixed. 



> …Annoying is that one tested copy of this lens (out of 5 compared between myself and another individual) had an issue with the framing shifting somewhat left or right when the rotation direction was reversed…


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

Following up to Mr. Carnathan's response, I asked:

_"Were most of the misses in the lower light settings in your test, or was it more of the odd miss in any light?"_

His answer:

_"Unfortunately, I was not able to discern any consistencies with the OOF results. They seemed random to me. It is impossible to do a completely exhaustive test of the lens as there are an unlimited number of circumstances that it could be used in, but I felt reasonably confident with the center AF point performance."
_
Again: in ideal AF conditions in a controlled test (the best possible AF outcome you will get), the center AF point of this f/2.8 lens randomly misses 5-10% of the time. Take this lens into the real world -- where moving subjects, high contrast lighting, fatigue from longer shooting sessions, higher fps / servo AF use etc. -- and I cannot fathom how that number would improve.

- A


----------

