# Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Announced



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 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=8777"></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=8777" 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=8777"></a></div>
<strong>February 6th, 2012, Saitama, Japan</strong> － Tamron Co., Ltd., a leading manufacturer of optical equipment, announced the development of the SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007), a full-size high-speed standard zoom lens equipped with VC (Vibration Compensation) image stabilization and USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive), with resolution at the top of its class.</p>
<p>The price and availability of the SP 24-70mm will be announced at a later date.</p>
<p><!--more--><strong>Product Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>A full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in VC ( Vibration Compensation). Even when shooting in low-light conditions with a slow shutter speed to render sharpness, Tamron’s acclaimed VC allows for stable handheld camera work, to more fully enjoy the benefits of this high-speed zoom lens.</li>
<li>Uses special high-grade glass in the three LD elements, three glass molded aspherical lenses, one hybrid aspherical lens and two XR (Extra Refractive Index) glasses, delivering top-of-the-class quality images suited to this high-grade lens. Using a rounded diaphragm, the lens achieves gorgeous blur effects. This rounded diaphragm retains a nearly circular shape even when taken two stops down from its fully open state.</li>
<li>Features Tamron proprietary USD ( Ultrasonic Silent Drive) to power a speedy AF drive together with a continuous manual mechanism.</li>
<li>This high-speed standard zoom lens has a wide-end focal length of 24mm that expands the photographic area.</li>
<li>The lens adopts the new technology including the latest optical design, VC ( Vibration Compensation) image stabilization and USD ( Ultrasonic Silent Drive), all in a lighter and more compact package.</li>
<li>Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent water from penetrating the lens.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 6, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Moisture-resistant construction helps prevent water from penetrating the lens.



Is that Tamron's weather sealing and has it been on any of their lenses before?


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 6, 2012)

A lens I am almost interested in... I like my 24-105 a lot, and use my 30 .14 when it gets really dark. Maybe if I had a 5D, I would get it...


----------



## preppyak (Feb 6, 2012)

smart of them to try and corner the market when all the Canon fans aren't happy the new 24-70 doesn't have IS. Especially if they can come in at a reasonable price (about half the Canon)


----------



## TGM123 (Feb 6, 2012)

Yea, having VC is key. I have heard over and over that the Canon didn't have IS in the 24-70 II because it made the lens too large/heavy. Well, if Tamron comes out even close to the Canon after testing and also having VC and being cheaper, we will see how loyal us Canon users are in this all important focal range. 

Competition is good for everyone.


----------



## Huey (Feb 6, 2012)

I am a proud owner of the "old" version (28-75 f/2.8): apart from the focus ring being a bit "stiff" and the resistance to flare a bit weak, I have nothing to complain about.
Apparently, I was lucky enough to get a good copy, sharpness is ok, autofocus too (no front/back focus), I look forward to the new VC version (I have a 17-55 VC on my Canon 50D, too, and I'm more than satisfied about its price/performance tag).


----------



## blarygake (Feb 6, 2012)

Very excited to see how this lens performs on a Full Frame camera.
I have the 28-75. While it looks amazing on a crop, there's a ton of distortion and blurriness around the edges on a full frame.

Still waiting for somebody to make a 24-75.


----------



## bonedaddy.p7 (Feb 6, 2012)

I find it interesting that they mention that this has some weather sealing (well, moisture sealing). I didn't dig too deep but I don't see that mentioned on any of the other lenses of theirs that I checked. They are also saying that they revised the design of their VC systems and it should be lighter and last longer. it looks to me like they are clearly trying to move towards competing more directly with the L lenses, even if they have a ways to go.


----------



## Nick Gombinsky (Feb 6, 2012)

Tamron with wheather sealing, Tokina with IS... everyone is upping their game... I like that.

If this lens is good, then Tamron only needs to update their 70-200mm f2.8 and they'll be greeting a lot of people to their ship...


----------



## unkbob (Feb 6, 2012)

I hope Sigma makes a 24-70 OS lens. Prefer the Sigma build quality, my Tamron 28-75 is not good in that department. For video, I especially want the focus ring on all my lenses to work in the same direction (clockwise for closer focus) and the Tamron is opposite (like Nikon), whereas Sigma does it like Canon.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 7, 2012)

preppyak said:


> smart of them to try and corner the market when all the Canon fans aren't happy the new 24-70 doesn't have IS. Especially if they can come in at a reasonable price (about half the Canon)



+1. Absolutely. Shame on canon if they really refused to add the IS on the MKII. (we are yet to see, screw rumours, stick to the real thing). 

people want the IS, and applaud to tamron for doing the market research and coming up with this lens. I can see that this will take away sigma's slice of the market as their newest lens do not have IS. And it is pretty expensive. 

shame I already have the canon 24-70 L. My fav lens. I love the L lens build quality so will be sticking to my current one. I hope this will ring warning bells into canon so they make the IS lens.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 7, 2012)

Well, now things are more complicated for me. I own the tammy 17-50 VC for my crop body canon. The image quality is good enough for me, but focusing is slow and noisy.

Lately I have been renting different lenses from a local place here in Houston. The more L lenses I rent, the more impressed I am with the build quality. There really is a huge difference. My 17-50 VC feels like a toy compared to the 24-105 f/4 L. The canon lens just feels way more significant. And the canon USM focus speed is blindingly fast.

So i was trying to choose between the 24-70 L and the 24-105 L. Rented both several times and tried them in various situations. Love the 105mm reach of the 24-105 L, and it also has great IS. But I also love to melt away the backgrounds with the f/2.8 of the 24-70 L. Both are built like a tank and really inspire confidence. It is a tough choice but I was leaning towards the 24-105 L because it is slightly cheaper and I like the extra reach and IS. 

Now the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS has been announced. It solves two out of 3 issues for me (if it proves to have good IQ). It has IS, and it will likely be priced below the 24-105 L. It doesn't have the 105mm, which I absolutely love, but 70mm is getting into pretty decent portrait territory for the way I use lenses. I have heard good things about Tamrons USD system. If it turns out to be anywhere near as good as canon's USM, I would be happy with it. So then all that remains is build quality and that feeling of significance. From what I have seen canon has the market cornered in the aspect. I don't mind carrying the extra weight, it doesn't bother me.

If it is priced in the 700-800 dollar range, I think I would take a chance. Because I could get this and a 100 f/2 and be a pretty happy camper.


----------



## blueridge (Feb 7, 2012)

Amazing...if the name on this lens was Canon, I bet most of our wish lists would be met with these specs! I love competition!!!

[pat]


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 7, 2012)

IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...



You've been campaigning against IS of all things for years for this reason, and it is insane. Some people shoot static subjects in low light hand held, in fact that's most of what I do. Motion blur is only a factor if there is motion. Not only that but you can shoot people easily at 1/20th if they are posing. That's 2 full stops of IS you could benefit from at 70mm. Not only that but people following from the 1 / focal length rule will also benefit because that is still effected by camera shake. That rule was for prints from the film days. You need 1 / 2x focal length with today's high mp cameras. 

So yes for the work I do this lens is very welcome, just because it doesn't benefit you doesn't mean you should hate it.

IS is nessesary for hand held video too.


----------



## AJ (Feb 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...


... and motion blur can be a good thing if it's intentional. If fact it opens up a world of possibilities.







Villagers dancing around the maypole. Portland Parish, Jamaica


----------



## rstyle17 (Feb 18, 2012)

When is the release schedule of this Tamron 24-70 with VC?... Im planning to buy the 28-75mm f2.8 very soon, but after seeing this thread i might wait for this lens. whats the MSRP too?...Thanks!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2012)

AJ said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...
> ...



great shot, love it! Also afully agree with the point you make and demonstrate so well with this picture. 


My opinion:
* IS is always useful, in any lens
* IS is NOT big and heavy see for example the EF 70/200/4 L IS vs. non-IS - same size, just 55grams more weight (on a 760g telezoom)
* IS does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
* IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization
* IS should be standard in all new lenses coming from one of the 2 camera manufacturers that chose not to offer in-body stabilization (Ca/Ni)

I do look forward to seeing reviews of the new Tamron 24-70 VC and to the price of the lens. 
Competition is good!


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Interesting points you put forward. 

With the increased high iso becoming available the requirement for IS is reduced. This is particularly true of the shorter lens where unintentional motion blur becomes more and more likely as shutter times increase. For an example a 24 mm lens shooting at 1/30 doesn't need IS - but will almost inevitably get motion blur. Put 2 stops IS on the lens and low and behold everyone starts shooting at 1/10 or slower - where even IS wont stop handshake translating into motion blur - and hoards of people start complaining about the quality of the image.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > With the increased high iso becoming available the requirement for IS is reduced. This is particularly true of the shorter lens where unintentional motion blur becomes more and more likely as shutter times increase. For an example a 24 mm lens shooting at 1/30 doesn't need IS - but will almost inevitably get motion blur. Put 2 stops IS on the lens and low and behold everyone starts shooting at 1/10 or slower - where even IS wont stop handshake translating into motion blur - and hoards of people start complaining about the quality of the image.
> ...



On my 5DII I stick to the basic rule which is the next stop faster than the focal length. For example the 135 f/2 at 1/200 gives sharp every time.

I think everyone is aware of the benefit of IS for longer lens - the issue being disussed is when IS falls down on short lens where handshake looks like motion blur. This is presumably why Canon didn't include IS on wa.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I think everyone is aware of the benefit of IS for longer lens - the issue being disussed is when IS falls down on short lens where handshake looks like motion blur. This is presumably why Canon didn't include IS on wa.



what motion blur? Presumably 99% of all images shot with the newly announced EF 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS will be stativ content ... landscape etc. There is no motion blur in static scenes. 

Canon put IS into those 2 wide-angle lenses for exactly the reason Dilbert has given: 



dilbert said:


> Factor in to that the pixel size and that smaller pixels typically require either a faster shutter or a more steady picture on the sensor.
> 
> IS is required to offset the increase in MP density.



And for the very same reason it is a crying shame that Canon did not also put IS into the new 24-70L II.


----------



## japhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I still can't understand your reluctance towards image stabilization systems.

Again you make the argument about motion blur and yes, you're correct, IS doesn't help with that. Guess what though, some of us don't have to worry about that because we don't shoot moving subjects and for us IS is nothing but good.

I went to the Helsinki Boat Show a few days ago and I have one frame from that whole day of a subject that can move. That subject is a photo of my dad who was with me, asked him to stay still for a while and took the photo. 7D, 24-105L (borrowed my moms lens for the day instead of my own 24-70L because it doesn't have IS), @24mm, ISO320, f/4 which gave me 1/13s shutter speed. The photo is sharp at 1:1 which would have been a struggle with my 24-70 even with 1 stop faster at f/2.8.

The slowest shot of the day was at @55mm, ISO640, f/4 which resulted in 1/5s shutter speed and yes, the photo is perfectly sharp.

One could probably argue that I could push the ISO up from 640, but I don't like the results of the 7D even at that ISO let alone higher. Increased high ISO is available like you said, but at a cost. What I mean is that I'd rather invest in lenses than in a new camera body every time one comes out. And on top of that the results might be good and getting better at high ISOs, but I'd still try to take the photo at lowest possible ISO because I don't like noise at all.

I guess it's down to what you shoot, but arguing that IS in shorter focal lengths is useless because you shoot only moving subjects really doesn't apply to all photographers. Including me.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

japhoto said:


> I still can't understand your reluctance towards image stabilization systems.
> 
> Again you make the argument about motion blur and yes, you're correct, IS doesn't help with that. Guess what though, some of us don't have to worry about that because we don't shoot moving subjects and for us IS is nothing but good.
> 
> ...



I have no aversion to IS lens. Most of my lens have IS

I am saying that for low shutter speeds hand movement will not be counteracted by the IS. Therefore you will get motion blur from handmovement - irrespective of whether the subject is moving or not.

If you are trying to get the lowest possible ISO then support the camera on a tripod, monopod, beanbag or whatever and then you can always shoot at iso100. If the camera is supported then you will have to turn off the IS to get the sharpest picture

IS is not the golden bullet for sharp pictures especially when used with wa lens pushing the IS to the limit.


----------



## japhoto (Feb 18, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> japhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't understand your reluctance towards image stabilization systems.
> ...



I did understand your "handshake" argument wrong in the earlier message, so you meant the movement caused by the photographer, right?

In that case, sure, there is a limit where even IS doesn't cut it anymore, but isn't hand movement (and other vibrations etc.) of a photographer just the thing IS is meant to counteract?

So what would have been the alternative in my example case if I wanted to keep f/4 for the DOF, but use the 24-70L instead. So I was at 1/5s @ ISO640, 1/10s @ ISO1250, 1/20s @ ISO2500 and 1/40 @ ISO5000 so even at ISO5000 which is nothing but useless when it comes to IQ I still wouldn't be even at 1/focal length (which was 55mm). I can't see how IS wasn't useful during this trip.

If I'm shooting for a purpose, at the studio or in the nature with a print in mind, I'll surely use a tripod, but when I just want to cover an event like this, there just isn't space, time or patience to be screwing around with a tripod. Monopod maybe, but I've tried a few and didn't like them too much.

IS is never a "golden bullet" like you said, but I can't argue with the results from this trip (or any other trip for that matter). For the time I used the 24-105L I shot pretty much with all focal lengths, never went over ISO640 and almost all shots were under the 1/focal length rule and still almost all of them were sharp at 1:1. A few I had to bin but I knew that even when I was shooting so I took a few extra photos of the most difficult subjects. That means camera shake because I was shooting from a weird position etc.

For full frame cameras the wide end of the 24-70L (II) is in fact wide, but not superwide. The tele end at 70mm isn't "that long", but a no-brainer for me to want IS on such a focal length. When coupled with a crop camera it becomes effectively much longer and add to that a high-resolution sensor which needs more than 1x1.6/focal length to get sharp images so yes, I do think IS would be useful feature. Same goes without a doubt if they bring out a full frame camera to compete with the 36Mp of the D800. 1/fl rule probably goes out the window at that point even for FF shooters.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 18, 2012)

japhoto said:


> In that case, sure, there is a limit where even IS doesn't cut it anymore, but isn't hand movement (and other vibrations etc.) of a photographer just the thing IS is meant to counteract?



When you do panning the movement of the photographer blurs the background. When the shutter speed gets slower then hand movement will be like a small panning action and will take the sharpness off the image to the point where it looks blurred. IS doesn't stop panning blur



japhoto said:


> So what would have been the alternative in my example case if I wanted to keep f/4 for the DOF, but use the 24-70L instead. So I was at 1/5s @ ISO640, 1/10s @ ISO1250, 1/20s @ ISO2500 and 1/40 @ ISO5000 so even at ISO5000 which is nothing but useless when it comes to IQ I still wouldn't be even at 1/focal length (which was 55mm). I can't see how IS wasn't useful during this trip.
> 
> If I'm shooting for a purpose, at the studio or in the nature with a print in mind, I'll surely use a tripod, but when I just want to cover an event like this, there just isn't space, time or patience to be screwing around with a tripod. Monopod maybe, but I've tried a few and didn't like them too much.
> 
> ...



The secret to sharp pictures is to keep the shutter speed as fast as possible. There are two factors that impact shutter speed:

- iso setting
- aperture

Most cameras have a 'natural' iso limit - the point where the picture can be relied on to be acceptable, after that point it is down to luck and pp skills. When you double the iso, shutter speed is also doubled to get the same exposure.

In my experience the natural limits are that 1d4 is good to iso6400, 5DII to iso 3200, 7D to 1600, 40D and 50d to 800.

Aperture is straight forward too, for each stop twice the amount of light passes through the lens for a given shutter speed. So f/2.8 has twice the throughput oflight of f/4, f/2 twice that of f/2.8. Shutter speed is halved for each stop in the aperture - ie The shutter speed at f/4 would be halved if the aperture was f/2.8 to keep the same exposure.

If the light is poor and you have not enough iso nor enough aperture to get a reliable picture then flash is the way to add extra liight to improve the picture IQ. A 580EX gives an astonishing amount of light. 

IS is a useful tool - but IMHO not for the uwa - and that is probably why the most wa with IS is the 24-105 for ff/1.3 users and 17-55mm for 1.6 users.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 19, 2012)

yes, IS also has its limits. 

But the bottom line is: IS never hurts but usually helps. If implemented right by the lens manufacturer, IS does notadd a lot of weight to a lens, IS does not add a lot of size of a lens (if any), IS does not cost optical performance and at worst, IS accounts for a guesstimated 10% of any lens'manufacturing costs.

Canon and Nikon as the only 2 camera manufacturers having foregone in-body stabilization tehrefore should supply ANY new lens with IS/VR without huge additional charge to the customers. Only exceptions being tilt-shifts, fisheyes and possible other exotic lens designs. 

Luckily Tamron is entering the ring with their 24-70 VC. I really hope it is very good otpically and comes with a very compoetitive price tag. That will teach Canon to do it right.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm more interested to see Sigma release a new one with IS

Been burnt by tamron build quality before so not really keen to go in for round 2

as for IS

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it


----------



## fernando (Mar 2, 2012)

Sample pic:






*Late March 2012 release date
*Less than $1400

Source: http://www.photoreview.com.au/news/productnews/tamron-unveils-2470mm-lens.aspx


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


problem is that argument was fine until they released a bunch of slow expensive WA primes with IS


----------



## dadgummit (Mar 19, 2012)

fernando said:


> Sample pic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmmmm Tamron is one of the brands that heavilly discounts their lenses from the MSRP. If this lens is as good as their 70-300 VC this could be a winner. With rebates I would not be surprised to see it in the sub-$1100 range which would make it a great deal compared to Canon's $2300 Non IS version.


----------



## unkbob (Mar 19, 2012)

Give me a Sigma OS version! Pretty please


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 20, 2012)

unkbob said:


> Give me a Sigma OS version! Pretty please


Ditto I've been burnt by tamron once I dont think i could do it again but sigmas new lenses are really stepping up


----------



## new-z (Mar 29, 2012)

when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
- Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
- Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM


Canon EOS 450D - Canon EF 70-200 L 2.8 - Canon 50 1.4
www.new-z.fr
www.premierephoto.net


----------



## Chewngum (Apr 3, 2012)

It has an Aussie street pprice and looks to maybe be available.
http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/tamron/di_lenses/tamron_sp_24-70mm_f28_di_vc_usd_lens_-_canon
You saw it here first!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...




+1...can't wait to see what this lens can do


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 3, 2012)

Really interested in this lens. A girl I've sort of been dating does a lot of birthday parties in hideous, hideous light. She isn't very strong and a 5D2 + 24-70 + 580EX II is actually a lot for her to handle for a couple of hours. I know that for all of us he-men, slinging that around is nothing, but when you don't have a lot of strength, camera shake becomes a problem.

So... I just don't get why anyone would be against IS. I really don't. Maybe YOU don't need it, but there is a lot of insinuation that you must be some kind of crappy photographer to want it. Sorry, but my girl isn't a crappy photographer; in fact, she's a fantastic photographer. She just has a model's build and she could use a little IS in low light to keep from having to throw out a lot of blurry photos.

Can't wait to see the reviews.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 7, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> * IS does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
> * IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization



As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.

As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.

Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.

Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.
> 
> As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.
> 
> ...



I agree. I'm not one to bemoan the price of the new 24-70mm. I simply won't be a customer for it, a) because I don't need it and b) because I couldn't possibly justify spending that kind of money on it even if I could afford it. I'm sure the vast majority of Canon users share this view.

As for having no IS, I can't help thinking that Canon has got itself in a real marketing mess with the launches of the two new wide-angle IS primes. After all, who in their right mind would be shelling out £800 each for these primes if the new 24-70mm, with its promised image quality, also had IS?

Actually, who in their right mind will shell out £800 each for these primes in any case? Canon's relentless climb up the price curve is leaving an ever-increasing void in the market which Sigma and Tamron between them will quickly fill. I doubt we will have to wait too long before Sigma launches similar (and probably faster) wide-angle OS primes at half the price. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 9, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> As for having no IS, I can't help thinking that Canon has got itself in a real marketing mess with the launches of the two new wide-angle IS primes. After all, who in their right mind would be shelling out £800 each for these primes if the new 24-70mm, with its promised image quality, also had IS?
> 
> Actually, who in their right mind will shell out £800 each for these primes in any case? Canon's relentless climb up the price curve is leaving an ever-increasing void in the market which Sigma and Tamron between them will quickly fill. I doubt we will have to wait too long before Sigma launches similar (and probably faster) wide-angle OS primes at half the price. I'm looking forward to it.



My guess is that Canon is targetting different markets with these releases, the new 24-70 is going to be bought by either pro's or high end amatures who likely preffer the very best optical performance and using a tripod to IS. The primes seem to be aimed at a lower end users, users who want to work light without a tripod or heavy zoom and the video market, to these people IS likely makes more sense.

It does seem to bit strange that all of these lenses have come out at the same time as two new FF bodies that havent pushed MP to me though since they all seem best suited to landscape use with there improved(if Canon's charts are right anyway) boarder performance.

If Canon do put out a 30 MP+ body then I'd guess that optics are going to become an even more key battleground than they are now.


----------



## ruuneos (Apr 9, 2012)

new-z said:


> when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
> - Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
> - Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
> - Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
> - Sigma 24-70 DG EX HSM


I'm pretty sure that we are going to see that battle at DigitalRev!


----------



## Chewngum (Jun 3, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> new-z said:
> 
> 
> > when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
> ...


Look up "thatnikonguy" on youtube, he has down a reasonably extensive though non scientific comparison of most of these. I bought the tamron 24-70 2.8 VC last week, one of very few in AUS. I returned it due to it being a soft copy but some other stuff i noticed: 
1. The VC has an activation delay. On my 24-105L the IS started as soon as i pressed the shutter, on the tamron it seems to not respond for a little under a second and then start working.
2. The vignetting is a non issue in the field.
3. The build is solid though only slightly less so than the canon 24-70 mkI
4. The AF is quick enough for anythign short of fast paced sport 1m from the camera.
5. The weight feels right on my gripped 5d, good balance.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> new-z said:
> 
> 
> > when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
> ...



cant wait for that video!

i also hope sigma bring out a 24-70 OS that follows the build and quality of the 85 f1.4


----------



## drjlo (Jun 13, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i also hope sigma bring out a 24-70 OS that follows the build and quality of the 85 f1.4



Now THAT would be something, and hopefully NO AF issues with Canon.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 15, 2012)

new-z said:


> when this lens will be available, I hope to find a completed test which will compare theses standard zooms
> - Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM
> - Canon 24-70 L 2.8 USM II
> - Tamron 24-70 L SP 2.8 VC
> ...



"That Nikon Guy" on youtube has part of what you want, a Canon 24-70 L vs Tamron 24-70 VC comparison. Very in depth.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 16, 2012)

Yes, but also very amateur-like 
I would also like to see some tests made with a stricter scientific approach. 

Anyway, the idea I have made myself til now is: the Tamron is a tad better than the Canon MK1 (especially wide open), plus it has VC and it's cheaper. A clear winner here.
The Sigma is nice as well, very similar to the Canon in optical performance, although the Canon responds better to stopping down. The Sigma is the cheapest, but it's plagued by an awful bokeh. Tamron's bokeh is ok, but Canon's is still the best.

All in all, this Tamron lens seems a very smart purchase.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 29, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> "That Nikon Guy" on youtube has part of what you want, a Canon 24-70 L vs Tamron 24-70 VC comparison. Very in depth.



... though one doesn't necessarily has to agree with nikonguy's conclusion, nice videos, but he's very amateurish, I agre with Albi86 on that. Don't miss his bonus video "how to shoot a model"  

Esp. him saying that the vc is great for handheld video - I could not second to that, because while the frame is more stable, it jumps around like with any IS, no substitute for stabilization gear. And he only tries very few "walk in the park" situations, so every potential Tamron buyer has to figure out how much the "onion" bokeh concerns his/her shots.


----------

