# Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC in Stock & Quick MTF Review



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 30, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9757"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9757" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9757"></a></div>
<strong>Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC


</strong>Don’t want to wait for the new Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II? Don’t feel like spending $2200? Wanted some form of image stabilization, perhaps the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is for you.</p>
<p><strong>Quick MTF Review</strong>


Roger at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">Lensrentals.com</a> also did a quick and dirty MTF comparison between the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and the current Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L. The Tamron faired quite well.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<div id="attachment_9758" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tamronmtf.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-9758" title="tamronmtf" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tamronmtf.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="172" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L (Higher numbers are better)</p></div>
<p>Roger also mentions the autofocus performance is pretty good on the Tamron, maybe not as quick as the Canon, but much faster than Tamron’s 70-200.</p>
<p>You can read the entire quick and dirty review at LensRentals.com <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845339-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank"><strong>Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC at B&H for $1299</strong></a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ugly.|.face (Apr 30, 2012)

Man, this is starting to look better and better! I was going to wait a couple years(hopefully won't take that long) to get the new EF 24-70 mk II, but for way less money, this might just sway me. I am a budding wedding photographer, and am thinking about getting a 24-70 for the sake of versatility. My current setup is all primes and any zoom I get will have to be close in terms of IQ.

Waiting to see how this will compare to the ef 24-70 II...


----------



## cbphoto (Apr 30, 2012)

I'd like to see info on the Tamron's vignetting. In the few lenses I've compared over the years, Tamron lenses had much greater vignetting than Canon's, especially at wide open apertures.


----------



## elusive1 (Apr 30, 2012)

This is pretty brutal for Canon, as this just another recent episode of Canon being out shined by a competitor, since the Tamron is really competing against the 24-70 Mark 1

I'm sure the the 24-70 L Mark2 will have better resolution figures than the Tamron, but it costs $1K more and no I.S. What good is brilliant resolution if your hands are shaky?

Tally up the recent blows to Canon on 3 major projects

1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
2) Very overpriced Canon Cinema division got destroyed at NAB by Black Magic and Sony who stole all the buzz.
3) Now Tamron fills the I.S. niche that #1 feature in the 24-70 that Canon customers were begging and pleading for, but Canon failed to deliver.

I think it's time for Canon to shed the arrogance and get back to earth and start making competitive products again. I think the huge success of the 5D2 made Canon really lazy and complacent in both stills and video, and the current products are a reflection of that arrogance.

Canon needs a real and decisive winner badly. Very badly.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 30, 2012)

ugly.|.face said:


> Man, this is starting to look better and better! I was going to wait a couple years(hopefully won't take that long) to get the new EF 24-70 mk II, but for way less money, this might just sway me. I am a budding wedding photographer, and am thinking about getting a 24-70 for the sake of versatility. My current setup is all primes and any zoom I get will have to be close in terms of IQ.
> 
> Waiting to see how this will compare to the ef 24-70 II...



I don't expect it would be better than 24-70 mark ii. However, same price with mark I and better IQ + VC are really interesting for me. I am also waiting for more reviews.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 30, 2012)

elusive1 said:


> 1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
> 2) Very overpriced Canon Cinema division got destroyed at NAB by Black Magic and Sony who stole all the buzz.
> 3) Now Tamron fills the I.S. niche that #1 feature in the 24-70 that Canon customers were begging and pleading for, but Canon failed to deliver.



1) DR at low ISO, and resolution are the only advantages the D800 has.
2) Black Magic may have the hype locked down, but with that tiny sensor the two are not interchangeable.
3) The 24-70II will surely blow away the Tamron in every way... Except IS (and price). So you do have a semi-valid point there. I'm still hoping they bring out a version with IS, but who knows.


----------



## michi (Apr 30, 2012)

I was thinking of getting the Mark II but when they announced the price and no IS I decided that it's not for me. If the Tamron is a little better than the Mark I, I will give it a shot. I sort of gave up on non Canon lenses many years ago after several issues with some of them. Although I have to say that Sigma service was always top notch and took care of everything. Anyone have experience with Tamrons customer service, is it as good as Sigma? Also waiting for more reviews, then I will jump if they concur with the good reviews that are out already.


----------



## ugly.|.face (Apr 30, 2012)

cbphoto said:


> I'd like to see info on the Tamron's vignetting. In the few lenses I've compared over the years, Tamron lenses had much greater vignetting than Canon's, especially at wide open apertures.



Look up That Nikon Guy on Youtube. He has about 5-6 videos with the new Tamron. He is using a Canon mount on a 5D2. From what I have seen, the Tammy looks pretty good. 

I will be happy if the Tammy truly falls between the Canon Mk I and II in real world uses( for me, those are weddings). Hopefully it will hold up to some degree of abuse even though I am pretty careful with the very little gear that I have


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 30, 2012)

This is good news. I'm still looking forward to more reviews, especially including Bryan's, but everything continues to point to this being a lens to get excited about. I'm absolutely thinking of selling my 24 - 105 and getting one of these in its place. A stop faster, plus IS? And optics better than the 24-70 I?

I'm not ready to pull the trigger, and I'm not in a hurry to do so, but I'm absolutely hoping for the best.

Not to tie this in with the "light leak" silliness...but EV -1, where the "problem" starts to manifest itself, is f/2.8 @ 1/2 second @ ISO 3200...and that'd probably be hand-holdable with this new lens at the wide end. Unbelievable...we're almost talking handheld astrophotography....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Matthew Saville (May 1, 2012)

> "The Tamron faired quite well"



*looks at MTF numbers*

...LOL... How about, the Tamron OWNED the Canon?

Aside from Tamron's slightly inferior AF technology, (still in it's infancy after all) ...the Tamron is by far a better choice for all but the most warzone-bound flagship shooters who need their lenses to double as bricks.

Don't get me wrong, the Canon 24-70 mk1 is a workhorse and I use it all the time for wedding photojournalism, but it's getting over the hill. I'm still in disbelief that Canon is going to attempt to charge $2300 for the 24-70 mk2, without stabilization, considering the incredible sharpness of the Nikon and now this Tamron. Good luck with that, Canon...

=Matt=


----------



## elusive1 (May 1, 2012)

bvukich said:


> elusive1 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
> ...



Sorry Bvukich, but the general consensus by non-Canon fan boys (ie Independent Testers), the 5D3 got it's a$$ handed to it by Nikon. As for video, Black Magic did something innovative. It might be a smaller sensor, but the point is they shook up the establishment and took a chance, something Canon has not done since the 5D2. As for Sony, the FS700 pretty much dominated Canon in terms of headlines and hype at NAB. People are really excited by what Sony is doing. As for Canon, just a lot of bitching about overpriced video cameras.

Believe me, I WANT Canon to do good. I have a bit of money invested in Canon glass (around 8K in L-lenses), as well as other EOS lenses by Tokina and Zeiss. But they are not making top level products lately, and the competition is (especially Sony with their sensors and video offerings) are just making Canon look bad.

Canon needs a real winner, and soon.


----------



## well_dunno (May 1, 2012)

cbphoto said:


> I'd like to see info on the Tamron's vignetting. In the few lenses I've compared over the years, Tamron lenses had much greater vignetting than Canon's, especially at wide open apertures.



_"Falloff of illumination towards the corners of the frame is very pronounced. At 24mm the corners are 2.9 stops darker than the image centre and at 70mm the corners are 2.5stops darker. Stopping down to f/5.6 results in visually uniform illumination across the frame throughout the zoom range."_

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


----------



## michi (May 1, 2012)

2.9 stops falloff at the corners is pretty rough I guess, would still be willing to live with that though.


----------



## well_dunno (May 1, 2012)

Also, the resolution figures seem to indicate the lens performs better at the wide end. CA is well controlled as well... Though there is this onion-like oof blur in the sample shot at f/2.8 - not sure what to make of that...


----------



## cliffwang (May 1, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Also, the resolution figures seem to indicate the lens performs better at the wide end. CA is well controlled as well... Though there is this onion-like oof blur in the sample shot at f/2.8 - not sure what to make of that...


The comment from the original website.

"The concentric rings are caused by a water droplet on the front element as it was beginning to rain"

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


----------



## squarebox (May 1, 2012)

I currently have the Canon 24-70mkII pre-ordered... but this is looking very tempting. 

How do Tamrons hold up for resale value?


----------



## michi (May 1, 2012)

squarebox said:


> I currently have the Canon 24-70mkII pre-ordered... but this is looking very tempting.
> 
> How do Tamrons hold up for resale value?



Generally they are nowhere near an original Canon lens (which hardly loses any value). However, if it turns out to be a gem, it might hold its value pretty well. 

Still looking for someone with Tamron customer service experience to tell us how they handle issues.


----------



## dswatson83 (May 1, 2012)

I have been torn between the Canon 24-70 & 24-105 IS. Which do I need more, the IS or f/2.8? Since I have never had a bride complain about the sharpness of the 24-70mm f/2.8 (which I rent for now), I really don't see the need to get version II at this point. I would much prefer to see stabilization and was hoping to see this on the new 24-70 which is why I was waiting to purchase it. Now I am leaning towards the Tamron


----------



## mjardeen (May 1, 2012)

So this last weekend I got to handle and take a few shots with this lens at a local store. I have to say that I am really impressed, to the point that I may sell my 24-105 and spend the extra cash to get one.

Size is at a sweet point, it did not seems all that heavy on my 5D mk1, but then I use it with the battery grip. The effect of the VC was obvious when I looked through the lens. The build feels solid. The real test will be images. I am not posting any of the few images I shot because frankly they sucked not because of the lens but because a setting error on my part. I plan on taking one out to test shoot.


----------



## AJ (May 1, 2012)

More samples here
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1108651

Looks like it's sharp, very effective VC, good AF, decent bokeh, hefty vignetting.


----------



## dswatson83 (May 1, 2012)

AJ said:


> More samples here
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1108651
> Looks like it's sharp, very effective VC, good AF, decent bokeh, hefty vignetting.


Thanks for the site. Looks good but yeah, that vignetting is massive. This looks like a great lens on a cropped body and a good lens for the FF users. Of course, since Canon won't make a similar lens with IS, it looks like the choice is between vignetting and IS. I think I would prefer IS since lighroom traditionally does a decent job getting rid of vignetting


----------



## cliffwang (May 1, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > More samples here
> ...


Learned something here. I haven't thought about rid of vignetting by software.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Learned something here. I haven't thought about rid of vignetting by software.



Nowadays, vignetting, distortion and even chromatic aberrations (LR 4.1 rc2 just improved the latter even more) are not an issue anymore because they are easily corrected. The real quality markers of a digital lens are sharpness & color rendition and next to that build quality, af & image stabilization.


----------



## dstppy (May 2, 2012)

It's great everyone is so supportive of Canon's efforts ;D

Hrm, is this her or another one?
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/tamron-24-70mm-f2.8-di-vc-for-canon


----------



## well_dunno (May 5, 2012)

_"ISO 12233 resolution chart results have been added to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens Review page.
[...] 
Before making your purchase decision, I encourage you to wait for me to spend more time evaluating the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens' AF performance. Neither of the two lenses I have autofocus accurately on the test chart using a Canon-calibrated EOS 1Ds Mark III. I will minimally test the second lens behind a second calibrated 1Ds III and a 5D III."_

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2357

The corners do not look good at all... Even if it is a bad copy issue, two out of two is not very encouraging... : Let's hope it performs better on the other bodies on which it is going to be tested...

Cheers!


----------



## SR20DEN (May 5, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> _"ISO 12233 resolution chart results have been added to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens Review page.
> [...]
> Before making your purchase decision, I encourage you to wait for me to spend more time evaluating the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens' AF performance. Neither of the two lenses I have autofocus accurately on the test chart using a Canon-calibrated EOS 1Ds Mark III. I will minimally test the second lens behind a second calibrated 1Ds III and a 5D III."_
> 
> ...



Many if not most of his Tamron lens reviews involve him sending back a copy or two. I had high hopes for this lens but I was holding out for that exact review and I am not surprised at the outcome.
Because of my personal experience with the only Tamron lens I own(18-270) and after finding that site some time ago, I never purchase a lens without first studying those ISO 12233 image crops. I, like most people, do not have the equipment needed to do that type of testing. Therefore I won't take the gamble of buying anymore third party lenses and hoping that I get a good copy.


----------



## SR20DEN (May 5, 2012)

> So does this guy get paid by Canon to review pictures?
> Or receiver sponsorship from Canon?
> Free services from Canon?
> 
> ...


After simple search on the site;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/AF-Microadjustment-Tips.aspx


Another simple search reveals exactly how he conducts these tests.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx


----------



## elflord (May 5, 2012)

SR20DEN said:


> Another simple search reveals exactly how he conducts these tests.
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx



And yet he returned a sigma 85mm lens on the grounds that it (consistently) front focused. Curiously, the Canon lenses he reviews seldom if ever need micro adjustment.

The test charts are useful, and the Canon lens reviews are useful, but the reviewer does seem to have a lot of trouble with third party lenses (more than other reviewers). I would not put much weight on tdp's reviews for third party lenses.


----------



## SR20DEN (May 5, 2012)

He doesn't seem to have much trouble with Zeiss lenses. And, I am not saying you didn't, but for example if you compare the charts of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon, you'll notice that in the center at f/2.8, the Tamron is actually sharper than the Canon. The problem I see on those charts is that all lenses suffer more on the outsides. The evidence condemns many Canon lenses as well. So I don't get the impression that he seems to care who made each lens. One more point, he does not only test Canon gear. There are plenty of Nikon lens tests on that site.


----------



## elflord (May 5, 2012)

SR20DEN said:


> He doesn't seem to have much trouble with Zeiss lenses.



He doesn't have trouble with the autofocus on Zeiss lenses because those lenses don't autofocus.



> And, I am not saying you didn't, but for example if you compare the charts of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon, you'll notice that in the center at f/2.8, the Tamron is actually sharper than the Canon. The problem I see on those charts is that all lenses suffer more on the outsides. The evidence condemns many Canon lenses as well.



His test chart shots are just fine, I don't have any issues with these. 

Its the review comments that seem somewhat colored. It seems that every time he reviews a third party lens, he is on a mission to plant seeds of doubt in the potential buyers mind. He has persistent problems with third party lenses but not Canon lenses. For example, photozone claim to have gone through 4 copies of the Canon 24-70mm, whereas tdp's review for that lens reads like a marketing brochure.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 5, 2012)

in the end it depends on what you are aiming at. To me a good bokeh and no field cuverture is essential (not always the biggest asset of Tamrom). Very good sharpness should go without saying.


----------



## Axilrod (May 5, 2012)

elusive1 said:


> 1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
> 2) Very overpriced Canon Cinema division got destroyed at NAB by Black Magic and Sony who stole all the buzz.
> 3) Now Tamron fills the I.S. niche that #1 feature in the 24-70 that Canon customers were begging and pleading for, but Canon failed to deliver.



1) That's an opinion, there are plenty of people that prefer the 5DIII.
2) The Black Magic camera is very cool, but geared more towards consumers. The Cinema EOS cameras are for the film industry. See how many Hollywood productions end up using the BM camera, I'm sure it won't be many. 2.4x crop is a joke (I know it's useful in some applications, but obviously you can't shoot everything on it).
3) I'll agree with you on this one, but the 24-70 II really hasn't been tested yet. I don't think IS is very essential in that range. You'd think that no one had ever taken a good picture with a 28-70 or the current 24-70 the way some people cry about IS, people have done just fine without it.

You say "non-Canon fanboys" prefer the D800, which is pretty much saying "Nikon fanboys prefer the D800." You can claim these products as failures all you want, but I guarantee you all of them will sell well within their respective markets. The 5DIII has been selling like crazy, if it was that bad of a camera no one would buy it. The D800 is a great camera, but the MP count makes it seem better than it really is.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> He has persistent problems with third party lenses but not Canon lenses.



I certainly didn't read all reviews there, but they got a second sample of the 70-300L - you can see them in the iso test charts, and the first one was certainly bad. And this did make me doubt if buying this Canon lens is too large a gamble in comparison a 3rd party 70-300.


----------



## John Thomas (May 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> elusive1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Well, I would say that's very important. _A 24-70 lens at F/2.8 is distinctive (IMHO) in indoors, spaces with low-light. Otherwise one would go for 24-105 f/4 which is the kit lens for 5D. A cheaper lens with a bigger zoom range._

But in low/dim light situations is important to have a lens which is capable to shot sharp images at (at least) 0.5 x Focal Distance, which (at least) at 70 mm and taking in account that we have a max aperture of 2.8 one can find enough situations in the day-by-day photo reportage.

I think that there will be many cases in which one would stop down the aperture at (let's say) 3.2 to achieve the best sharpness and try to keep the ISO's noise under control. Hence, having shutter speeds at 15 - 30 can be quite normal and so, IS is quite important imho.

Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but *I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics.* Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Just my2c


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Perhaps someone can enlighten me?



CR's take on the 24-70ii was that Canon had several prototypes, but the one(s) with IS were too heavy or the iq tradeoff was to large to get the weight down. And Canon simply sells stuff for as much money as they can get away with - and they should since I cannot afford it anyhow, better release the "good" stuff at a reasonable price and sell the "stellar" stuff at a premium. For a pro who's in business 1000$ is not a lot of money for better results, and nothing compared to the cost of good tele lenses. When did anyone complain about the price of the 70-200?


----------



## John Thomas (May 6, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> John Thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
> ...



Yeah, I'm aware about Canon's strategy. Thanks a lot, anyway. But now the things are changed. And are changed in a significant matter, imho. There IS a viable alternative at a much lower price. 

And not a viable alternative (imho) but one which has an important feature which Canon didn't manage to make it - so the _price difference_ doesn't justify. Not the price alone.

See, in the case of of 70-200 (esp. in the case of 70-200 II) there aren't other alternatives which can compete with much success (ok, Sigma perhaps). And hence Canon can settle for a price which market can bear. The same is in the case of, for example, L 8-15 fisheye. It is worth $1400? But since Tammy's & Sigma offerings cannot compete optically and feature wise (or, better to say that the others' offerings are nonexistent), Canon has that price.

But in the case of newly released Tammy's 24-70 VC the things are different. *I think that the price / performance ratio is in favor of Tamron by a wide margin, even compared with Canon's 24-70 II if the Canon will keep the same price.*

0.02c++ & HTH,

John Th.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> But in the case of newly released Tammy's 24-70 VC the things are different. I think that the price / performance ratio is in favor of Tamron by a wide margin, even compared with Canon's 24-70 II if the Canon will keep the same price.



Looking at the "onion" bokeh, while it might not matter for a lot of shots, it could ruin them when overlapping and pp is difficult. Someone who sells his/her pictures might think it's worth the $1000 price difference, because this is not the difference between a good shot and a very good shot, but between nothing and very good.

And concerning "is it worth it", there's also the serious amateur to consider who reached his personal ceiling and thinks that the real thing that's been missing from his shots for all this time is this "tack sharp" 24-70ii lens. I read an economy article about the real price of ice cream the other day, and you might have guessed it: If people want ice cream, they're going to pay about anything to get one if they want it, so prices will still rise


----------



## RobertG. (May 6, 2012)

Hi, maybe there are not many photogs like me but coming from a crop body with the EF-S 17-55 IS as standard lens I'd like to have something similar on a FF body, too. The EF 24-105 has a nice range but the f4.0 is unacceptable. So I'll propably go for the Tamron. If I look for a stellar perfomance or best low light use, I use a good prime lens. Such a zoom is just a walk- around lens and the f2.8 alone limits its use. But with the Tamron you can at least shout at 70mm with as little as 1/15s which means usable 3 stops light less than with the Canon when it's critical not to raise the ISO value.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

RobertG. said:


> The EF 24-105 has a nice range but the f4.0 is unacceptable. So I'll propably go for the Tamron. [...] But with the Tamron you can at least shout at 70mm with as little as 1/15s which means usable 3 stops light less than with the Canon when it's critical not to raise the ISO value.



Looking at your lens arsenal, I don't think you're a typical case of Canon customer - but your requirement for a walk-around 2.8 with IS does make sense of course. For the rest of us, while the Tamron really could be just a sturdier, water-resistant 17-55 equivalent, it's seems to be a good primary lens, too.

I'm actually considering it as a 17-55 alternative because the Tamron can be used both on crop and ff (yes, all ef lenses can, but with the Tamron it does make sense because less vignetting on crop and still sharp). And the Tamron lens seems to be predestined for 1.4x tc use if a quick zoom range extension is needed and f4 doesn't hurt.


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but *I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics.* Perhaps someone can enlighten me?



Canon probably don't want to put IS on if it requires any compromises in optical performance. The photographers who are going to buy this lens are mostly pros who bring along whatever accessories are needed to get the correct exposure (tripods if they want long exposures, flashes if they want shorter exposures than available light affords). There aren't on the other hand accessories that improve optical performance of a poor performing lens (though again an accessory that lets you stop down like a tripod or a flash is the next best thing!)

There are few real world scenarios where a 1/15s exposure is optimal. It might just happen to be the right exposure for a particular landscape scene, but that landscape photographer is prepared to expose for as long as necessary, so he usually has a tripod. For photographing people, that exposure is just too slow.

So I guess the answer to the question is, Canon's strategy for this lens will be to market it as the standard zoom with _the best_ optics. It is priced accordingly. They are counting on their target market not caring too much about IS. They do also have good offerings for users who want a "convenience zoom" (24-105IS) and an "available light lens" (primes)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The "onion" bokeh was due to water on the lens, so it is not something anyone would expect to see unless ... they've got water on the front lens element.


Unfortunately, it wasn't, or I wouldn't have to think about getting it or not - see this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=85

On the one hand, with a f2.8 lens bokeh is important, on the other hand the situations where the "onion" bokeh is very visible and even overlapping should be rare...


----------



## aznable (May 6, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Of course, I don't say that a 24-70 f/2.8 without IS is garbage (as we all know, the version I sells/sold pretty well) but *I simply cannot image how Canon will justify the almost $1000 difference when they will not provide IS while Tammy has one along with a quite decent optics.* Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
> Just my2c



the IS is a useful feature...better to have that dont for sure

well from the first test the tamron optically is in the same leaugue of old canon 24-70 that's wasnt anything special, so i guess the new 24-70 II will be really better that tamron and will be better built, with a better and faster autofocus, and of course it will feature a red ring.

in my opinion the brand is important, so Canon e Nikon are able to sell their stuff to a price considerably higher than 3rd parties, so they have the margin to give you an all around better product


----------



## mbworldz (May 22, 2012)

I just received mine yesterday and I have to say this lens is freaking amazing. Weight is about the same as the Canon 24-70 , Solid built. 
To me the quality is pretty much as close as Canon. Focusing is super quiet. Before I purchase this I was debating should I get the Canon 24-70 or the new 24-70 II ? But when I thought about 
the VC from the Tamron, you can't beat it. You spent over $2000 for Canon and still don't have IS. This VC from the Tamron is bad ass, it helps a lot in low shutter speed. You still can get sharp pictures.
For $1299, this is well worth it. I bought it from B&H. I also went to WPPI in Vegas back in Feb. At the Tamron booth, they didn't have the lens for demonstration, but tons of the people were asking about it and
they show the post production quality of that lens. Since then, I already have that in mind, this probably my alternative. Since the Canon 24-70 cost too much (without IS). 

Trust me, you won't be disappointed


----------



## well_dunno (May 22, 2012)

mbworldz said:


> I just received mine yesterday and I have to say this lens is freaking amazing.



Congratulations on your purchase! 

Could you share some pictures that contains bokeh highlights? There has been quite some talk on the concentric circle pattern aka onion bokeh which was initially blamed on the rain drops on the front glass...

Cheers!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 22, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> There has been quite some talk on the concentric circle pattern aka onion bokeh which was initially blamed on the rain drops on the front glass...


It's not due to rain drops, it's how the lens is built and will show up when point light sources are in the background. You'll only recognize it at higher magnification, some other well-received lenses have it, too (Sigma 50/1.4) and it depends on your shooting style if you'll see it at all.

The bokeh is not the problem, if any then the large production variance of Tamron, the slower af and the sharpness falloff even in mid-frame on ff bodies might be. You'll have to weight this against the Tamron having image stabilization and being half the price of the upcoming Canon 24-70ii.

Look here for a conclusive thread about the Tamron including many sample pictures:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=33


----------



## well_dunno (May 23, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > There has been quite some talk on the concentric circle pattern aka onion bokeh which was initially blamed on the rain drops on the front glass...
> ...



Thanks! I did follow some of the talk on the net too. The issue is my main reason for purchasing a f/2.8 lens is its ability to blur the background, thus bokeh is important. I need to disagree on the concentric rings being visible at high magnification - the initial sample shot at f/2.8 (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056) shows a good deal of it without any magnification at all. My request was more out of curiosity though, I am waiting to see what the mighty 24-70 mark II is going to deliver  

Cheers!


----------



## aznable (Jun 19, 2012)

nelza1992 said:


> Tally up the recent blows to Canon on 3 major projects
> 
> 1) Nikon D800 is better than the 5D3 in almost all aspects, even video.
> 2) Very overpriced Canon Cinema division got destroyed at NAB by Black Magic and Sony who stole all the buzz.
> 3) Now Tamron fills the I.S. niche that #1 feature in the 24-70 that Canon customers were begging and pleading for, but Canon failed to deliver.



so i guess Canon will shut down and exits the camera, lenses and video to focus on printers soon...lol


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd like to update this thread with Photozone's reviews:

FF: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff
APS-C: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/742-tamron2470f28eosapsc

Apparently this lens just rocks.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Apparently this lens just rocks.



"Apparently" is the correct word, because it rocks if a) you don't care about the "onion" bokeh (see photozone review page 2), b) you can live with the sharpness falloff on ff starting in mid-frame with larger apertures, c) your scenes are static or IS won't help much at this focal lengths, d) a little slower af doesn't matter to you, e) you happen to get a lens that is a good copy. Having said that, I might even get one myself for weddings instead of the Canon mk1 - but I am not really sure yet.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok, some classic FUD that needs debunking.
> (a) Is the only real issue here. If you're shooting at f/2.8 or otherwise shooting for scenes where bokeh will need to be considered then you have to be mindful of the potential impact of onion bokeh.
> (b) Just about every lens has sharpness falloff towards the edge, including a lot of Canon's "L" glass. If you look at any MTF graph, you'll see this and similarly it will show up in pictures. In this area, Canon's wide angle "L" zooms are atrocious.
> (c) If IS is pointless then why does Canon have it on the 24-105, 17-85, etc? For some people that have trouble holding the camera/lens still, IS is a life saver. Lots of people wanted Canon to come out with an IS version of their 24-70, so it is safe to assume that lots of people see benefit in it being there despite it not "slowing the scene down".
> ...


No FUD because as I wrote I'll probably buy the Tamron myself for being a lot of "bang for the buck". But I'm sorry to have to correct you...

a) I disagree: the "onion" boekh is *not* an issue because it needs specific conditions to appear, so for many scenes you'll never see it.

b) Just because there are other Canon lenses that show a sharpness falloff, it doesn't mean it can be taken out of consideration - because the alternatives to the Tamron 24-70 are Canon's new 24-70ii or primes, but of course both at a higher price.

c) The 24-105 has IS because it only has f4 max aperture, and the 17-85 and such are consumer lenses that wouldn't sell w/o IS and are dual-used for shooting still scenes, too. For me, the 24-70 *f2.8* is an event/wedding/docu lens, and since you need about 1/100s min shutter speed for shooting people anyway IS is not needed, esp. if it needs a little time to swing in after af'ing like the Tamron.

d) I'm really happy to debate cons and pros of equipment to make up my mind what to buy, but saying I'm an "Internet photography experts that shoot from the comfort of their chair at home" is just bs and only marks you as one yourself. The Tamron is slower to af esp. at lower light, where even a little makes a difference if you use it for wedding/event w/o preflash or af assist - the photozone review says so, see the "nikonguy" side-by-side comparison, and I tried the lens myself next to a Canon mk1. While the difference might not be large, it may make a difference if you shoot hundreds of pictures in an hour with it like during a wedding or event.

e) I'm getting my information from Amazon et al customer reviews this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=36 .. and where else would I get information from? Buy 20 lenses myself? While Canon is not a shining light in the past, even the Internet cannot be wrong at least in the tendency that 3rd party manufacturers have more qc issues. But then it has still to be established scientifically that smoking is bad for your health...


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 20, 2012)

Guys, we have to consider a lens in comparison to its competitors.

All these 24-70 f/2.8 zooms are not razor sharp in the edge wider than f/5.6. I don't see the Tammy faring remarkably worse here. On the other hand it has an amazing center sharpness.

Canon has the best bokeh, agreed. Sigma has the worst (ridiculously, because many cheaper Sigma lenses have an amazing bokeh). The Tammy is the middle, with onion rings being the only one remarkable issue.

Which is the best overall? I'd say the Nikkor 
But the Tamron is much much cheaper and it has VC, which is a very nice feature if you think soon enough pixel density is going to increase considerably. So all in all, this lens is IMHO the wisest purchase in this class.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Bob Atkin's review here:
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_24-70_f28_VC_review.html
> Seems to disagree with your assertions about sharpness falloff towards the edges being an issue.



Of course "issue" is subject to what you expect from a lens in the first place. The problem I have personally experienced and that imho is the cause for different opinions are the Tamron qc issues, for example the first lens I could try in a shop was clearly a dud, the sharpness even in the center was a catastrophe. But we don't seem to be able to agree on that.



dilbert said:


> It should not be left unsaid that *Tamron will calibrate any lens for free inside its warranty period* according to people posting in that thread you linked to above. To me this indicates that even if you do get a lens that isn't right, Tamron will fix it for you for free. What's not to like about that?


I do like that a lot - however I just called my local Tamron service, and turnaround time is no less than 14 days to get my lens + body combination back... but this might be exactly what I'll have to do if I get the Tamron and once I have a second camera body.

Btw: I just asked around what 24-70 to get for weddings, feel free to contribute  ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7479.0


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> There are numerous stories about the importance of AFMA. In the mean time, you should read the articles about "lens softness" on this website and also those about using AFMA (auto-focus micro-adjust)



Thank you so very much for pointing out afma for me - however, I think I have understood the general concept, so no need for patronizing.

What you may not understand: even if a lens needs afma, it's bound to focus *somewhere* like in the afma test strips. So I'm interested how afma can improve a lens that it isn't sharp *anywhere*?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > What you may not understand: even if a lens needs afma, it's bound to focus *somewhere* like in the afma test strips. So I'm interested how afma can improve a lens that it isn't sharp *anywhere*?
> ...



*Like* afma test strips - you can shoot at textured round or tilted surfaces, so afma doesn't matter - just compare the sharp zones, wherever they are. Doesn't give you the afma data to correct your lens, but gives a good impression of sharpness - and the first Tamron was so way off in the sharp zone it didn't match what I was expecting from reviews and lens data.



dilbert said:


> Why don't you attach some uploads...



dilbert, I have already tried to convey my suggestion to drop the attitude. And I'm happy to discuss with fellow Canon users, and there are plenty of nice, polite and helpful people around open to different opinions, so I'm stopping here discussing with you.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 20, 2012)

Other people might find this info usefull - but I'm going to wait for mrk II


----------



## aznable (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > There are numerous stories about the importance of AFMA. In the mean time, you should read the articles about "lens softness" on this website and also those about using AFMA (auto-focus micro-adjust)
> ...



so afma could make a soft lens, less softer, and it can make a sharp lens more sharper.

we are afraid you havent a camera to tru this out


----------



## markd61 (Jun 25, 2012)

elusive1 said:


> This is pretty brutal for Canon, as this just another recent episode of Canon being out shined by a competitor, since the Tamron is really competing against the 24-70 Mark 1
> 
> I'm sure the the 24-70 L Mark2 will have better resolution figures than the Tamron, but it costs $1K more and no I.S. What good is brilliant resolution if your hands are shaky?
> 
> ...



Yet Canon is still selling loads of cameras, has way more lenses than Tamron AND makes flashes, remotes and other accessories. Note that in their lineup many of their lenses and bodies are in continual short supply despite prices that everyone seems to be wailing about.
I hardly think that a company the size of Canon is being arrogant just because your idea of what they should be doing does not line up with yours.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 26, 2012)

Does anyone use the Tamron 24-70 on the 5d mk3 and can write how many focus points are enabled as cross-type or even double cross (i.e. what lens code Tamron emulates)?

As you might know (and many reviews get this wrong) the 1dx/5d3's af system doesn't only depend on the max. open aperture, but puts the lenses into groups - see the manual pp.80 for this.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 5, 2012)

Probably a stupid question, but does the Tamron have weather sealing? I've had a quick look around and can't really find any direct statement.

Thanks and sorry if it is mentioned somwhere obvious and i'm being blind!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Thanks and sorry if it is mentioned somwhere obvious and i'm being blind!


Yes, it has sealing (and a solid build quality). That's one big advantage over say the the ef-s 17-55. Look at reviews again like http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks and sorry if it is mentioned somwhere obvious and i'm being blind!
> ...



The reviews look great, i'm convinced, but it says "Moisture resistant construction"... i guess my question is how resistant is it? Has anyone done a review on that yet??? I know that the canons are pretty well sealed, how does the tamron stack up in comparison?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 5, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Has anyone done a review on that yet??? I know that the canons are pretty well sealed, how does the tamron stack up in comparison?



I read a lot of reviews on the Tamrons, and no one did a comparison on the sealing. You'd either have to try to wreck them on purpose and see which breaks first, or disassemble them and analyze the sealing points - both is well outside the reach of most internet reviews. And "moisture resistant" would be the rough translation of some japanese phrase.

For me, it's sufficient that it's surely more protected against dust and light rain than non-sealed lenses which will break in no time and probably take your sensor with them if water leaks inside the camera from the front. In heavy rain, I tend to seek shelter


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> In heavy rain, I tend to seek shelter



haha, true... thanks for the info... i guess you're right!


----------



## new-z (Aug 12, 2012)

I have done a little test of my Tamron 24-70, you can find it just here.
Tamron 24-70 2.8 Test 


www.new-z.fr
RSS


----------



## epsiloneri (Aug 13, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Well if you're not willing to upload images that you claim show "everything is soft", how are we to know if you're being truthful?


We can now see comparisons posted at the-digital-picture.com. I would say the Tamron looks extremely sharp wide open in the centre, but fairly soft in the corners.


----------



## Fly (Aug 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Does anyone use the Tamron 24-70 on the 5d mk3 and can write how many focus points are enabled as cross-type or even double cross (i.e. what lens code Tamron emulates)?
> 
> As you might know (and many reviews get this wrong) the 1dx/5d3's af system doesn't only depend on the max. open aperture, but puts the lenses into groups - see the manual pp.80 for this.



Hi, 
I would also very much like to know the answer to this...
If it uses the f2.8 double crosstype focus points on the 5Diii, then I'm getting the Tamron in stead of the 24-105.


----------



## dwarf (Aug 13, 2012)

I had two of these lenses and both were crap. Not worth 1200$ at all! Have a look for yourselves.
1.Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.
2. Mega barrel distortion.
3. Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)
4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.
5. Acceptable(depending on type of photography), but slow autofocus
If it was in the price range of 300-400$ I would be able to look over the issues it had, but at 1200$(even though i got it for 1045$) stay away from it. I mean it! Tamron junk lenses are made out of pickle or mayonnaise jars.
I made the newspaper, brick wall and quadrant test. They are not the most sophisticated but it sure does show the cheap engineering Tamron is implementing in their lenses.
Have a good look at the top left and bottom right corner. It is so bad as if someone intentionally used the smudge tool in photoshop. Disgusting samples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157630580733610/
I used the 5dm2 camera, shot in raw and processed with Canon software all set to default. The crops are full size.
Here is are some images of the distortions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157630553470686/
As you can see there is heavy moustache distortion at 24mm
at 50mm there still is moustache distorition with slight pincushioning
and pincushioning at 70mm
There is no focal length where the lens is free from distortion
Here is the raw image of the newspaper test 30MB size:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sli3l6a82g20mkk
and the jpeg with default processing 20MB:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?3sk3x3gbxf58gif
I have read positive reviews about this lens at the beginning, but all of a sudden the internet is flooded with negative reviews... This is called QUALITY CONTROL at Tamron.
Save your money and buy a second hand lens, or better pay 300-600$ more and buy the original manufacturer lens.
Mainstream manufacturer lens last for a lifetime +20 years if they are looked after. Buy Tamron and expect you will be replacing it in 2-3 years after.
Good luck with your purchase of this lens....


----------



## epsiloneri (Aug 14, 2012)

dwarf said:


> I had two of these lenses and both were crap.


Thanks for contributing with your experience. Your review strikes me as a bit too emotional, exaggerating and contradicting with other reviews for me to take it seriously, in particular since this also is your first post and we haven't had a chance to gauge your experience, skills, language and general attitudes. I cannot say I've seen internet flooded with negative reviews of the lens. To measure barrel distortion you need to carefully align your paper wall with the sensor plane - they have to be absolutely parallel. This doesn't seem to be the case in your example photo, which looks as if tilted slightly downwards. Distortion has previously been measured to be very low, ~1% barrel at 24mm and 0.02% pincusion at 70mm, _uniform across the frame_. Very few issues with flare and ghosting, even when shooting into the light. Vignetting sure is a problem at f/2.8, but by f/5.6 it's down to half a stop in the corners, and is noticably better than Canon's current offering.


dwarf said:


> Good luck with your purchase of this lens....


Thanks, I probably will get it at some point, and then I will take care to evaluate the lens to check for any problems you mentioned. Maybe Tamron has problem with its QC, but at this point I cannot exclude user error.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 14, 2012)

dwarf said:


> 1.Total lack of quality control, decentred elements.



Known issue w/ Tamron, it might be a hassle to get a good copy. But you might want to keep in mind you get two Tamron 24-70 *with* IS for one Canon mk2...



dwarf said:


> 2. Mega barrel distortion.
> 3. Vignetting present even at f/11 won't go away.(on full frame)



Well, that's what postprocessing software is for.



dwarf said:


> 4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.



I didn't read about that yet, the test I know said the flare wasn't nice but nothing too serious.



dwarf said:


> 5. Acceptable(depending on type of photography), but slow autofocus



This is one of the two real issues, the other issue is that the Tamron never really gets sharp across the frame even stopped down and that mid-frame sharpness is mediocre on large apertures on full frame. So if you don't need f2.8 the 24-105L might be the smarter choice, but the Tamron has @currently 1000€ ok bang for the buck.


----------



## dwarf (Aug 15, 2012)

Sorry if i didn't quote properly...
[/quote]

Well, that's what postprocessing software is for.
-You can't correct that heavy mustache distortion with any software.



dwarf said:


> 4. Prone to flare even when the sun is at a 80 degree angle.



I didn't read about that yet, the test I know said the flare wasn't nice but nothing too serious.
If the sun is up at 2 o'clock and it is at an 80 degree angle you will get it no matter if you use the lens hood.


dwarf said:


> Every independent reviewer that actually purchases the lens and is not affiliated with Tamron in any way will score this lens negatively. I also met some other people, a guy from the dombower forum, and thomas from photozone that were very disappointed with it...
> If it is in the 400$ range, I might buy it with reservations.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 15, 2012)

dwarf said:


> Sorry if i didn't quote properly...



Um, with the bad quoting it's hard to get an idea of what you're saying... but the photozone is rather in favor of the Tamron: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=2

And saying that everybody that likes the lens is affiliated with Tamron is really ridiculous, it's just a matter of how much you're willing to pay for what performance. A $400 tag for this lens would be nice of course, but if you compare it to the competition it's better than the Canon mk1 in center sharpness and less than half of the price of the still IS-less Canon mk2. So I'm absolutely convinced at least many amateur shooters will be very happy with the lens and IS for static indoor shots.


----------



## dwarf (Aug 16, 2012)

Ok, my quoting was a total disaster :-\

I wanted to answer Marsu42,

You can't get rid of the mustache/wavy distortion with any program. It's there forever. Even if it was possible like with some other lenses you would be cropping the centre of the image losing way too much resolution, but this lens has distortion even in the very centre.

About the flare, I wanted to say if you use a lens hood, and the sun is in the 12am-4pm position and the light is coming at an angle that is behind you, you will get flare. 
I do agree with you "some" amateurs will be happy with it, but even for them it is too expensive and IQ is bad.
I'd rather buy 2-3 fixed focal length lens by Canon and be happy instead of using the Tamron.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 16, 2012)

dwarf said:


> You can't get rid of the mustache/wavy distortion with any program. It's there forever.



This is the first time I read about this distortion, and I've read all tests out there I could find). Is this your personal experience w/ one sample, or can you please give a source where the lens was tested with this result so I can read on?


----------



## dwarf (Aug 19, 2012)

I am surprised the hear that you haven't heard of mustache distortion so far.. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)
Every web site like, photozone, dpreview, kenrockwell etc etc mention it if the lens has that kind of distortion...
You can see in the images of the brick wall i provided.
Happy reading


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 19, 2012)

dwarf said:


> Happy reading



You misunderstood me: I *know* what a distortion is, I just didn't read any *review* that says the lens has a problem with it. Dpreview & KR have no review yet, Photozone: "At 24 mm the lens shows a heavy amount of barrel distortion (~3.8%), which flips over to a slight pincushion type (~0.8%) at 70mm. In the middle range the distortions are marginal. "

Of course there a dozens and dozens of user reviews out there - but given the poor Tamron quality control many people "test" a bad sample and generalize their findings. I'd rather rely on a professional reviewer who replaces a lens if he discovers unexpected problems. Btw, even a moustache distortion could be corrected with the correct lens profile, it's just a question how much quality is lost.


----------



## candyman (Aug 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dwarf said:
> 
> 
> > Happy reading
> ...




I think Dwarf is referring to :
http://www.lenstip.com/340.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_24-70_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 19, 2012)

candyman said:


> I think Dwarf is referring to :
> http://www.lenstip.com/340.11-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_24-70_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html



I see - but I think this review is a good example of a test of a Tamron lens with qc issues because the verdict is "Tamron loses in many categories (like resolution in the frame centre [...]" which is the *exact* opposite of what every other review is saying: The main advantage of the Tamron is supposed to be its sharpness in the center with massive falloff even in mid-frame! So I think that explains the "moustace" distortion, too, but still getting a good Tamron seems to be like winning the lottery.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 22, 2012)

Sorry Bvukich, but the general consensus by non-Canon fan boys (ie Independent Testers), the 5D3 got it's a$$ handed to it by Nikon. 

Canon needs a real winner, and soon.
[/quote]
Until 2 weeks ago I had the Nikon D700, Canon 7D (sold both to buy 5D MK III).
I almost bought the D800 until I took a few shots at the store at ISO 1600 & ISO 3200, then I also held the 5D MK III and did the same ... my conclusion is that Nikon D800 5cuks cow ni9ples at ISO 800 and above ... yes the D800 is AWESOME at ISO 100 in a controlled lighting environment but NOT in all lighting situations. 
For photographers like me an affordable all-rounder full frame DSLR is more useful then the awesomeness of megapixels at low ISO. 
During video recording I use Samsung 128GB Series 7 Slate 11.6" Tablet PC (running on Win 7 & Canon EOS Utility) tethered to my DSLR as my touch screen live view / field monitor ... and I've made several videos for my company with this setup. To have the same set up with Nikon I have to shell out extra money for their software.
Contrary to most uninformed buyers (in terms of video performance) Nikon D800e (which sells for US$3300) is closer to 5D MK III (yet D800 falls short of 5d MK III's video performance) ... also Nikon does not give any software similar to Canon's EOS utility for free (instead one has to shell out US$ 135 to get Nikon software) ... so for someone like me the price difference between D800e and 5D MK III is only US$65 .... I am glad I bought 5D MK III at $65 more than D800 and got better video performance and an all round camera that works amazingly well at incredibly high ISO. Another thing that most people (who make purchase decisions on price alone) do not consider is that Nikon glass is much more expensive than the equivalent Canon glass (so whatever price advantage they thought they got from D800 over 5D MKIII, they quickly lose that in the Nikon lenses ... in the end you realize that both cameras, eventually, cost the same). 
For me Canon already has a real Winner in 5D MK III 
For studio photographers or those who always use tripods, yes there is no equal to Nikon D800 at that price range and it knocks the socks off 5D MK III. But I am not a studio photographer and for my needs I have a real winner in 5D MK III.


----------



## BrianMichael (Feb 12, 2013)

I'm totally sold on the Tamron 24-70mm with VC over the Canon..

Canon is said to be a lil sharper.. But not worth $1000 more.. Plus.. A lot of what I do is in low light no flash.. I need to shoot on lower shutter speeds while shooting hand held.. The vibration compensation of the Tamron sells it for me.. Way to go Tamron for stepping it up as a third party company..

If we were speaking about 70-200mm I'll be a canon fanboy


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2013)

BrianMichael said:


> Canon is said to be a lil sharper.. But not worth $1000 more.. Plus..



The Canon is more "worth it" if corner sharpness is paramount or often really shooting @f2.8 - but if the general style is to shoot @f4+ for increased dof and only for available light emergencies wide open then the Tamron with vc and 6 year warranty has a strong case - if you can get a good copy.

Yes, there is one report of a lens element coming loose and if I'd be a full time pro on heavy duty shooting the build quality might favor the Canon, but currently that won't hinder me from getting the Tamron.


----------

