# The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 13, 2013)

After difficulty in getting a lens that did not have problems, they finally got one from Tamron (Not Retail) that was good.

This is worrisome, if the only way they could get one that met specs was to get it from Tamron. My dealer told me to avoid it, apparently his customers had similar issues.


At any rate, here is the review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This is worrisome, if the only way they could get one that met specs was to get it from Tamron. My dealer told me to avoid it, apparently his customers had similar issues.



Thanks for the link - I recently saw even Amazon Germany temporarily stopped delivering this lens since "the product didn't meet the specs" (whatever this means...). 

I'm still planing to get this lens since I don't use servo af a lot, but only from a brick and mortar store where I can replace it until I end up with a good copy... as did the reviewer, maybe a "golden sample"?



> In the mid focal lengths at f/2.8, the Canon 24-70 L II has the image quality edge over the Tamron 24-70 VC, but the differences are not dramatic. At f/4, those differences become harder to see. The Canon has less barrel distortion at 24mm and has better bokeh. The Tamron has slightly less flare at the long end of the focal length range. The Tamron has more CA at 24mm, but less at 70mm.



I also disagree with the reviewer predicting "You are probably buying an f/2.8 lens to use at f/2.8 a considerable percentage of the time." - it's for use when you need it, for other shots more dof is a good thing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > This is worrisome, if the only way they could get one that met specs was to get it from Tamron. My dealer told me to avoid it, apparently his customers had similar issues.
> ...


I would not buy it to use at f/8, I bought my 24-70mmL MK II to use at f/2.8, and if it could f/1.4, I'd use it there as well. Obviously, not every shot would be f/2.8, but 70% or more will be (for me).


----------



## infared (May 14, 2013)

After seeing this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market. I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....


----------



## smithy (May 14, 2013)

After reading this review, it's off my shopping list.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 14, 2013)

infared said:


> After seeing this:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
> How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market. I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....


 
Sometimes assembly problems are batch related, and every manufacturer has them. Klaus at Photozone did not have issues, and he is very tough on rating lenses.

Unless there is a general consensus that the lenses have problems, it might be just a bad batch. It is something to be aware of, and to watch for if you buy one, but not yet a reason to avoid them. The only company where I've had consistent issues with lenses is Sigma, so I no longer buy them.


----------



## ddl (May 14, 2013)

My Tamron 24-70VC went back after the AF got spastic.

I got a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II - haven't missed the VC (IS) yet but definitely appreciate the noticeably faster AF.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 14, 2013)

a good review as usual i'm a bit disappointed the 24-70 mk1 wasnt in the mix for comparison to put it all in context with that lens that so many are familiar with


----------



## smithy (May 14, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> a good review as usual i'm a bit disappointed the 24-70 mk1 wasnt in the mix for comparison to put it all in context with that lens that so many are familiar with


Yeah Wombat, we both have similar gear and I felt the same way!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2013)

infared said:


> How could anyone consider one of these lenses?



Because it has *IS*, you get *two* Tamron for one Canon, the Tamron has *6* years warranty and good service (like free lens-body adjustment, though of course w/o CPS). 

Agreed, for a full-time pro the 5d3 the Canon with better build quality makes sense, but for the rest of us it's a choice between the Canon and a Tamron + some stellar prime like the Sigma 35mm


----------



## smithy (May 14, 2013)

I agree with your sentiments about price+warranty+IS, Marsu, but when a reviewer has to purchase two retail lenses, then have one of them replaced by Tamron (bringing the tally up to 3 lenses) in order to get one that focuses properly - I don't like those odds.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2013)

smithy said:


> I don't like those odds.



Me neither, but the simple fact is that 3rd party manufacturers seem to save on qc (thus bringing the price down), but Tamron at least has good and free service - they do free lens adjustments and replaced lots of lenses for free when the first batch had problems with the new 6d. So it's up to you to be smart, don't order it online but buy it somewhere where you can return it.


----------



## babiesphotos.ca (May 14, 2013)

infared said:


> After seeing this:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
> How could anyone consider one of these lenses? The company blatantly showed us who they are by bringing these lenses to market. I spent the money (which was dear), for the Canon and never looked back. Great lens that most likely will last for years. If I see the name Tamron I just turn the page...I would not consider any of their products....I also own non-Canon lenses (Sigma & Zeiss) so my outlook is not just Canon fanboy ism....



Please see this:

On November 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Jasmin Robert said:

Hi Roger!

Any new problem with this lens? Any others which has failed in the mean time? How does the one repaired hold up now, are they sharp?

I would like to buy this lens but I’m not sure since reading this report, and now that the Canon 24-70mm F/4 has been announced with the macro mode, I’m even less sure! thanks!

On November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:

Hi Jasmin,

No new trouble and no more copies to have the second element problem. It’s really doing pretty well, and quite a nice lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 14, 2013)

Even though I own the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, I would buy the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, again, without any hesitation (that is if I can afford it) ... and although I always refer to Digital Picture reviews for all my Canon lenses, I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses ... I wonder if they are just jinxed with all their third party lenses or ... ? :-\


----------



## J.R. (May 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses



That's the whole problem with the third party lenses with too many bad copies. Reportedly, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is the only exception. 

To be frank the only reason I've not got the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is that it is not yet available in a brick and mortar store where I live. I've had too many bad experiences with third party lenses and never buy them if they cannot be returned if I don't like them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Even though I own the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, I would buy the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, again, without any hesitation (that is if I can afford it) ... and although I always refer to Digital Picture reviews for all my Canon lenses, I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses ... I wonder if they are just jinxed with all their third party lenses or ... ? :-\



Try reading the Canon 24-70/2.8L II review and see how many copies he had to test. It's not only 3rd party lenses, but usually 3rd party lenses. The Sigma 35/1.4 is the only one that interests me, but I'm sure Canon will bring their MkII shortly with better IQ and weather sealing.


----------



## bholliman (May 14, 2013)

I was seriously considering buying this lens, debating between it and the Canon 24-70 2.8 II. But, this review along with experience of others with bad copes has made rule out buying the Tamron. 

The copy Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) tested was very good and Dustin Abbot 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.0 has a very good copy.

However, TDP had to go through 3 lenses before getting a good one. A friend of mine who is a professional wedding photographer purchased one from B&H. He has received and returned 4 lenses and still has not received a decent copy. All had AF issues and the others were sharp on one side and soft on the other. Once lens front focused badly and was not correctable at AFMA +20. Sounds like Tamron has some serious QA issues...

Personally, I don't want to go through the hassle of trying to find a good copy. I could get lucky, but evidence says the odds are against it.


----------



## sdsr (May 14, 2013)

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else). People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience. Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems. I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

For my part (largely worthless though this information is), I've used two copies, one via lensrentals and one I bought from amazon. Both performed exactly as they should (I ended up returning the one I bought because it had no relevant advantage for me over my 24-105).


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2013)

Is it a way to check if a lens is decentered with Focal?


----------



## infared (May 15, 2013)

babiesphotos said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > After seeing this:
> ...



That's great...but the reviewer at The Digital Picture just purchased TWO unacceptable lenses and sent the lens in to Tamron for a repair and had the lens returned unrepaired.?...reinforcing the bad experience that Roger had with lens elements falling out. I have been shooting for well over 40 years....I have never heard of that kind of failure for a Lens in that price range. (There may be other incidence of elements falling out, but I am unaware of any).
Each of us can make our own decisions..I have stated mine and backed it with supporting info as to my choice. Everyone is free to make their individual choice, as well. If we take in all the evidence here and read some of the experiences in the post above, purchasing this lens seems very risky to this photographer.
I have to say I purchased a great copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and am very happy even at the high cost.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 15, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.



3rd party manufacturers like Tamron are at the disadvantage because they have to fight a bad reputation, esp. if releasing a quality lens like the 24-70/2.8. If a Tamron breaks, surely the cheap quality is to be blamed, if a Canon breaks it's really, really bad luck and could happen to anyone.


----------



## Ladislav (May 15, 2013)

I have this lens. My experience is full of contradictions. 

I purchased this lens in February based on reviews when I owned only 650D with kit lens 18-135 IS STM (Rebel T4i). I wanted a standard zoom to slowly prepare for purchase of 6D. Initial experience was excellent. Better image quality, better colors, better DOF ... Two weeks after the purchase I noticed that my battery in the camera gets discharging even when the camera was turned off. I found that this was a common issue of the first generation when used with newer Canon bodies (650D and 6D). I took the lens back to retailer and I made a serious mistake. I let them to repair the lens because I wanted to keep it instead of requiring money back. Retailer first didn't want to believe that such problem is even possible but I referenced several reports from Internet. It took 4 weeks to get my lens back. It was "repaired" in local service center. Repair report scared me - VC was replaced and CPU reprogrammed but the issue disappeared.

I used the lens with my 650D quite happily since that. Some of my images had a really bad focus but I thought it was my mistake (I started with photography in November 2012). Two weeks ago I bought 6D. While it make my 70-300L even much better lens than it was with 650D it also made Tamron completely useless with aperture less than 5.6 or 8 (depending on distance). My Tamron has a terrible back focus on the longer end. When I made a test myself it had 10-12 cm back focus when shoting from 1.5m distance wide open. FoCal was not able to fix this issue. It predicted that necessary AFMA setting would be at least -36. 

I don't understand how could I not notice this on 650D. Somehow I believe that it is not pure back focus issue because in such case all of my photos taken with 650D wide open would have to be out of focus but only some of them really are. It looks like a serious AF inconsistency. I took the lens to service center on Monday. I skipped the retailer to make this quicker. When I saw the service center (the only one authorized for warranty Tamron repairs in my country) it just made my frustration bigger. Somehow I don't trust them and I really don't believe that they are able to make any serious repairs of such complicated thing correctly (understand reliably in the long term). I will see. I'm also very curious if they can fix the problem in claimed "3 days" promoted in the whole Europe.

While I still believe that this can be a wonderful lens my copy is definitely not that one and I don't believe that just fixes in local service center will change that. I live in a small country where only few Tamron lenses are sold and the support is equivalent to the size of the market. It also means that available lenses are probably all from the first bad series. I know another owner who uses this lens on 5DII and he also complains problems with inconsistent focus.

My another problem is with VC. I'm not able to get what is claimed in tech specs. 3 stops? No way. My real world experience is 1/30s shutter speed on 70mm to get a sharp image. When I go with 1/20s it will be blurred when 1:1 zoomed. That is more like 1.3 stop but I have similar problem with all my lenses so it can be just in my technique.

My opinion about Tamron is so far: You get what you have paid for. You can get a great lens for a great value if you are ready to suffer initial fight to get a good copy but you must live in the big market handled directly by Tamron because otherwise you can have a hard time to get replacement easily (my case). It is lottery. I personally don't like to be QA/QC, especially if I pay for that.

Canon's MkII costs 105% more in my country and it lacks IS. It is a big price difference but if it saves you from this madness it probably worth the money. I would never admit it before but my problems and big satisfaction with 70-300L (even used!) changed my mind. 

We have a proverb: "I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product". More and more I think if this wasn't the case? I'm deciding to go a hard way and try to use warranty to get my money back because my lens doesn't meet specs. If I get money back, sell 650D and its kit lens, I will need just few hundred bucks more to get Canon's MkII. I will miss VC a lot but it is just only 1.3 stop at the moment. On the other hand I wanted to use money from 650D and kit lens to acquire 100L.

I will see how my lens performs once it is returned from the warranty repair. Somehow the issue described by Roger from LensRentals would make my decision (and warranty claim for money back) much simpler.


----------



## J.R. (May 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.
> ...



Sure, but straight out of the box the lens should function as claimed. Tamron hasn't "earned" the bad reputation for nothing. 

I won't say that I've not had problems with Canon, but the problems with the third party lenses have been (a) more frequent, and (b) are compounded by lack of customer support because (usually) Canon and the third party manufacturer blame each other and refuse to take responsibility for the problem. 

I'm am comfortable giving my lenses and bodies to Canon for calibration ... I'm not too sure about Tamron.


----------



## syder (May 15, 2013)

Bought one from a bricks and mortar store (in case I wanted to exchange copies). Its a fantastic lens. Very sharp, IS works really well. Absolutely no problems so far (and a 5 year warranty if I do)...

I've also used the Canon 24-70 2.8 marks I and II, and I prefer the Tamron to both. While the Canon Mark II is a little sharper, I'm happy to trade a very small amount of sharpness for the benefits of IS (most of my paid work is video, where for anything that isn't on a piece of grip equipment IS is needed). The Canon Mark I is noticably less sharp (there's a bigger difference between the Canon mark I and the Tamron than there is between the Tamron and the Mark II).


----------



## J.R. (May 15, 2013)

dilbert said:


> If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.



Sure. Check the TDP review ... that's exactly what Bryan did, THRICE ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If the 3rd party lens did not work as advertised then it would be a simple matter to return it to the place that you bought it from.
> ...



Not quite. He bought a copy retail (as usual), it was bad, and he exchanged it for a second retail copy, which was decentered. He sent that copy in for service, it came back worse than it went in (how's that for quality service?). He sent it back a second time, and the 'repaired' lens had a new serial number. Anyone want to bet that Tamron _didn't_ hand pick and pre-test that replacement lens?


----------



## J.R. (May 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ok ... if you really want to rub it in ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (May 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



+1, and it still performed poorly in AI Servo.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 15, 2013)

I imagine a few people have wondered when I would weigh in, since many of you have read my review of the lens. First, I did return my first copy of the lens. The IQ was great, but I didn't feel the VC was working within spec. The online retailer I purchased from had no problem with this and had me my new copy within a week. My second copy has been superb. I was worried after that first copy, but am I ever glad that I stayed with it and got that second lens. It is my most used lens, and is an incredibly useful tool that keeps impressing me with great results.

It's interesting to me that everyone here has fixated on Bryan's QC issues (thanks to whomever brought up Roger's update that the newer copies of the lens have been very reliable and that the lens has done well) and few people seem to have noted that the Tamron essentially keeps up with the image quality of the 24-70II - a lens considered to be the finest zoom lens to date. Ummm, that ain't so shabby for a lens that costs half as much and adds a killer feature in the VC. I do find the AF slower than L series USM, and I would agree that it wouldn't be a great sports choice because of that. I have taken thousands of pictures with the lens, though, including a lot of time sensitive event work, and I haven't noticed the inconsistent focus that Bryan reported. I have used the lens on a 60D, 5DMKII, and two 6D bodies. I just shot a golf tournament and business mixer a week ago, and was consistently impressed when I zoomed in 100% in LR and saw all of the shots so beautifully sharp. In fact, I came home from the same event and decided to run AFMA on my 85mm f/1.8 again because I was disappointed on the focus in some of its shots. 

In all fairness, though, I haven't shot a lot in AF Servo mode. I primarily shoot One Shot mode for most of my work. Because of the slightly slower acquisition time of the AF, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't excel in AF Servo mode. You have to consider the style of shooting that you will primarily do.

As far as optical quality, however, Roger's conclusions are that their copies of the Tamron are far more consistent than the MKI of the Canon 24-70.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 15, 2013)

Wide open, 70mm, taken with ambient light in the church I pastor sitting in her mother's lap. This is the kind of results that I am used to getting from this lens:




Timeless by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 15, 2013)

Here's a 100% crop from the image above - this is straight from camera with no PP other conversion from RAW to jpeg.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 15, 2013)

It looks like I won't be getting a 24-70 for awhile now...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 15, 2013)

sdsr said:


> babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else). People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience. Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems. I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.


The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals. It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet. It was a result of a poor design. Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies. 

This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues. They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.


----------



## sdsr (May 15, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else). People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience. Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems. I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.
> ...



I didn't say that initial problem was obscure. As of December, lensrentals reported "no new problems". Perhaps someone who's interested in buying one should ask them for an update.


----------



## aznable (May 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I do wonder about Digital Picture reviews when it comes to third party lenses, bcoz they somehow always seem to get bad copies of their first few third party lenses
> ...



for what i know even the 70-200 os from sigma hasnt too many problems; you can buy from amazon and get a replacement if you dont like


----------



## Ladislav (May 20, 2013)

Ladislav said:


> I have this lens. My experience is full of contradictions.
> 
> I purchased this lens in February based on reviews when I owned only 650D with kit lens 18-135 IS STM (Rebel T4i). I wanted a standard zoom to slowly prepare for purchase of 6D. Initial experience was excellent. Better image quality, better colors, better DOF ... Two weeks after the purchase I noticed that my battery in the camera gets discharging even when the camera was turned off. I found that this was a common issue of the first generation when used with newer Canon bodies (650D and 6D). I took the lens back to retailer and I made a serious mistake. I let them to repair the lens because I wanted to keep it instead of requiring money back. Retailer first didn't want to believe that such problem is even possible but I referenced several reports from Internet. It took 4 weeks to get my lens back. It was "repaired" in local service center. Repair report scared me - VC was replaced and CPU reprogrammed but the issue disappeared.
> 
> ...



Just to continue my experience ...

I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2013)

Ladislav said:


> I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.



I'd try some FoCal testing at intermediate focal lengths. If AFMA is set to W = 0 and T = -13, the camera will do a simple linear regression to apply AFMA at intermediate focal lengths. So, for example when you're zoomed to 35mm, an AFMA of -3 will be applied, and at 50mm the AFMA will be -7. If those values are far off of what FoCal determines for those intermediate focal lengths, you might consider another try at service. Personally, my Canon 24-70/2.8L II needs W = 0 and T = 5, and the intermediate focal lengths fall right on the regression line. If that wasn't the case, I'd have exchanged the lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > I got the lens back on Thursday (hey really made it within 3 day). I used FoCal on Friday to check AF calibration. It didn't need any AFMA change on wide end but it needed -13 on telephoto end! That a big disappointment. I gave both lens and camera body to service center and they returned me a "calibrated" lens which still needs -13 AFMA which I must do myself. At least this time the required value was within available range. This change increased quality of focus on "calibrated" lens (according to FoCal units) by 100%. My problem copy is not as sharp as Dustin's copy but it is now satisfying for my needs.
> ...


 
I'd also AFMA your Canon lens. It is always possible that the camera is off somewhat.

This is one of the issues a buyer faces with a 3rd party lens. Is it the lens, the camera body, or both. You can't send both to either manufacturer and ask them to make it right, no matter which has the issue.


----------

