# Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder



## infared (Apr 5, 2012)

Anyone seen any reviews of this lens???? The only reason I am looking into it...( I own no Tamron products)...is because of the delay of the CAnon 24-70 f/2.8 II.....(which, truly I know I will wait for...LOL!)...but I just wanted to see what reviewers thought of the Tamron lens...I am guessing the usual caveats....I doubt it will give the new Canon a run for it's money in the IQ dept., which is all that really matters to me.


----------



## THX723 (Apr 5, 2012)

I think you just answered your own questions there at the end. I tend to think the more relevant question is how will it compare to Canon's Mk1 lens, since they are nearly the same price.


----------



## infared (Apr 5, 2012)

THX723 said:


> I think you just answered your own questions there at the end. I tend to think the more relevant question is how will it compare to Canon's Mk1 lens, since they are nearly the same price.



LOL!....I know? :-(


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 5, 2012)

Looking at the pictures, it appears that, *yet again*, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L? 

This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?


----------



## lol (Apr 5, 2012)

The backwards zoom was an instant deal breaker for me too. At least Sigma are a bit better, they do get it right on some but not all lenses. Puts me off the 8-16 though that I'd now rather get the Canon fisheye zoom instead of it.

Anyway, I can kinda see Tamron's view though. Bear in mind they're part owned by Sony who also turn the other way. That is by default their standard, and Nikon users wouldn't complain either. Guess they're not big enough to consider designing the two versions of mechanics to allow it to go the right way for the system.


----------



## brianwallace21 (Apr 5, 2012)

I own and use lenses from all three vendors (Canon, Sigma, Tamron) and usually turn the wrong way once before I remember that I switched lenses - I guess I don't see it as that big of a deal. 

Personally I cannot wait for this lens - I am so hopeful that the reviews are good because if they are my 24-105 f/4L is going up for sale so I can pick up this lens.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 5, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Looking at the pictures, it appears that, *yet again*, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L?
> 
> This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?



Who cares as long as it has stunning image quality? This is going to be Tamron's biggest issue by far. Every single one of their lenses, except for the 18-270mm & 60mm Macro, has performance that matches Canon lenses from the late 80's to early 90's for a price that's usually not much lower than the current ones. Some of their lenses besides the 18-270mm and 60mm are decent, yes BUT so were Canon's equivalent lenses from the 80's. Their lenses perform decently on paper but if you look at any comparisons on the-digital-picture.com they have extreme issues with hazing and soft corners, often to the point of being comically terrible. 

The focus and zoom rings could be made of paper mache if the image quality is decent and it would still be a major acheivement as a lens and a major acheivement for Tamron. We'll have to see.


----------



## infared (Apr 5, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Looking at the pictures, it appears that, *yet again*, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L?
> 
> This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?



WOW! Thanks ...I love this site...I did not know that ...definite no for me right there.... I have an MFT lens that zooms backwards .... it so puts me off...the lens is sooo small and light with long reach that I decided to keep it...
but I agree with you...I am not including a backwards zoom in my FF kit....NO WAY!!!!!


----------



## AJ (Apr 5, 2012)

No no no.

Canons zoom in the wrong direction. Nikons and Tamrons zoom correctly.

And yes you British and Aussies and Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road


----------



## infared (Apr 5, 2012)

AJ said:


> No no no.
> 
> Canons zoom in the wrong direction. Nikons and Tamrons zoom correctly.
> 
> And yes you British and Aussies and Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road



......but...but....YOU can't say that on a Canon Rumors Blog Site....?????????? LOL!
Maybe if you are in the Southern Hemisphere Nikons and Tamrons Zoom in the PROPER direction!?!?
...but I think the IQ is not that great in either hemisphere! :-X


----------



## bdeutsch (Apr 5, 2012)

Has anyone seen any (pre)-reviews yet? Seems hard to believe anyone is pre-ordering it based solely on specs without seeing any reviews or tests?


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos


----------



## AJ (Apr 5, 2012)

infared said:


> Maybe if you are in the Southern Hemisphere Nikons and Tamrons Zoom in the PROPER direction!?!?



lol!


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

Does anyone know if MTF charts are available for this lens yet?

I like the price and the VC but it will have to be sharper in the corners with less distortion than the 24-70L I to attract many/ if-any canon users.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 6, 2012)

dadgummit said:


> Does anyone know if MTF charts are available for this lens yet?
> 
> I like the price and the VC but it will have to be sharper in the corners with less distortion than the 24-70L I to attract many/ if-any canon users.



Ask and ye shall receive! 

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/2470_vcusd_a007.asp


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 6, 2012)

That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.


----------



## Wild (Apr 6, 2012)

Comparing the MTF charts from the Tamron to the 24-70L I it looks like the Canon is going to have better sharpness. And for nearly the same price, I'd take the robustness of the Canon over the IS and future compatibility issues of the Tamron.


----------



## dunkers (Apr 6, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.



Not if you compare it to the mark 1.....

If the Tammy is sharper than the mark 1, then I'm more inclined to get it over the II. Sure I lose build quality, but I want that VC


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 6, 2012)

One area where this lens is sure to shine is in terms of bokeh. To my eye the meridonial and sagital lines are extremely close together across focal lengths and from center to edge. Looks like in terms of sharpness it loses out handily to the Canon L v2, but it beats it in terms of bokeh.

It does have nine blades. You might not be able to see the contents of your model's every pore edge to edge, but it should make for some fairly pleasing portraits.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 6, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Who cares as long as it has stunning image quality? This is going to be Tamron's biggest issue by far. Every single one of their lenses, except for the 18-270mm & 60mm Macro, has performance that matches Canon lenses from the late 80's to early 90's for a price that's usually not much lower than the current ones.



You forgot the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC version that optically perform comparably to the EF-S 17-55/2.8 USM IS (i.e. excellent) for a fraction of the price.



Stephen Melvin said:


> That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.





Wild said:


> Comparing the MTF charts from the Tamron to the 24-70L I it looks like the Canon is going to have better sharpness.



Whaaat? I don't know how *you* read the MTF charts, but looking at the ones provided by dilbert (thanks), wide open the Tamron will generally be similar or superior to be mark I (in particular in the corners and at 70mm). The bokeh is also poised to be great (as smirkypants pointed out), but we will have to wait for actual samples to be definitive.

If there are no AF issues, with VC I'd say we have a clear winner here (compared to the mark I). Compared to the mark II the story is different, but I could still see the Tamron be attractive, not the least because of the price and the VC. If build quality or the zoom/focus ring directions are of critical importance, then no, the Canon will clearly be the lens for you.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 6, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.



Especially compared to the II from Canon... Though some people have been clamouring for IS... Though not sure is IS is all that great if the image is soft to begin with. I would prefer tack sharp with some misses than a peak of muddied across the board


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 6, 2012)

These MFT's promise better sharpness and contrast than the 24-70 mkI. With VC, and If the QC is on par with these charts, it's a no-brainer ... Well, I think I'll wait for some users' reviews.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?
> 
> Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.



Please forgive a noob...I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on my first Canon, and doing research ,reading forums here...etc.

What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....

Thank you!! ;D

cayenne


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 6, 2012)

cayenne said:


> What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....


Voice-control

(no, just kidding... vibration control = IS = image stabilization)


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?
> 
> Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.





cayenne said:


> Please forgive a noob...I'm getting close to pulling the trigger on my first Canon, and doing research ,reading forums here...etc.
> 
> What does "VC" stand for? I'm not familiar yet with that acronym.....
> 
> ...




"Vibration Control." It's their variation on Canon's image stabilization.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 6, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Looking at the pictures, it appears that, *yet again*, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L?
> 
> This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?



+1
Really incredible to not offer "really right" lenses! Goes for Tamron as well as for Sigma and Tokina.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?
> 
> Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.



I was thinking the same thing the other day. They had a 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 FF lens, but stopped making it about a half-dozen years ago.


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?
> 
> Their 70-300 VC faces off quite favourably with Canon's 70-300 IS USM, the 24-70/2.8 VC holds its own against Canon's 24-70/2.8 MkI (very similar price point.) All that is missing is something to compete with the 16-35 or 17-40.



I had Tamron's 70-300 and it was indeed very sharp. The issue I had was if I had 5-10 seconds to compose and focus on a still subject it did a great job almost every time. If I had to turn 90 degrees and try to focus on something quickly (oh look your daughter is about to dump spaghetti on her head) the lens' focus motor would move quickly but there would be a 25-30% chance of the shot actually being in focus. The canon 70-300L nails it every time (though 3-4X the price) Tamron's 60mm macro is an epic fail for canon's 7D, they admitted the problem like a year ago and I have not heard since whether or not they fixed it. For me it would have to have been almost as sharp as the mark II at $1300 for me to even bother taking a risk, I hate paying for return shipping on a crap 3rd party lens.


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> On Adorama's website, it says that this lens comes with a *6 year warranty*.
> 
> Is this a mistake?
> 
> Because Canon's warranty, for all EF lenses in the USA, is 1 year.



Taqmron's warrantys are very long, that is probably correct.


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if Tamron have a wide-angle lens for full frame up their sleeves somewhere?
> ...



I wish Sigma would make one personally.

I had the Sig 10-20 f4-5.6 on my 7d and LOVED it!! I only sold it when I purchased the 5d3. In my opinion the sig 10-20 is sharper with less distortion on a 7d than a 16-35L II on a full frame.


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 6, 2012)

biggest problem I have is reviews put the camera on a tripod and shoot pieces of paper in a controlled environment. In that case the 70-300 VC would perform very well. But out in the field it was missing focus left and right. I don't care how good the IQ is if my intended subject is not in focus. The 70-300L nails it almost every time, I love my copy!!


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 6, 2012)

I had the Tamron 17-50 f2.6 VC APS-C and it had decent image quality, but the mechanics SUCKED big time. The focus throw was only a meager 45 degrees and very loose which made manual focus not very good for video.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is much better, but costs 2x as much.

If Tamron made it with decent mechanics and a good picture quality, I would be it because of the V.C. which is great for video.


----------



## Maculosa (Apr 6, 2012)

Hello,

This is my first post but i often read on this forum.

Here i found i link on another forum that show some sample pictures of the new Tamron 24-70 VC.
Unfortunatly there is no pictures taken at F2.8.

http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70135411814


----------



## eirikv (Apr 9, 2012)

This looks like an good alternative to Canons 24-105 4L that I have been thinking about for more than a year.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, my only problem with that lenses is it's 28mm wide angle. I have no other excuses than that to replace it. It delivers IQ at the same level as my Canon L lenses and Canon primes.

I might be the one of the "crazy people" to order this before seeing any reviews.

My only problem with it is the 82mm filter diameter. I would like it to be 77mm.


----------



## carlc (Apr 11, 2012)

I wonder what body Tamron used? I am impressed with the shots.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 12, 2012)

I am highly interested in this lens. Hopefully we will see more samples soon. If the IQ is same or better than Canon 24-70mm mark I, I will buy it.


----------



## carlc (Apr 13, 2012)

I can't wait to see a side by side comparison of the new Tamron 24-70 to the new Canon version, hopefully on a Canon 7D and a 5D3. Need to finalize my 2012 purchase list. Just hope the Canon version doesn't slip past July and Canon resolves the production and Firmware issues on the 5D3. The wait is killing me!!!


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 18, 2012)

It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 18, 2012)

This site shows a sample photo at f/2.8. It’s a part of the slideshow, so you’ll have to wait for it. It also shows the benefit of the rounded diaphragm compared to a hexagonal diaphragm:
http://www.tamron.com.au/di24-70_a007.html
Already posted this in the other thread about this lens.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 19, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh



I don't get it. If Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm mark I are about same price, that is a fair comparison. If Tamron has better IQ and VC, why should I buy Canon 24-70mm? Ask yourself how much you would like to pay for IS feature. I have Canon 70-200mm II IS. This lens is about 1000+ more than non-IS version. I can tell you, I would like to pay at 300+ if Canon has 24-70mm IS version. Don't forget Tamron has 6 year warranty and Canon has only 1 year warranty.


----------



## birdman (Apr 19, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> dswatson83 said:
> 
> 
> > It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh
> ...


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 19, 2012)

birdman said:


> You would pay for Canon 24-70 Mk I because of much better resale value, much better build quality, and much better quality control. I've owned SEVERAL 3rd party lenses: Tokina 12-24, Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8; Tamron 17-50 (non VC), and Tamron 28-75. The Tamrons performed good, actually the 17-50 was super! But they are built so cheap. For instance the focus rings will wear out and the glue will loosen, the lens barrels will start to creep out, etc. Go for Canon or even Sigma.



Hi bridman,
You are keeping mention RESALE value. Here is my formula. [Canon lens price] - [Tamron lens price] - [Canon resle value] + [Tamron resale value] = TRUE VALUE different. Don't forget depreciation of USD. I don't really see there are much different. I agree Canon lens has better build quality. However, I am looking for a lens has better IQ(Mark I) and IS feature and about same price.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 19, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> I don't get it. If Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 24-70mm mark I are about same price, that is a fair comparison. If Tamron has better IQ and VC, why should I buy Canon 24-70mm? Ask yourself how much you would like to pay for IS feature. I have Canon 70-200mm II IS. This lens is about 1000+ more than non-IS version. I can tell you, I would like to pay at 300+ if Canon has 24-70mm IS version. Don't forget Tamron has 6 year warranty and Canon has only 1 year warranty.



One thing to remember is that Tamron builds these primarily for Nikon customers, with the focus ring and zoom ring turning in the wrong (Nikon) direction. They don't even bother to consider their Canon customers, who will have other lenses turning in the right direction. Being in the middle of the zoom range, most customers will have a wider and a longer lens also, leading to some serious usability issues. 

If they'd bother to correct that, I'd take a real hard look at getting this lens, even though it is the typical Tamron ugly. But as it is, a fault I can live with in an 18-200 superzoom becomes magnified in an ostensibly professional lens.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 19, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> One thing to remember is that Tamron builds these primarily for Nikon customers, with the focus ring and zoom ring turning in the wrong (Nikon) direction. They don't even bother to consider their Canon customers, who will have other lenses turning in the right direction. Being in the middle of the zoom range, most customers will have a wider and a longer lens also, leading to some serious usability issues.
> 
> If they'd bother to correct that, I'd take a real hard look at getting this lens, even though it is the typical Tamron ugly. But as it is, a fault I can live with in an 18-200 superzoom becomes magnified in an ostensibly professional lens.


Do you mean Nikon has different turning direction for zoom ring(I believe focus ring is not a big problem). I don't know what the impact for me because I haven't had the experiences for that. How about other camera company? Do they have same turning direction with Canon?


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm so surprised Canon does not offer a lens like this Tamron. Canon had a huge video base on nondslr and dslr cameras alike. Stabilization is huge for any video camera and Canon offers nothing for full frame users at f/2.8 with IS (though for some reason cropped cameras get a lens). Sony has built in IS in the cameras and Nikon has very little skin in the game when it comes to video. This would be great for stills as well. You know how awesome it would be to be shooting indoor wide detail shots of the flowers and church during weddings at ISO 100 & 1/15th second shutter. Most people don't move during weddings anyway so most of my shots are at slower shutter speeds when I have IS. This is a big downside to moving from cropped to full frame as I have a f/2.8 IS lens with equivalent focal lengths for a 7D but not for a 5D.


----------



## KyleSTL (Apr 20, 2012)

AJ said:


> No no no.
> 
> Canons zoom in the wrong direction. Nikons and Tamrons zoom correctly.
> 
> And yes you British and Aussies and Japanese drive on the wrong side of the road


I'm going to thread-jack for a moment to share what my curiosity caused me to find:

I knew many of the first zoom lenses were of the push-pull variety, so I went searching for early twist-zoom lenses. It lead me to find that the manual focus lenses by Nikon were originally the same direction as Canon, such as:

1967 Nikkor 50-300mm






It looks like they stayed consistent with that directionality throughout the manual focus era. Then in 1986, with their first twist zoom AF lenses, the Nikkor 35-105mm, 28-85mm and 35-70mm, they decided to change direction:











So, Canon is the correct direction, and Nikon decided to screw it up in the 1980s, after decades manufacturing lenses the right way.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 20, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> So, Canon is the correct direction, and Nikon decided to screw it up in the 1980s, after decades manufacturing lenses the right way.



I cannot tell which way is correct. Why did Nikon decide to change the direction? Maybe the original way was wrong. Original design doesn't mean correct design. I haven't used Nikon camera, so I don't know if that's a problem for different way for zoom ring. I even don't see the points people argue for the zoom ring. My only question is if the opposite way will impact me. I am so exited to see some reviews of this lens next week.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 23, 2012)

A video of the lens just popped up on you tube but it is not in English. The photos look good though. The AF for video did not seem great but it was definitely better than without anything. 
Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A007 (탐론 24-70 VC 손떨방)


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 24, 2012)

Finally the first review was out. There are not too many details about the lens. Hopefully, we can see some Canon 24-70mm VS Tamron 24-70mm reviews.

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


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 25, 2012)

It looks promising, even wide open with the exception of fall off. I can live with some fall off when I’m doing portraits though. Looking forward to more reviews and comparisons.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 25, 2012)

I was hoping for more info on how autofocus worked. That is my biggest reason for avoiding 3rd party lenses. I figured it would be sharp at f/4 which is the largest aperture canon offers on a stabilized lens so if it was usable at f/2.8, that in and of itself would be big. I really wish Canon offered this lens but now that the vII of the 24-70 is out without IS and with a crazy price tag, I feel like it will never happen. I am also curious if it can use the 5 center dual hair autofocus sensors on the Canon 5D mark III. The canon 24-70 version 1 only can use the center but the version 2 can use all 5. The 24-105 f/4 IS can't use any of them.


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 25, 2012)

Yeah, I know it’s a Nikon-link, but he’s got the Canon-mount Tamron here (hands on): Tamron 24-70mm VC - Hands on
Says it’s the best built Tamron he has ever tested. He also promises to update after some tests with the 5D2.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Apr 25, 2012)

The trouble with third party lenses is there not being really sharp @2,8. This is exactly what I think the Canon 24-70 f2,8 will deliver: sharpness @2,8 beyond compromises. However, omitting IS is a bit annoying, admitted.


----------



## SpareImp (Apr 25, 2012)

HarryWintergreen said:


> The trouble with third party lenses is there not being really sharp @2,8. This is exactly what I think the Canon 24-70 f2,8 will deliver: sharpness @2,8 beyond compromises. However, omitting IS is a bit annoying, admitted.




I don't find that to be entirely true. The Sigma 50mm is sharp at f/1.4 and only gets sharper stopped down, unlike the equivalent Canon 50mm f/1.4, which you have to stop down far more to approach the same sharpness. Now these are fixed lenses and the Sigma does have some focusing issues, so it’s not entirely good – but still far better than the Canon. With zoom-lenses the case might be different, but I don’t think it’s a rule. If you look at the review, they state it’s close to “Excellent” even wide open in terms of sharpness.

The Canon 24-70mm II will probably outperform the Tamron, but for twice the price and you probably won’t get any sharp handheld images with a 1/10 shutter speed. The review states that you can get about 50 % sharp photos at that shutter speed with the Tamron.


----------

