# Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

For those interested in this lens, I have posted a full review to my website with photos and conclusions. If uninterested, please disregard this message 

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

Nice Review. My only gripe is I Wish the samples were bigger to see. :-\


----------



## photogaz (Nov 29, 2012)

Nice review. Very informative. 

I got mine yesterday. It's as good as everyone says. Sharp sharp sharp.

Can I ask you, what processing do you do on your photos? Lightroom or via PS actions?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Nice Review. My only gripe is I Wish the samples were bigger to see. :-\



The gallery at the end has larger samples (most are between 800-1000 pixels).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Nice review. Very informative.
> 
> I got mine yesterday. It's as good as everyone says. Sharp sharp sharp.
> 
> Can I ask you, what processing do you do on your photos? Lightroom or via PS actions?



I always start in Lightroom 4. I shoot RAW and convert to DNG in the first stage. I try to do a lot of my processing in Lightroom for one primary reason - every time I go into Photoshop (I have CS5) or Alien Skin Exposure 4 (a favorite program of mine), my file turns into a TIFF (even if I flatten the image before returning to Lightroom) and takes up up 5x the room. I use around 30GB of storage a month (before backups) as is, so if I do too many PS edits that can balloon to 60GB pretty quickly.

I only do edits in Photoshop if I need layering or to use luminosity masks.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 29, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> For those interested in this lens, I have posted a full review to my website with photos and conclusions. If uninterested, please disregard this message
> 
> http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/




Nice review and great shots!
Thanks!


----------



## killswitch (Nov 29, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> For those interested in this lens, I have posted a full review to my website with photos and conclusions. If uninterested, please disregard this message
> 
> http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/



A very thorough review and to the point. Enjoyed reading it. Also, the sample images were just amazing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 29, 2012)

I think I'd prefer it to the Canon Mark I version, but resale value will be a lot less.
I've owned a number of Tamron Lenses, including the 200-500, and they were definitely not spectacular. I've considered buying this one, but I'm concerned that f/2.8 is not fast enough for my extreme low light work.


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 29, 2012)

I really enjoyed your review. It was personal, balanced, thrustworthy and informative. I had hoped that more of the pictures would be able to open in larger versions to get a real feel for the lens. The onion I think I see in other pirctures as well (the bottle in the upper right corner, and in the large beautiful shot you have of a field with flowers in it). However, although I read that it is supposed to be conventional wisdom that this is a bad thing, for me I don't find it unappealing at all, and would even argue that it might add a touch of extra texture to the shots.

Looking forward to your next review!

G.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I really enjoyed your review. It was personal, balanced, thrustworthy and informative. I had hoped that more of the pictures would be able to open in larger versions to get a real feel for the lens. The onion I think I see in other pirctures as well (the bottle in the upper right corner, and in the large beautiful shot you have of a field with flowers in it). However, although I read that it is supposed to be conventional wisdom that this is a bad thing, for me I don't find it unappealing at all, and would even argue that it might add a touch of extra texture to the shots.
> 
> Looking forward to your next review!
> 
> G.



Thank you very much for the nice feedback. Others have requested larger images in the gallery next time as well, so I will certainly keep that in mind. This is my first go at a review of this length and depth, so I will hopefully improve with time.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 29, 2012)

Nice review, it's making me think more seriously about this lens, over saving up (a long time) for the Canon 24-70 v2.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 29, 2012)

Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 30, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.



That seems to be a conclusion that many have drawn. The Canon is better...but not $1000 better. That being said, I've got some pretty nice glass in my bag and yet have been quite impressed with the quality of what I can get with this lens. I've got a wedding next weekend and will give an update on how it performed for that.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 1, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > Nice review, my tamron 24-70 is in the mail and gets here Monday. Looking forward to it. There simply is no reason in my mind to spend another $1000 for the canon unless you demand pixel level sharpness everywhere, and if that's the case you probably spend too much time behind the computer staring at 100% crops to be much good at anything else.
> ...



Great! Don't forget to report back to us please


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 1, 2012)

I found this pretty cool: I had stopped down for this shot (f/8), and I normally wouldn't even get this flare effect from the lens except that I was using a cheaper, uncoated circular polarizer (I have no collection of filters in this size and still need to invest in a quality circular polarizer). Anyway, despite the flare pattern, I really like how that the aperture is clearly very round even stopped down three stops. The flare pattern is much nicer for it.




A Walk with a Friend by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 5, 2012)

A couple of things for those interested in the lens:

1) I did an AFMA on the lens with my 5DMKII the other day, and ended up dialing it in at +5. Very happy with the result. I did the 135L, 40mm pancake, and Tamron 70-300 VC at the same time.

2) I took the lens out in fairly extreme weather the other day for the first time. Fairly heavy rain, cold, fog, etc... The lens performed very admirably and I felt confident in the weathersealing. Here are couple of the results from that outing:




Must I Go Alone? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr




What Waits Beyond? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

3) Finally, this is the second copy of the lens I am using. I exchanged the first copy after testing revealed some concerns over the VC functioning up to spec. I have been really, really pleased with the second copy and feel that it resolves better at infinity than the first copy, making it a better option for landscape.

I like the lens more and more as I use it. This weekend's wedding will be interesting: I am the officiating minister, my wife and I are also singing during the ceremony, and I am the official photographer (I guess I am the Walmart of weddings ;D) I have had to subcontract the ceremony to a second shooter. This is going to be a long day, but the Tamron will get its first wedding action since I purchased it a month ago.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 5, 2012)

Love both of those shots. That makes me feel better about the lens, if you've taken it out into the cold, fog, rain and it performed well. I'm getting a copy from LensRentals, and I should have a chance to MFA it before I use it tomorrow evening when I'm shooting the technical show for a dance performance, and then Friday for the actual performance.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 7, 2012)

Ok, so rented the lens from LensRentals, first shots with it tonight. I was shooting the technical/test performance for a burlesque holiday show. Small space (bar performance area), lighting was mostly small spots, so pretty bad most of the time, and then a bit too bright over part of the image some of the time. All in all, very challenging lighting. I'm downloading the images as we speak, but here are my first impressions based off of what I saw on the back of the camera (5d3, MFA via FoCal, +14 wide, -1 tele).

The VC (image stabilization) works well. Did a few test shots at 1/10 sec f/2.8 and zoomed in some on the camera, looked quite good, although I haven't extensively tested it yet.

So, for starters, the zoom ring is nice and wide, but reversed from what I'm used to. It's at the far end of the barrel, and you rotate to the left to zoom out, not to the right like the rest of my Canon lenses. The focusing ring is fairly narrow, but the grip is quite good. It's right where I'm used to resting my fingers when I'm holding the camera, and I suspect I might have confused the lens as it thought I was trying to do FTM, when I was just resting my fingers or accidentally shifted it trying to zoom in/out. 

The focusing is a bit slower than the L lenses I've used (24-105, 135, 17-40, rented 14L, 24-70L v1, 70-200 2.8 IS v2). Not bad really, but not snappy like I'm used to. I shot most of the night in AI-Servo, since they were dancing and moving all around. As I said the lighting was quite challenging, but even when the AF points I was using was over the subject in decent lighting, I always felt like I had to wait a second or two for the camera to lock focus and start tracking. Quite annoying actually, and nothing something I'm used to. Part of it may have been, as stated above, my fingers rested right on the focusing ring so I may have confused it. 

Otherwise, based off of the back of the camera, IQ seems pretty good, bokeh is nice, and colors are good. Seems sharp, although some of the shots the focus was off and I suspect it's because the AF motor couldn't keep up, or the AF on the 5d3 couldn't keep up, or whatever it was that made the AF seem to hesitate. I'll have more to say on this after I finish downloading the shots from tonight, and tomorrow night during the actual performance, and then process through everything.

Leaving aside the IQ, if I can't figure out the AF in this kind of lower light, I might have to not get this lens, which would make me sad as this is exactly the environment I'd use this in. I'll try using my 24-105 briefly in the same lighting conditions to see if it shows similar hesitation, and if so it's the camera/lighting, and not the lens and I'll have to test out in other dim lighting conditions.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 14, 2012)

OK, as promised, here is a blog post about using the lens in a wedding photography environment.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/12/a-wedding-photographers-look-at-the-tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd/

Here's one example of an image taken during the wedding photos:




Winter Wedding by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 15, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> OK, as promised, here is a blog post about using the lens in a wedding photography environment.
> 
> http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/12/a-wedding-photographers-look-at-the-tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd/



Thanks Dustin! That is one thing I noticed as well about it, it's heavy!

I haven't had a chance to get up many photos from my time with it, but I'll put some up this weekend (I hope). The 2nd night shooting with it went better on the AF I think, but it was still quite challenging. Unfortunately I didn't have a chance to try out better lighting conditions (You think your lighting was bad? Try ISO 6400, f/2.8, and being 1/60-1/125 with dancers moving all around and a few, seemingly almost random 'spot' lights. I'd have killed for the lighting you shot with). So, I'm not feeling as bad about the AF, and I'll probably get this lens in the next couple of months.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 15, 2012)

Dustin, thanks for the update. I'm two weeks into my copy and couldn't be happier. Shot with it for a few days before Afma with focal and ended up at +5 both wide and tele (5diii), that just helped make everything pop just a little more. The tamron is a keeper. I'm now thinking about renting their new 70-200 2.8 and see if it gives the canon a serious run for its money as at least the initial impressions seem to think.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > OK, as promised, here is a blog post about using the lens in a wedding photography environment.
> ...



Wow, that is a challenging set of conditions. I can understand why you had some AF challenges there. I had no focusing issues because I also had enough ambient light that it wasn't really an issue. Like I said in the article, the AF isn't what I would call lightning fast, but it is quick enough and, more importantly, accurate.



robbymack said:


> Dustin, thanks for the update. I'm two weeks into my copy and couldn't be happier. Shot with it for a few days before Afma with focal and ended up at +5 both wide and tele (5diii), that just helped make everything pop just a little more. The tamron is a keeper. I'm now thinking about renting their new 70-200 2.8 and see if it gives the canon a serious run for its money as at least the initial impressions seem to think.



Nice! On my MKII I can only set one AFMA, so it is set for 70mm on mine. I'll pick up a MKIII body next year. I pay for all of my gear out of photography proceeds, so I need to do a few more gigs over the next month or so before I lay down the cash. I'm debating at the moment whether or not to sell my MKII or keep it as a FF extra body.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 15, 2012)

Yea, lighting conditions were cray. but I got some good shots! Anyway, I think I will be getting it, as I said.

Whenever you do get the 5d3, I would recommend holding onto the 5d2. Backup camera is always a good thing, and you can always 2-gun it, put one lens on one, and another on the other so you don't have to wait to switch lenses before continuing to shoot. Put a wide/super-wide on the 5d2, and your normal or telephoto on the 5d3. The great part is you can share both CF cards, AND batteries!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Yea, lighting conditions were cray. but I got some good shots! Anyway, I think I will be getting it, as I said.
> 
> Whenever you do get the 5d3, I would recommend holding onto the 5d2. Backup camera is always a good thing, and you can always 2-gun it, put one lens on one, and another on the other so you don't have to wait to switch lenses before continuing to shoot. Put a wide/super-wide on the 5d2, and your normal or telephoto on the 5d3. The great part is you can share both CF cards, AND batteries!



That is what I am leaning towards. I do something similar with my 60D, but it works less well now that I have reoriented my lens collections towards all FF glass. Fortunately my 60D does share batteries with the 5D already, but not memory cards.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 15, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, lighting conditions were cray. but I got some good shots! Anyway, I think I will be getting it, as I said.
> ...



One thing I'm sorely missing from the 1DX that I'd love is the spot-linked metering. Obviously not so useful when shooting full manual, but if I can even leave ISO on auto with spot-linked metering, I can worry less about the subject that I'm AF on to have blown out highlights in changing lighting conditions. Ah well, when I hit the lotto I'll buy me one :

You know, if you've got a spare 60D laying around, maybe you can throw MagicLantern on it and maybe play with doing some video. If you can even have just a bit of video of the ceremony, some clips of the reception party, a bit of crying when people are giving toasts, that's probably worth something good. Just need a pretty good tripod, and a lot of practice.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...


----------



## spinworkxroy (Dec 15, 2012)

Great review...
I myself was seriously considerimg this lens and the Mk2 which i can't afford.
However, after reading your review, it still left me in a dilemma because of 1 point...you had to get a 2nd copy...I too own Tamrons and they both had to go back for adjustments..
I was expecting the newer ones to improve in the QC but unfortunately, the same problems of old stll exist..that was the main reason why i stopped with Tamrons and stuck to Canon/Sigmas since the new Sigmas are brilliant. 
Although this lens is $1k cheaper than teh Canon, i believe it's less risk with a Canon vs this..I just wish Tamron would improve on their QC...not only do IQ vary on different lens, even teh focal range differed according to your review...that's bad ain't it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 16, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> Great review...
> I myself was seriously considerimg this lens and the Mk2 which i can't afford.
> However, after reading your review, it still left me in a dilemma because of 1 point...you had to get a 2nd copy...I too own Tamrons and they both had to go back for adjustments..
> I was expecting the newer ones to improve in the QC but unfortunately, the same problems of old stll exist..that was the main reason why i stopped with Tamrons and stuck to Canon/Sigmas since the new Sigmas are brilliant.
> Although this lens is $1k cheaper than teh Canon, i believe it's less risk with a Canon vs this..I just wish Tamron would improve on their QC...not only do IQ vary on different lens, even teh focal range differed according to your review...that's bad ain't it.



There's no denying that I did return my first copy. That was being critical of course, but you are critical when you pay $1300 for a lens. I suspect the variance in focal length was more due to my flawed original testing that an actual sample variation. The upside, of course, is that in North America warranty is six years with Tamron. I would suspect that if you're going to have an issue it will show up during that period of time, and by the time that length of time is up you might be considering a new lens anyway


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 16, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> The focusing is a bit slower than the L lenses I've used (24-105, 135, 17-40, rented 14L, 24-70L v1, 70-200 2.8 IS v2). Not bad really, but not snappy like I'm used to. I shot most of the night in AI-Servo, since they were dancing and moving all around. As I said the lighting was quite challenging, but even when the AF points I was using was over the subject in decent lighting, I always felt like I had to wait a second or two for the camera to lock focus and start tracking. Quite annoying actually, and nothing something I'm used to. Part of it may have been, as stated above, my fingers rested right on the focusing ring so I may have confused it.
> 
> Leaving aside the IQ, if I can't figure out the AF in this kind of lower light, I might have to not get this lens, which would make me sad as this is exactly the environment I'd use this in. I'll try using my 24-105 briefly in the same lighting conditions to see if it shows similar hesitation, and if so it's the camera/lighting, and not the lens and I'll have to test out in other dim lighting conditions.



FYI, the low light AF Lock issue probably isn't the lens, it's the 5D3. That's why *TWI* didn't have AF problems. If you look around on this forum, the canon forums, etc you'll find a LOT of low light AF complaints with the 5D3 using any lens. Your comments sound a lot like the same thing. Some bodies seem to be affected more than others. I myself had to return my first copy of the 5D3 it was so bad. So it very well may have nothing to do with the lens.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Dec 16, 2012)

> There's no denying that I did return my first copy. That was being critical of course, but you are critical when you pay $1300 for a lens. I suspect the variance in focal length was more due to my flawed original testing that an actual sample variation. The upside, of course, is that in North America warranty is six years with Tamron. I would suspect that if you're going to have an issue it will show up during that period of time, and by the time that length of time is up you might be considering a new lens anyway



Unfortunately, i'm not in the US and i don't have the 6yr warranty. And i don't have the luxury like in the US where you can change for a new copy within a certain time frame. Over here, there's no such thing and the last time i had issue with my Tamron after a few days bought, i sent it in and they sent it back to Japan and it was gone for 1mth...i don't think i want to risk it again...they will fix it yes...but it's just a waste of time and hassle...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 16, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> > There's no denying that I did return my first copy. That was being critical of course, but you are critical when you pay $1300 for a lens. I suspect the variance in focal length was more due to my flawed original testing that an actual sample variation. The upside, of course, is that in North America warranty is six years with Tamron. I would suspect that if you're going to have an issue it will show up during that period of time, and by the time that length of time is up you might be considering a new lens anyway
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, i'm not in the US and i don't have the 6yr warranty. And i don't have the luxury like in the US where you can change for a new copy within a certain time frame. Over here, there's no such thing and the last time i had issue with my Tamron after a few days bought, i sent it in and they sent it back to Japan and it was gone for 1mth...i don't think i want to risk it again...they will fix it yes...but it's just a waste of time and hassle...



Well that certainly is a whole other matter. My replacement copy was to me in just a few days. I wonder why Tamron doesn't offer the same warranty in different areas? I will say, however, that the build quality on this like is beyond any previous Tamron lens I have used. That being said, I had my copy of the 70-300mm VC replaced too because I got lens errors with the first copy. I bought it very early, however, and I have not heard of similar issues. Part of being an early adopter is dealing with some of the issues. If you aren't in a rush, you might want to wait and see how they hold up. If you have the money to buy the Canon MKII version I doubt you will be disappointed. It appears to be a fantastic lens with outstanding build quality.

I am happy with the Tamron, but I am in a much better position with the warranty than you are obviously, so that certainly enters the decision process.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 17, 2012)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > The focusing is a bit slower than the L lenses I've used (24-105, 135, 17-40, rented 14L, 24-70L v1, 70-200 2.8 IS v2). Not bad really, but not snappy like I'm used to. I shot most of the night in AI-Servo, since they were dancing and moving all around. As I said the lighting was quite challenging, but even when the AF points I was using was over the subject in decent lighting, I always felt like I had to wait a second or two for the camera to lock focus and start tracking. Quite annoying actually, and nothing something I'm used to. Part of it may have been, as stated above, my fingers rested right on the focusing ring so I may have confused it.
> ...



Yea, that's kinda what I was feeling by the end of the 2nd night. I expect normally there would even be somewhat more light. It was just exceptionally bad lighting.


----------



## agierke (Dec 17, 2012)

the colors from these wedding shots seem to be a bit odd to me. can you confirm if this is just a "look" that you go for in post or is the Tamron lens rendering color this way out of the camera?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 17, 2012)

agierke said:


> the colors from these wedding shots seem to be a bit odd to me. can you confirm if this is just a "look" that you go for in post or is the Tamron lens rendering color this way out of the camera?



It depends on which shots you are talking about. Most of the indoor shots are natural color (unless monochrome of some kind, obviously). Most of the outdoor shots have been split toned as the natural light for the day was very grey and flat.

The Tamron's color is a bit warmer than, say, my Canon 24-105L, but color balance and skin tones render very naturally. Anything that looks otherwise in these shots is probably due to post processing.

It is my experience that most young clients these days are not looking for perfect white balance shots. They are accustomed to a more "Instagram" style. I try to find the middle ground while delivering hopefully something unique to my clients.


----------



## agierke (Dec 17, 2012)

i had a feeling that was the case. a severely overcast day is a nightmare to try to deal with in post as it is.


----------



## Fred (Dec 17, 2012)

i decided to buy this lens after i compared a few reviews online (including yours !) . and i am really happy with my decision ! 

in a way this lens is very unique, because it offers 2,8 aperture and image stabilization. Lenses with F4 were never an option for me.. 

advantages :

- image sharpness ! (maybe not as good as the Canon 24-70 II, but better than the old 24-70)
- 9 rounded blades = acceptable bokeh
- water-sealing (and you dont need an extra filter for the front element like for the canons)
- affordable price 
- 5 years warranty ( in europe)
- image stabilitzation
- silent AF

disadvantages:

- AF speed is good ( & precision too) - but the Canons are faster
- wrong zoom-direction
- build quality is fine - but its not built like a tank 
- no CPS-service (obvious)

But you really have to order a few ones or check them in your retail store. The first one i have taken was great, but the second one (which i just took for comparison) had a backfocus.. 

(sry for my crappy english)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 18, 2012)

Fred said:


> i decided to buy this lens after i compared a few reviews online (including yours !) . and i am really happy with my decision !
> 
> in a way this lens is very unique, because it offers 2,8 aperture and image stabilization. Lenses with F4 were never an option for me..
> 
> ...



Glad you are happy with the lens, and that my review could help a bit. I'm enjoying mine a lot!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 18, 2012)

For those concerned about the "onion bokeh" potential on the lens, I have now had a scenario in which the onion bokeh was more prominent. I took this holiday themed shot while shooting decorations for a wedding. It was the "perfect storm" for the onion bokeh, and it is noticeable even at this magnification:




Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I have an adjustment brush that I have developed in LR4 for when I want to further soften a background (it basically reduces clarity, contrast, and sharpness). It did a fairly good job of reducing the effect in about ten seconds. I could obviously reduce it further if I was desperate.




Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Now obviously I'm not crazy about the fact that this phenomena exists at all, and I think it would be a consideration if a person did a lot of photography that involved similar circumstances. For me it has been a very isolated issue, and, in fact, overall I find the bokeh very pleasing and the transition to ooF very smooth for this type of lens. But under the right conditions, it certainly will exhibit the onion bokeh effect. I don't work for Tamron or have any stock in them, so I want to do my best to present my findings as unbiased as possible. I have now been told by several people that they have bought this lens in part based upon my recommendation, so I want to keep an accurate stream of data about the lens going. 

On a positive note, those who have told me they bought the lens have been really pleased with it. I suspect Tamron is going to sell quite a few of these lens. It will be interesting to see what the resale value is after several years. If the demands stays strong for the lens, I suspect that the resale value will probably be decent. I have found, for example, that the non-VC version of the 17-50mm actually holds its value quite well. In the meantime, however, I am happy with mine and it will very likely stay in my kit for some time to come.


----------



## smithy (Dec 29, 2012)

Nice review! Just one note though (to help with your writing), the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses'.

I'm only pointing this out because the word is used a lot in your review, for obvious reasons, especially in the first two paragraphs (intro and build quality).


----------



## dstppy (Jan 3, 2013)

Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing? I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.

I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.

Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 3, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing? I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.
> 
> I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.
> 
> Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?



I MFA'ed my rental copy with FoCal, although I feel I would have redone it a couple of times with better distances if I had time, I was rushed and it was the night before so I had to do it in my apartment (not that big). The values ended up being +14 wide, -1 tele. When I finally purchase this lens, I'll have to do some extensive tests to try and check that I get a good copy of the lens. Hmm...time to see if Neuro has a guide up somewhere on a good way to self-test in non-lab conditions for sharpness.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 4, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing? I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.
> 
> I'm a prime-fiend, but this was supposed to win my heart back to the zoom side of things, so my hopes are high; I have gotten ZERO real world chance to use this as everyone (myself included) is sick.
> 
> Do you do MFA on any of your zooms?



I MFA'd the lens (although on MK2 I can only do focal length, which I did at at 70mm). I ended up setting mine at a +5. I will be picking up a MK3 in this calendar year and look forward to being able to dial it at a couple of settings. I've been happy with the sharpness after the adjustment.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 5, 2013)

Dustin, your review was extremely helpful. Outstanding pictures in review!!!!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> Dustin, your review was extremely helpful. Outstanding pictures in review!!!!!



Thanks, it's something I plan to do more of. The problem is, that other than the shorty forty, none of my lenses qualify as new enough (in terms of release) to review. I may do a series of reviews on some of my vintage glass, however, as there aren't many detailed reviews on them as they predate the internet.


----------



## dstppy (Jan 6, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin, have you run this through any AF testing? I just got mine for X-mas and was running foCal on it, getting a -5 at 24mm and +5 at 70mm -- I've got to re-run when I have time because I stupidly forgot to shut off the VC, but I was sort of surprised that it was off in that manner.
> ...


Can the MK3 do MFA by focal length/lens or do you just mean that it should be more accurate out of the box?

Thanks again.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 6, 2013)

dstppy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...



The 5d3 can have separate MFA values for the wide end and tele end, and it can extrapolate somewhat for the middle range. Since wide vs tele can cause some focus shift sometimes, you can get more accurate focusing.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 6, 2013)

dstppy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...



For zooms, it has two adjustment values: one for the wide end and the other for the tele end.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2013)

What they said ;D


----------



## dstppy (Jan 7, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> For zooms, it has two adjustment values: one for the wide end and the other for the tele end.



Oh crap, and here I'd just decided to be content with what I have.

;D It must be mine!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > For zooms, it has two adjustment values: one for the wide end and the other for the tele end.
> ...



This was something that I discovered not long ago. It isn't a feature that I've really heard marketed, but I have definitely read that the MKIII helps you maximize the potential of your lenses (and that is particularly true of older, cheap lenses according to Ken Rockwell).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 23, 2013)

So more goodness from this lens. It's nice sharpness, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than the 24-105L make it a very nice landscape lens - better than I originally thought.




What Comes Next? (Thanks for 200,000 views) by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Scarpz13 (Jan 23, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> So more goodness from this lens. It's nice sharpness, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than the 24-105L make it a very nice landscape lens - better than I originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have really enjoyed your review of this lens, Dustin. As a fellow Canuck, I hope that you have been using it indoors rather than outside these past couple days! I had a Tamron 17-50 non VC I was happy with until I started concentrating on collecting full frame compatible lenses... I think you have convinced me to put this newest Tamron on my list of "Wants". Guess I will have to get used to the reverse zoom ring again!

Not sure if anyone has asked this already, but are you planning on trying the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, since you are so pleased with this one? Hopefully it is just as good.

cheers,

Scarpz


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 23, 2013)

Scarpz13 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > So more goodness from this lens. It's nice sharpness, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than the 24-105L make it a very nice landscape lens - better than I originally thought.
> ...



I actually did go out shooting some yesterday and froze!! I am taking delivery of a new 6D today, so I will get out there, cold or not.

I am very interested in the Tamron 70-200mm VC. I will hold off a bit, as I feel that somewhere around the $1200 mark is the right price for the lens. The image quality looks great, although I am little disappointed by the findings by LensRentals here that the focal length is a fair bit shorter than the competitors. I shot the non-VC version for a short period and was pleased with the image quality but found that the focus speed was just insufficient for event work. That seems to be solved with this new version.


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 1, 2013)

Dustin have you used or do you own the Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC USD? I would love to hear your take on it. With the Canon rebates ending I might be picking one up as opposed to the Canon version Mkii. (($800 USD less)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 1, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Dustin have you used or do you own the Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC USD? I would love to hear your take on it. With the Canon rebates ending I might be picking one up as opposed to the Canon version Mkii. (($800 USD less)



I don't have one, although I am strongly considering purchasing one. I think my limit for the lens is $1300 before tax, though, a price point I expect the lens to hit within four to six months. I volunteered to the PhotoNews guys to do a review (one of their employees was on here and questioned about a reviewer) but got no response.

If (when) I do get my hands on one, I will do a full review.


----------



## crasher8 (Feb 1, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin have you used or do you own the Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC USD? I would love to hear your take on it. With the Canon rebates ending I might be picking one up as opposed to the Canon version Mkii. (($800 USD less)
> ...



I'm making the 70-200 purchase by early March and with the rebates going away I'm sure it will be the Tammy for me. I just wish I could get my hands on one locally. I may just rent one for a weekend to solidify my decision. If I do I'll add my 2cents here.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 1, 2013)

That would be great! I still haven't seen as many reviews as what I would like, yet. Ditto for the new 35mm f/2 IS lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 28, 2013)

Here's a picture that wouldn't have been possible without Tamron's great VC:




Watch for Pedestrians by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

To get the movement of the snow I had to drag the shutter somewhat (1/15th of a second here - @ 70mm). The image is perfectly crisp even at 100%.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 1, 2013)

Here's another shot taken at 70mm and 1/15th of a second. I would say that my keeper rate at that type of shutter speed is pretty much 100%. I only start to get some blurred/some sharp rates at 1/6th or lower.




Natural Texture by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2013)

I still wouldn't pick the Tamron over my 17-40L as a landscape lens, but it has proven a very worthy performer at the 24mm end because of great color rendition, relatively low vignetting, and far less distortion than something like my 24-105L:




As the Ice Forms by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 3, 2013)

Dustin, I like the shots you have shared and I am increasingly finding your writing style and thought process about your photography and equipment to be respectable and worth reading. I'm glad you are willing to spend some of your time helping others gain perspective about building their own kits and craft. (Not to mention putting your name on the line for others to judge you and your methods.)

How much have you used the Tamron 24-70 for journalistic style handheld people shooting, esp indoor with available light? IMHO, this is a bigger challenge for any lens, esp at larger apertures. No offense but shooting large landscapes doesn't expose a lens' faults quite as much as up close shots in low light. Don't you agree? Comments?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Dustin, I like the shots you have shared and I am increasingly finding your writing style and thought process about your photography and equipment to be respectable and worth reading. I'm glad you are willing to spend some of your time helping others gain perspective about building their own kits and craft. (Not to mention putting your name on the line for others to judge you and your methods.)
> 
> How much have you used the Tamron 24-70 for journalistic style handheld people shooting, esp indoor with available light? IMHO, this is a bigger challenge for any lens, esp at larger apertures. No offense but shooting large landscapes doesn't expose a lens' faults quite as much as up close shots in low light. Don't you agree? Comments?



Rusty, I have actually used the lens most in the scenarios that you describe, both personally and professionally. I have shot multiple business events, weddings, and portraits and have been extremely impressed with the lens in those settings. My only reservation would be that the AF is not as fast as my other lenses (primarily L class lenses). It has gotten the job done, however. I share less of this kind of work because it is often A) Professional work, which I share less of out of respect for my clients and B) Is often less exciting than my landscape/fine art images I share and sell.

That being said, I like the Tamron more in that kind of setting than any lens I have used previously. The color rendering is, well, special, and I find the transition to ooF very smooth with the lens. I love it.

Here is a sample from a business event I shot. Poorly lit hall at a hotel, natural light, ISO 2500 - wide open. This was before AFMA with the 6D, so my results are a bit sharper now.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 3, 2013)

Wow. Fast reply. On a Sunday. Thought you'd be in church!! 

Thanks for sharing. I like the way you caught her head in the light wash on the wall behind her as a background enhancement. (I assume you would likely crop the light fixture above out.) Yes, tricky lighting.

If you were to compare the Tamron 24-70 to either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105, how would you rate it with regard to your real world use in these type situations? In other words, for someone who owns those lenses already, what was your impression of the Tamron 24-70 difference in actual use? Good, bad or otherwise? I'm trying to decide if I should spend the money (or not) in order to achieve a potential (but unknown) XX% improvement for the cost. I hope I'm not asking something directly covered in your review. If so, sorry!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Wow. Fast reply. On a Sunday. Thought you'd be in church!!
> 
> Thanks for sharing. I like the way you caught her head in the light wash on the wall behind her as a background enhancement. (I assume you would likely crop the light fixture above out.) Yes, tricky lighting.
> 
> If you were to compare the Tamron 24-70 to either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105, how would you rate it with regard to your real world use in these type situations? In other words, for someone who owns those lenses already, what was your impression of the Tamron 24-70 difference in actual use? Good, bad or otherwise? I'm trying to decide if I should spend the money (or not) in order to achieve a potential (but unknown) XX% improvement for the cost. I hope I'm not asking something directly covered in your review. If so, sorry!!



You caught me before service ;D I've prayed, preached, and prayed some more...so back to photography until this evening  

The 24-105L has perhaps the best focal length of any EF lens (unless you count the 28-300L, which few people do). That being said, the 24-70 focal length is obviously a very usable one for general purpose. I found I stopped using my 24-105L after I purchased the Tamron, and eventually sold it. The Tamron color is more appealing, the fast aperture adds a lot of different creative options, there is much less distortion, and the VC makes it one of the most handholdable lens out there (perhaps bested only by Canon's new 35mm IS). I would definitely recommend it over the 24-105L.

I haven't used the Canon 24-70L in either variation. If money is no object and you don't need the VC, I would go for the 24-70 II - it is considered one of the top zooms ever. The Tamron adds the VC of course, and is optically superior to the MKI and slightly inferior to the MKII. If you don't have (or don't want to spend) MKII money, I would definitely recommend the Tamron. It is my current go-to lens and spend the most time on my camera despite having a bag full of great lens.

P.S. Color renders warmer in the Tamron vs. the 24-105L. Whether that is good or bad depends on your preference. I personally like it.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 3, 2013)

Great response and what I was wanting. I have always preferred a warmer tone but in the past year I have realized I probably like it a bit too warm and have started moving a tiny bit cooler to hopefully make a "better" image. The lens that stays on my camera the most is the 16-35L v1. After that it's the 24-105L or the 24-70L. So the new Tamron makes sense. My biggest concern at this point is the Tamron QA and consistency on this lens. It seems pretty common to hear folks having to go through several copies to find one that is ideal. This is a bummer and something I don't have the time to deal with at the moment. Maybe in a couple months. I'm sort of hoping Tamron gets their act together and maybe I can jump in later when things get more consistent and whatever issues exist are corrected. Thank you so much for the quick and informative replies. I'm sure many who read this will benefit.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Great response and what I was wanting. I have always preferred a warmer tone but in the past year I have realized I probably like it a bit too warm and have started moving a tiny bit cooler to hopefully make a "better" image. The lens that stays on my camera the most is the 16-35L v1. After that it's the 24-105L or the 24-70L. So the new Tamron makes sense. My biggest concern at this point is the Tamron QA and consistency on this lens. It seems pretty common to hear folks having to go through several copies to find one that is ideal. This is a bummer and something I don't have the time to deal with at the moment. Maybe in a couple months. I'm sort of hoping Tamron gets their act together and maybe I can jump in later when things get more consistent and whatever issues exist are corrected. Thank you so much for the quick and informative replies. I'm sure many who read this will benefit.



To be fair, there seems to be a fair bit of sample variation with the new 24-70II also, and the MKI had an even worse reputation for that. The plus side with the Tamron is that you get 6 years warranty. 

When I speak about transition to ooF, this casual shot from Friday night at a games night at the church shows what I mean. Available light, ISO 1000, but note the almost prime-like transition to out of focus. The crop shows the detail in the focal point.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 3, 2013)

Great! Thanks for that. Very good point. The ooF transition is something that isn't often discussed. That's a great example. Shots like that make a world of difference in understanding more about the personality of the lens. I hope you have a great Sunday and get a chance to relax and enjoy it. Cheers!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2013)

Dustin, how have you found the build now that you have owned it for a reasonable length of time and probably put it through its paces a fair bit by now?
my previous tamron experiences have not been good so I'm hesitant to go around again but your images are pretty compeling I've been hoping sigma release a competitor since canon seem determined not to. but sigma aren't playing either I have the canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 which my wife uses alot at events however I think a ligther version with IS would benefit her alot (I personally prefer primes and the 16-35 so i shoot with those more) but the weight of the 24-70L takes its toll on her after extended event shooting and IS would be a godsend especially coupled with reduced weight.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 5, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Dustin, how have you found the build now that you have owned it for a reasonable length of time and probably put it through its paces a fair bit by now?
> my previous Tamron experiences have not been good so I'm hesitant to go around again but your images are pretty compeling I've been hoping sigma release a competitor since canon seem determined not to. but sigma aren't playing either I have the canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 which my wife uses alot at events however I think a ligther version with IS would benefit her alot (I personally prefer primes and the 16-35 so i shoot with those more) but the weight of the 24-70L takes its toll on her after extended event shooting and IS would be a godsend especially coupled with reduced weight.



I sincerely don't think build quality is an issue at all with this lens. When you first pick it up, it feels like a dense, quality lens. I have used it in most all weather conditions (I do live in Canada!) and I use it without reservation just as I would my L series lenses. It is weather sealed and I have never had any kind of glitch or issue using it in rain, wet snow, or extreme cold (-35). I haven't dropped it or anything, but I generally try NOT to do that. ;D Furthermore, if you are in North America, the warranty is 6 years, which definitely does give some peace of mind.

I own no stock in Tamron, but I can honestly say I do really love the lens. I suspect I would feel the same about the Canon MKII as I love great optics, but when I look at the images I get with this lens I don't feel like I am missing much...and certainly not enough money for almost two Tamrons much.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 19, 2013)

I just traveled to Virginia/DC over March break with a Tamron 24-70VC and a Canon 70-300L. It is the best travel combination that I have used to date - a lot of creative options there.

Here's a shot of the condo building we were staying in from the Tamron:




A Slice of Virginia by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 19, 2013)

Thank you for sharing!

Nice place! Great colors! While I enjoy viewing this image and I think you did a great job capturing it, I can't help thinking that wide tight aperture landscape shots like this don't necc show the best qualities of the lens. As much as I like the image, don't you think that it would look pretty much the same with most other decent quality lenses? (24-105L comes to mind.)

Educate me about how this lens made the image better. Was it the low light of that time of day that would have otherwise come out way too dark (hence blurry) without this lens? Is it the color rendition or the more controlled CA that another lens can't match? The VC?

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult your post, quite the opposite. I'm interested in what challenges you faced in taking the picture and how the lens helped you overcome them. In short, how would having the 6D + this lens help _me_ to get a picture similar to this when faced with a similar situation?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 19, 2013)

Oh, and did you do a lot of tourist stuff in DC? I'm thinking the Tamron 24-70 worked great in the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, etc.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 19, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Thank you for sharing!
> 
> Nice place! Great colors! While I enjoy viewing this image and I think you did a great job capturing it, I can't help thinking that wide tight aperture landscape shots like this don't necc show the best qualities of the lens. As much as I like the image, don't you think that it would look pretty much the same with most other decent quality lenses? (24-105L comes to mind.)
> 
> ...



That's a valid point. As far as a shot like this, the Tamron has a couple of advantages over the 24-105L. First, it has a bit wider angle of view (if the Canon is a true 24mm, then the Tamron is at least 23mm). Secondly, it has considerably less distortion, which means that either you have less distortion uncorrected or retain more of your image after correction. The lens is also sharper. Finally, I do like the color rendering from the Tamron better.

Of course, the big advantage of the Tamron comes either in low light situations (this link has an image I took in the DC Metro handheld at .8 seconds!) http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/03/metro-arrival/ or when you want shallow depth of field. I really love the lens for that type of shot because I find the transition from focus to ooF very smooth with the Tamron. I often will pack a prime with me for this types of shots, and I didn't miss not having one with me at all on this trip.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 19, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Oh, and did you do a lot of tourist stuff in DC? I'm thinking the Tamron 24-70 worked great in the Library of Congress, Smithsonian, etc.



One big advantage in those types of settings is that because of the wider aperture and great stability, I can more easily use a circular polarizer to minimize glare and reflection off glass. I loved my 24-105L for this type of work, but I can honestly say that I have not missed it since selling it a few months after purchasing the Tamron.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 19, 2013)

Finally, here is a straight out of camera sample of what I mean by the smooth transition from focus to ooF. I found this little blossom in the forest floor detritus last week in Virginia. All of the loose sticks and bare branches of late winter/early spring are a bokeh challenge, but I think this shot demonstrates how effectively the Tamron handles this, particularly for a mid-range zoom.

P.S. I've attached a fairly large image (2000px on the long side) so that you can look at it more closely.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 19, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Of course, the big advantage of the Tamron comes either in low light situations (this link has an image I took in the DC Metro handheld at .8 seconds!) http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/03/metro-arrival/ or when you want shallow depth of field. I really love the lens for that type of shot because I find the transition from focus to ooF very smooth with the Tamron. I often will pack a prime with me for this types of shots, and I didn't miss not having one with me at all on this trip.


Love the shot in the DC Metro! I took one similar to that when I was there a couple years ago but I like yours better for the way the train is almost invisible. My shot has a "standard shot" blurred fast moving train with my family in the foreground.

Great responses! Thanks! I suspect this may be my next lens - eventually.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 20, 2013)

This shot illustrates why having VC is pretty great in a standard zoom. I was traveling light, with family, walking approximately 10 miles throughout the day in D.C. I had a sling backpack with a 6D, the Tamron, a Canon 70-300L, and some filters. No space for a tripod of any kind. I saw the great ambiance in the Metro and thought it would be cool to capture the arriving train, blurred, with the station sign as the focal point. I was able to effectively handhold this nearly 1 second exposure (.8) and get the shot I was looking for.




Metro Arrival by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## killswitch (Mar 20, 2013)

Impressive Dustin. VC/IS really makes a lot of sense for general purpose lens like the 24-70 especially when you are travelling, and especially when with family.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 24, 2013)

Here's a strongly processed couple of images, but all within Lightroom, that I have taken in the last week. I really like the versatility of the Tamron:




Winter Rails by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr




IceFall by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 28, 2013)

I spent time in Washington, D.C., and found the Tamron to be a very effective street lens. Distortion is there, but not as terrible as other zooms in the same class:




Render Unto Caesar by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 4, 2013)

The Tamron does a great job of retaining contrast and dynamic range when shooting into the sun.




Lead Me On by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 6, 2013)

I used the lens in a way that I haven' done a lot of - I got a 6 stop ND filter and hand-blended (with luminosity masks) three bracketed exposures to produce this shot:




Still Winter, Still Beautiful by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## bholliman (Apr 6, 2013)

Great review and follow-up pictures and comments here Dustin. This lens is next on my wish list (to replace my 24-105). I would love to have the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, but I would need to save considerably longer for that and would give up image stabilization. 

Awesome landscapes by the way. I shot some of these same places in DC, but my shots are not as well conceived or composed. You have an excellent photographers eye, something I'm still trying to develop.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Great review and follow-up pictures and comments here Dustin. This lens is next on my wish list (to replace my 24-105). I would love to have the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, but I would need to save considerably longer for that and would give up image stabilization.
> 
> Awesome landscapes by the way. I shot some of these same places in DC, but my shots are not as well conceived or composed. You have an excellent photographers eye, something I'm still trying to develop.



Thank you. You've got a nice kit, and the Tamron will fit in nicely. You may find, like I did, that the 24-105L gets squeezed out, but that nicely helps fund the Tamron anyway.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 6, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> A Slice of Virginia by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


AWESOME colors ... great image


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 6, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > A Slice of Virginia by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
> ...



Thank you. It's great when you have chance to be out shooting when lighting ISN'T a challenge!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 10, 2013)

Here's one from a trip to D.C. Great lens for capturing the monuments inside and out. VC allows for very low shutter speeds on something like that which isn't moving. Outside, the lens goes nicely wide, enough so to capture some tall things like this:




Renovating History by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 7, 2013)

I did a head to head this morning with my 17-40L at the same aperture (f/11) and focal length for a big landscape with a deep depth of field. I expected the 17-40L to be much better at resolving distance and throughout the frame. Very surprised to find that not the case, and the Canon still exhibited some CA at f/11 (I find the low CA a real strength of the Tamron). This lens continues to impress. Here's one I took this morning (not the BIG shot)




Salute the Dawn by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## pdirestajr (May 7, 2013)

@ Dustin Abbott, so I take it you like this lens and highly recommend it 

Really impressive photos overall and you make a seriously strong case for this lens. Tamron should sponsor you


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 7, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> @ Dustin Abbott, so I take it you like this lens and highly recommend it
> 
> Really impressive photos overall and you make a seriously strong case for this lens. Tamron should sponsor you



I would like that  And yes, I do like the lens a lot. I don't hang onto lenses that I am not crazy about or don't get used enough. I like trying new lenses and have owned quite a few. The Tamron has been a consistent winner in the various situations I have put it in, so I am very pleased with it. It is currently the only non-Canon modern lens in my bag, and one of the few non-L series lenses I own.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 11, 2013)

Hard to not love the lens when it produces images like this 8)




My Heart Belongs to Just One by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## smithy (May 12, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Hard to not love the lens when it produces images like this 8)


I think you give the lens too much credit here. You clearly have photographic and post-processing talent (don't let it go to your head), so I'm sure you could've achieved the same thing with a different lens. 

IMHO, compositionally the top of this image is distracting - I can't stop looking at the leaves at the top. I'd suggest that you consider a landscape crop of the lower section containing the flowers. (Sorry I spend far too much time critiquing photos).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 12, 2013)

smithy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to not love the lens when it produces images like this 8)
> ...



I know what you are saying from a technical standpoint (and you are right), but the extra degree of in focus area including the leaves and the great color on them is part of what I personally like. I like the narrow DOF, but within the larger context of the plant itself. If I had wanted a more traditional macro I could have cropped in (there is plenty of detail there for a tight crop) ...and that credit does go to the lens 8), but in this case I was looking for a more contextual photo.

BTW, thanks for the nice compliment. It's true - I don't think that equipment makes a photographer. That being said - I have used lots of lenses and I do think that this one is pretty special.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 25, 2013)

Is it just me, or is that some nice bokeh?




Light and Airy by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## candyman (May 25, 2013)

It sure is.

Just yesterday I bought this lens.
I planned to buy the Canon 24-70 MKII. Friends would take it from the US that would save me some 400 euro. But they can't come on a transfer to Europe.

So I went to check the Canon and the Tamron yesterday since the Canon had 300 euro cashback and the Tamrom 50 euro cashback. 
Now, I am not a pro. I found the IQ between the lenses very close. The Canon was sharper at f/2.8 in the corners. The Tamron had less accurate hits in AI Servo but still good. Vignetting was prominent in both lenses but nothing to worry about.
It was tempting.....to buy the Canon. But 950 euro versus 1650 euro (after cashback is a big difference.
My wallet did not want to pay a difference of 700 euro (Canon more expensive) with such close finish. So for my purpose of photography the Tamron fits very good. Feels good, build quality good, I like the stabilization.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 25, 2013)

candyman said:


> It sure is.
> 
> 
> Just yesterday I bought this lens.
> ...



If you ever need to shoot video with it, the stablization is just amazing! I wish I could post video here, but it is really like using a Glide cam.


----------



## rdespy (May 25, 2013)

Here's my new Tamron latest pics. This is my third copy and i finally get this lens the way i want it to produces good result, the first one bought in amazon got a soft copy, return it get the second one, the VC is jumpy at times and also soft in corners, returned it again and bought one from National camera exchanges, the difference is night and day, here is some of the pics i took recently.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 26, 2013)

I have found the Tamron to be an indispensable tool for my event work. Great stabilization, IQ, and color means that I get striking images like this one...oh...and the bokeh doesn't hurt 8)




In the Sanctuary - Hammond by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## wickidwombat (May 27, 2013)

Dustin your images are great as always and really sell the lens but I keep thinking it is in a large part your editing that is really making the images shine. I still cant get over my distrust of tamron quality but I really would like an IS lens in this range


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 27, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Dustin your images are great as always and really sell the lens but I keep thinking it is in a large part your editing that is really making the images shine. I still cant get over my distrust of tamron quality but I really would like an IS lens in this range



I won't gainsay that I have skills, but the truth of the matter is the last image was a 30 second edit. The lens is very, very good. I would say that as long as you buy it in such a way that you could exchange to get a copy that you really like, you will be pleased. Furthermore, the 6 year warranty (at least in North America) certainly reduces the risk. I have used Tamron's before, but this is the best yet. I've got a lot of great lenses, but this one gives up little to any of them. It consistently produces great images, processed or not.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2013)

you have the 40mm pancake dont you? 
can you do a head to head 40mm wide open comparison between the 2?

i would love a zoom in this range with IS that was as good across the frame as the 40mm

obviously this is only a 1 copy compare and yours seems to be a good copy but it would be 
good to see in some context


----------



## verysimplejason (May 29, 2013)

Very good pictures again Mr Dustin... I must admit, I'm not looking much at your gear because somehow, I can only afford a little bit due to my wife (and photography is *still* just a hobby for me).  I'm looking for great pictures on which I can pattern my work since I admit, I'm not that artistic. I try to gain as much idea as I can from great photographers and that includes you. Thanks again for showing us your work.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 29, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> you have the 40mm pancake dont you?
> can you do a head to head 40mm wide open comparison between the 2?
> 
> i would love a zoom in this range with IS that was as good across the frame as the 40mm
> ...



I can do that. It may be a week or so before I can get around, but I can do some 100% crop comparos.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 29, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Very good pictures again Mr Dustin... I must admit, I'm not looking much at your gear because somehow, I can only afford a little bit due to my wife (and photography is *still* just a hobby for me).  I'm looking for great pictures on which I can pattern my work since I admit, I'm not that artistic. I try to gain as much idea as I can from great photographers and that includes you. Thanks again for showing us your work.



That makes you very smart, then. I look at a least 100 photos every day, preferably from people better than me. I feel that absorbing good work can't help but influence your creative process.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 30, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > you have the 40mm pancake dont you?
> ...



cool thanks whenever you have time


----------



## candyman (Jun 2, 2013)

I just started to use the Tamron 24-70. It is a great addition to my other lenses. I now have a lens I can use indoors (not needing a flash) and in smaller spaced rooms with the benifit of f/2.8 aperture and stabilization.


----------



## candyman (Jun 2, 2013)

But......yesterday I noticed a small issue with the Tamron.

I was pointing the camera with single spot to an object in front of a window. It was sunny outside and there was a lot of reflection form a white building in the background. I metered the object and the focus distance was close but far enough for the Tamron to set focus. It was hunting and after about 5 seconds my 5D MKIII gave "Err01 ....clean the metal contacts of your lens."

Now this is a new lens and I checked the contacts - they are clean.

I switched off the camera and switched it on again. Things are working normal as they should. But, I was able to reproduce this issue. That worries me. 

Anyone run into this issue?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 2, 2013)

candyman said:


> But......yesterday I noticed a small issue with the Tamron.
> 
> I was pointing the camera with single spot to an object in front of a window. It was sunny outside and there was a lot of reflection form a white building in the background. I metered the object and the focus distance was close but far enough for the Tamron to set focus. It was hunting and after about 5 seconds my 5D MKIII gave "Err01 ....clean the metal contacts of your lens."
> 
> ...



I've seen this issue a few times over the years, typically right after changing lenses. I don't know that I've seen it with the 24-70VC, but I have seen it with a copy of the 70-300 VC that I had. I've seen it with a variety of lenses (including Canons), but not consistently. Only the 70-300 VC had the problem with any frequency, and I returned it and Tamron replaced it. If the problem persists with any frequency, I would have Tamron either fix or replace the lens. Having it happen once or twice is not abnormal, however.


----------



## candyman (Jun 2, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > But......yesterday I noticed a small issue with the Tamron.
> ...



Thanks for your reply Dustin.
I will keep checking and if it will happen frequently, thus in other setups as well, then I will contact Tamron. Good I registered for the extra years of warranty.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 2, 2013)

candyman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



It's only a small issue if it happens when you have to time to unmount/remount the lens. If it happens when you need to take a critical shot, it becomes a HUGE frustration!


----------



## candyman (Jun 8, 2013)

Ouch, I just found a problem with my Tamron. While it is mounted on 5D MK III, and camera is switch off, there is a huge battery drain. I did a few tests and found that it is caused by the Tamron. What a bummer. Started googling and found some threads about it on internet. Someone claimed it does not happen with lenses serialnumber 02xxxx. I have xx6xxx. I guess I will have to sent it to the servicecenter to fix it. I have read Tamron is aware of the problem and is able to fix it. I hate buying something and then have to return it for a fix. Does anyone have experience with the Servicecenter of Tamron? I hate to have something fixed and then being introduced with a new problem.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 8, 2013)

candyman said:


> Ouch, I just found a problem with my Tamron. While it is mounted on 5D MK III, and camera is switch off, there is a huge battery drain. I did a few tests and found that it is caused by the Tamron. What a bummer. Started googling and found some threads about it on internet. Someone claimed it does not happen with lenses serialnumber 02xxxx. I have xx6xxx. I guess I will have to sent it to the servicecenter to fix it. I have read Tamron is aware of the problem and is able to fix it. I hate buying something and then have to return it for a fix. Does anyone have experience with the Servicecenter of Tamron? I hate to have something fixed and then being introduced with a new problem.



I recently had mine done after noticing the issue once I had switched to the 6Ds. My service area (Canada) had it back to me in under two weeks. Nothing seems to have been affected, although I intend to un Fo-Cal on the lens just to be safe


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 11, 2013)

Algonquin Heaven by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



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

The Tamron has proven to be a more capable landscape lens than I originally anticipated.




Verdant Decay by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 17, 2013)

Here's an "infrared" style approach to the scene above:




As Time Passes... by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 17, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Here is the review, as requested

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15415.0


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 1, 2013)

Did another big wedding this weekend and used the Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 VC lenses exclusively. I felt like AFMA could be better on the 70-200 (it isn't mine, so I haven't had the time to really lock it to my standard), but this is a pretty killer combo for a wedding shooter. I have put in enough time with the 24-70 VC that I feel it is about as sharp as it is going to get, and it produces stunning, consistent images. Focus is deadly on it now.




Into Life by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 14, 2013)

Being in the field and not having a tripod means that VC is huge for shots like this (1/10th of a second)




Torrent by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 17, 2013)

Dustin,
Just picked up a 24-70 Di VC to compliment my 70-200. Couldn't be happier. Far better walk around lens than the Canon 24-70 2.8L version 1. LOve the work you do with your Tammys!


----------



## Erikerodri (Jul 17, 2013)

Dustin I love your photos. Your photos convinced me to purchase one of these a few months ago. Do you mind sharing what program you used for that wedding photo you recently posted and how you achieved that look? It's gorgeous


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 17, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> Dustin I love your photos. Your photos convinced me to purchase one of these a few months ago. Do you mind sharing what program you used for that wedding photo you recently posted and how you achieved that look? It's gorgeous



I used the Alien Skin Exposure 5 program. I will be doing a review of the software for them shortly.


----------



## Erikerodri (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks! Looking forward to it


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 26, 2013)

also, one thing I have to add is I was surprised how heavy this lens is! I sold my 24-70 L because it was such a brick and got the 24-105, full circle! (Better images)


----------



## jm977 (Jul 27, 2013)

I've been following this and other reviews of this lens for some time. I know that you (Dustin) have used it extensively on the 6D but I'm having a hard time finding many people who've paired it with a 5D3. Has anyone with a 5D3 bought this? One of the things I'm most curious about is what "group" the lens falls into. I know it's not an EF lens so technically it isn't in any official group but I wonder what focus points are active. It is similar to the Canon ver.1 or 2? Does it use all cross points along with one or all dual crosses? 


BTW, Dustin, I appreciated the reviews not only on this lens but the 6D. If I hadn't had two 5D3 bodies already, I might have been tempted to get a 6D as a second. And the lens review was helpful as all the online tests (eg DXO) are great but a real person using it in real situations (wedding matters to me), is more valuable.


----------



## smithy (Jul 28, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Erikerodri said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin I love your photos. Your photos convinced me to purchase one of these a few months ago. Do you mind sharing what program you used for that wedding photo you recently posted and how you achieved that look? It's gorgeous
> ...


Can you post a link to the review once it's done? Keen to check it out, although it may be too expensive for me.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 28, 2013)

jm977 said:


> I've been following this and other reviews of this lens for some time. I know that you (Dustin) have used it extensively on the 6D but I'm having a hard time finding many people who've paired it with a 5D3. Has anyone with a 5D3 bought this? One of the things I'm most curious about is what "group" the lens falls into. I know it's not an EF lens so technically it isn't in any official group but I wonder what focus points are active. It is similar to the Canon ver.1 or 2? Does it use all cross points along with one or all dual crosses?
> 
> 
> BTW, Dustin, I appreciated the reviews not only on this lens but the 6D. If I hadn't had two 5D3 bodies already, I might have been tempted to get a 6D as a second. And the lens review was helpful as all the online tests (eg DXO) are great but a real person using it in real situations (wedding matters to me), is more valuable.



I do know some photographers that are using that combination, but obviously I have not tried the combination. As far as the focus points go - obviously even with a 5D3 the ones that are extra sensitive to f/2.8 are going to work better than extreme outer points.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 28, 2013)

smithy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Erikerodri said:
> ...



I will post a link once it is live. I just had an email from them a couple of days ago, so I should be launching into that shortly. I just finished up the Tamron 70-200 VC review, so it will be a few weeks before the review on Alien Skin is live.


----------



## jm977 (Jul 28, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I do know some photographers that are using that combination, but obviously I have not tried the combination. As far as the focus points go - obviously even with a 5D3 the ones that are extra sensitive to f/2.8 are going to work better than extreme outer points.



I appreciate the reply Dustin. I would expect it to make use of the double cross in the center and suppose it would use the other two above and below as well. Again, thanks for the review as real life is a big difference from the lab.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 31, 2013)

Still enjoying this lens...




Canvas by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## 360_6pack (Aug 13, 2013)

Hi Dustin
I have read your good comments about the Tamron 24-70 and am wondering if you have any thoughts on the Tamron 28-300.

I have a 5D_III, Canon 16-35 II, 24-105 and 70-200L 2.8 IS.

I am leaving on a 6 week holiday in Nov from Perth Australia to Venice, then cruising the Med to Turkey & Miami via St Thomas and a few islands then 2 weeks in England.

I am interested in Landscape, old buildings inside & out anything else I see including hopefully the Duxford aircraft museum.

I am worried about the weight of the 24-105 and esp 70-200 so was thinking of just taking the 16-35 for wide angle and buying the Tamron 28-300 as a travelling lens. I have tried the Canon 28-300, great lens but heavy like the 70-200.

I would appreciate your thoughts and advice.

Michael


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 13, 2013)

360_6pack said:


> Hi Dustin
> I have read your good comments about the Tamron 24-70 and am wondering if you have any thoughts on the Tamron 28-300.
> 
> I have a 5D_III, Canon 16-35 II, 24-105 and 70-200L 2.8 IS.
> ...



Michael,

Unfortunately I have no experience with that particular lens. To date there are really very few stellar "superzoom" type lenses because of the extreme compromises made for that focal length. I did use the Tamron 18-270 for a while and found it better than, say, the Canon 18-135mm, but I eventually went to smaller focal lengths with higher IQ. My current travel kit is the 24-70 VC + the 70-300L. It is a reasonably compact travel kit but with very high image quality. Sorry I can't give you more info.


----------



## 360_6pack (Aug 14, 2013)

Thanks Dustin

I will try on a different thread.

Michael


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 14, 2013)

Still loving the Tamron as a travel lens. The combo of great IQ and the VC ensures that it works in just about every situation.




Lady Liberty's Domain by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



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

Psalm 121 by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 22, 2013)

The original of this one has a fabulous amount of detail for being a handheld pano under the circumstance. I zoomed in a bit (33mm) to reduce distortion for merging.




Gotham by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 23, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I zoomed in a bit (33mm) to reduce distortion for merging.



Great shot!

Is the distortion a problem in your experience? Afaik the panorama software like Autopano should be able to adjust for this, and if not you can first correct the distortion in ACR/DxO? But I'm happy to stand corrected, I've not been shooting a lot of panoramas, and considering the resolution you end up with exporting @~50% is more than enough and conceals tiny merging errors.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I zoomed in a bit (33mm) to reduce distortion for merging.
> ...



Photo merge works fine, but with most zooms zooming in a bit allows you to get a cleaner finished product that doesn't have the distortion at the outer edges. Because you are blending images, you get plenty of width anyway, so you don' need your widest focal length.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 28, 2013)

Endless Summer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 31, 2013)

For those who wonder - this is still my most used lens. It is good in almost every setting.




From Good to Great by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Jim O (Sep 3, 2013)

I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 8, 2013)

Jim O said:


> I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?
> 
> Sorry if this has been asked previously.



Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?
> ...



I would send it into Tamron. Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.


----------



## candyman (Sep 8, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...


+1 for the service


----------



## Jim O (Sep 8, 2013)

candyman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...



All well and good but this seems to be an inherent problem with this lens and this body (at least) that has been seen frequently enough and *not* addressed by Tamron with a firmware upgrade. I saw one review where the person sent it in three times, and finally the peripheral points were "close" but the center point was now off. I saw multiple other reports of multiple trips to so-called "excellent" Tamron service. Read through the entire thread that I linked. I know this lens has a six year warranty but...

Anyway, before I send it back for a refund I am going to test a bit with just the cross-type sensors enabled. Perhaps I can live with those results. I am impressed with the lens... when it focuses properly.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2013)

Jim O said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum


----------



## Jim O (Sep 8, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.
> 
> I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum



I agree that actions are better than words. 

Please do not take this the wrong way as you do seem to be a person of great integrity, but you have a contractual arrangement with Tamron of Canada according to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475, the terms of which are not made known (nor do I necessarily think they should be). I am certainly *not* suggesting that you are biased in your equipment review, especially in light of the fact that you *bought* this lens seemingly prior to this contract being signed, but you can't be considered _completely_ impartial either. I think this is a fair assessment and again, I hope you are not offended.

I did more tests using the central point as a control and the outer rows of cross-type AF points for testing. Same wall, tripod, settings. All at f/2.8. Farther distance. Different time of day so different lighting.

The middle AF points in each outer column of cross-type AF points were tested. Multiple shots of each were taken. The attached are "typical.

Interestingly, the left side is close to the center in sharpness, while the right was consistently off. Neither was as bad as the outermost points.

I will give Tamron service a shot. I'll call tomorrow and arrange it.

More to follow...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2013)

Jim O said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this: reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there. Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will. I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off. Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.
> ...



Your point is well taken. I can safely say in this, however, that I am using a retail copy of the lens that I did purchase myself. This is not a perfect lens, and Tamron is not a perfect company, but I also use this lens more than any other in my fairly extensive kit. I'm glad you are going to try the service option, particularly if you like the lens overall. I'd be interested in hearing how your service experience went.

I guess my point above was that both reviews and, in particular, internet forums, love to have something to complain about. It rarely accomplishes anything, though, and I would say that from your signature you probably agree.


----------



## Ewinter (Sep 8, 2013)

Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Your point is well taken. I can safely say in this, however, that I am using a retail copy of the lens that I did purchase myself. This is not a perfect lens, and Tamron is not a perfect company, but I also use this lens more than any other in my fairly extensive kit. I'm glad you are going to try the service option, particularly if you like the lens overall. I'd be interested in hearing how your service experience went.



I understand that and even pointed it out. I will of course be following up on this.




TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I guess my point above was that both reviews and, in particular, internet forums, love to have something to complain about. It rarely accomplishes anything, though, and I would say that from your signature you probably agree.




Hahaha. Seriously, my best laugh of the day. It's a variation of what Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain said:



> Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.




Here's another corruption/variation of it that I like:



> Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 9, 2013)

I agree with most, excellent review.

And I'm a Fan of your Photography, what your able to pull out of the 6D is in many respects quite amazing, your an accomplished Photographer.

But, considering the articles/threads started by yourself regards the Tamron Lens versus the Canon Lens, it might in future be relevant to start by stating that you do have a Tamron interest, as you pointed to in this post.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475

I mention this due mainly to the thread you started regards "is the Canon 24-70f2.8 L II worth the extra Money", this thread went up only a few days after you mentioned the above interest/contract with Tamron.

I feel it's relevant because I think it makes a difference to how Readers appreciate the review/comments made when it's known that the reviewer does have an arrangement with the manufacturer of the equipment being reviewed.

It doesn't in any way invalidate your review or comments, but it does allow readers to put things more into perspective, I do hope you take this Positively, as mentioned, I liked and appreciate this review & your Photography.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 9, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I agree with most, excellent review.
> 
> And I'm a Fan of your Photography, what your able to pull out of the 6D is in many respects quite amazing, your an accomplished Photographer.
> 
> ...



I think Dustin got the contract from a magazine in conjunction with Tamron *after* he published the results. The thing is, he didn't make any contact with Tamron at least by default, not until he had already published his review. We can safely say he isn't *biased* during the release but technically may have been afterwards. Right?


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most, excellent review.
> ...



I apologize to you Dustin if I've opened a can of worms. I believe that your integrity is untarnished but full disclosure is always warranted.

It seemed to me that the contract came _after_ reviews of two zooms. Dustin likes Tamron lenses, Tamron likes his reviews and probably liked the images that he produces with their lenses, hence their "match".

Imagine your physician really believes a cholesterol lowering medicine is the best. He prescribes it a lot, and talks it up because of the great results he's seen. The pharma company that manufactures the drug notices and invites him to do a clinical study using his patients. All above board. Consent, openness, etc. Part of the grant for the study includes a small annual stipend for your physician. Now you come along with high cholesterol unresponsive to diet, exercise, weight loss, etc, and your doctor, who really believes in this medicine, recommends you start taking it, but does tell you about alternatives. He also discloses to you that he has a financial arrangement to do this clinical study. Isn't that ok? After all, he prescribed this drug extensively before he had the arrangement. If I trusted my doctor, I'd go with what he recommends.

Dustin uses his full, real name here, unlike most users, myself included. He's not going to tarnish that over this arrangement. It can't be worth _that_ much.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 9, 2013)

Jim O said:


> I apologize to you Dustin if I've opened a can of worms. I believe that your integrity is untarnished but full disclosure is always warranted.



I dont think you have Jim O, I think the comments made about "full disclosure" by myself, yourself & others have been all meant in a positive & helpful manner, my comments were meant to assist after reading some of the negative comments made to Justin re his Thread on the "is the Canon 24-70f/2.8 L II worth the extra Money", I felt he had been poorly dealt with by some of the Posters. I was simply offering some advice, Positive advise, it can be taken as such, or simply ignored, as long as it's offered in a clearly positive manner.

And it's not difficult to work out my own full name, it's on most Images I've Posted here at CR.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

Thanks to everyone for the nice feedback. For those of you who are interested, here is the order of events regarding my "integrity and Tamron" 8)

1) This review was published after I purchased a retail copy of the lens. As I disclosed in the review, I actually returned my first copy of the lens because I felt the VC wasn't within spec. It was replaced with the copy that I currently own and love.

2) I approached Tamron about doing a review of the 70-200 VC lens. They loaned me a retail copy of the lens to review, but stressed that they wanted my unbiased opinion. The link to my review is on the Tamron Canada website, but if you read that review, you will find that I am as transparent about its flaws as I am about its strengths.

3) I have now entered into a contractual relationship as a blogger with a photo magazine in Canada that is, I believe, sponsored by Tamron and is somehow connected with this website as well. I have complete liberty about what I write about and how I write it, but they do supply me gear and I am compensated for my articles. I will continue to write in as unbiased a way as possible...but there is that.

4) I am certainly not biased against Canon. One of my images has been used in advertising for the 6D and I was nicely compensated for that, but it again was after my article on why I chose the 6D over the 5DIII and not even chosen for that. I'm not sure that Canon is even aware of that article.

I was actually very surprised over the ire I received on that other thread that a couple of you referenced. But, it is an internet forum, not a professional environment...

All of this doesn't stop me from loving a lens that produces clarity like this...




The Ghosts of Parliament Hill by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

Ewinter said:


> Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
> We already keep one mkII so it would seem stupid to spend double on upgrading what is essentially a backup lens.



Thanks for the nice feedback. I would agree that under your set of circumstances that the Tamron should be plenty, and you will also have the opportunity to use the Tamron when/if you need the VC in certain situations. Sounds like the best of both worlds, to me. I would be interested in hearing your opinions when you can compare both side by side.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

Just a follow up on my situation. Before I arranged to ship the lens back to Tamron I re-tested the body with another lens, just to make certain that it wasn't the camera.

I used my 85/1.8 at 2.8 on the same brick wall from a slightly greater distance. Not surprisingly, all focus points worked well and produced nice sharp images. So clearly it is the lens, not the camera.

I can post screenshots of the RAW files if anyone wants to see.

My lens is in the hands of UPS and should be at Tamron USA in two days. They have a three business day turnaround so I should know more by the beginning of next week.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 10, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Just a follow up on my situation. Before I arranged to ship the lens back to Tamron I re-tested the body with another lens, just to make certain that it wasn't the camera.
> 
> I used my 85/1.8 at 2.8 on the same brick wall from a slightly greater distance. Not surprisingly, all focus points worked well and produced nice sharp images. So clearly it is the lens, not the camera.
> 
> ...



Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.


----------



## Ewinter (Sep 10, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Ewinter said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to your excellent reviews and images Dustin, I will be changing in my 24-70 mkI for this lens. The mk1 is terrible in comparison to the mkII and I've heard the Tamron is optically nearly as good.
> ...


I would love to let you know. I don't get to use the mkII that much (the mk1 is my daily carry, which is why I want to get an upgrade) but I can get them side by side. I believe the Tamron is the best lens for ME in this situation- the company MKII is great but I'm happier with the Tamron (as long as the focus speed isn't slow. I doubt it is, it wasn't when I used one on the Nikons) 
I'm also lucky to get the chance to compare it on the 1DX and the 5dIII- I'll post my findings.
I was on the fence, but after seeing your images I have no qualms. I find the mkI focuses very quickly but is so mediocre in resolution I hate it. And it's so large. 
Anyway, enough rambling
-Elliot


----------



## Jim O (Sep 10, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.



I did call and I spoke with someone in their service department. He did not offer that type of information but neither did I specifically request it. He did seem confident that the issue could be resolved with repair or replacement.

The lens serial # is 038xxx. I can provide the exact serial number to you privately if you wish.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 10, 2013)

Jim O said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity - did you actually have a dialogue with Tamron about the lens? I'm curious if they acknowledged your experience as a wider spread problem. Secondly, do you know your original serial number? I'm interested to know if they fix your lens (probably with an updated circuit board) or replace it.
> ...



Jim, I don't need the serial number, but I'm glad you know it so you can tell if you get your lens back or a replacement.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh. The serial number is on the invoice and the warranty card so I will know.

The lens was received by Tamron this morning. Waiting to hear...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Oh. The serial number is on the invoice and the warranty card so I will know.
> 
> The lens was received by Tamron this morning. Waiting to hear...



I wonder if it is, in fact, an issue with the lens itself. Several other Tamron lenses do not work properly with the outer AF points on the 7D, 40D, 50D, and 60D - the off-center AF points don't function as cross type points.

Turned out that wasn't an issue with Tamron per se, but rather with the fact that 3rd party lenses must be 'reverse engineered' to work with the Canon AF system, and in this case Tamron took the expedient route of 'borrowing' the Lens ID codes of some old Canon lenses. When Canon stopped supporting those old lenses in their firmware, current Tamron lenses ran into trouble. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/canon-officially-acknowledges-lensid-issue/

I wonder if something similar is occurring here?


----------



## Jim O (Sep 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > Oh. The serial number is on the invoice and the warranty card so I will know.
> ...



It sounds like the issue there is that the vertical and horizontal portions function separately in that scenario. 

Using Google translate on http://www.canon.de/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_7D.aspx?faqtcmuri=tcm:83-822402&page=1&type=faq:



> When using one of the eight listed below zoom lenses that have been placed on the market between 1990 and 1995, with one of the listed cameras, the AF points function in the edge region is not as cross AF points, resulting in vertical and horizontal lines leads that are not recognized at the same time. Vertical and horizontal lines are only detected separately



The images in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.msg311218#msg311218 are taken with the outer column of *horizontal* AF points so this is not exactly analogous.

According to LensRentals.com's analysis, which has looked at this issue, this lens _should_ be in "Group C" in the following graphic (pretty much straight out of the manual):


----------



## luciolepri (Sep 13, 2013)

I just ordered the Tamron 24-70/2,8 VC, I'd like to add a stabilized standard zoom to my equipment and I don't want an f/4. It took me a long time to decide, I read a lot of reviews claiming that the first copy they received was defective. Sometimes even the second and third one... I hope I'm gonna be lucky, but I'll definitely run all possible tests as soon as I'll have the lens in my hands and if something goes wrong I guess I'll wait for Canon to release a 24-70/2,8 IS, probably at a crazy price...


----------



## Jim O (Sep 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Makes sense. Nice that Roger did that testing.
> 
> Good luck with your lens!



Thanks. I should have it back next week.


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will.



I am sorry to be the devil's advocate here but this can be reversed: Just because some other person had a good experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will.

Sorry I cannot consider it an unbiased argument.

More technically: This may cry QC issues and as neuro said not complete reverse engineering but the end result unfortunately remains the same for the unsatisfied buyer.

I recognize the price difference and the IS advantage of course but it seems unfortunately that there will be some disadvantages together with the advantages.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 18, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...




Follow up:

Today was either day #4 or #5 depending on whether you count the day that the lens arrived to Tamron at 10:20 AM. Either way it was beyond their "three day turnaround" policy on warranty repairs. I had heard nothing despite sending a contact email via http://cgi.tamron.com/repair_status_form.htm two days ago. I called and spoke with someone who seemed to be a secretary in the service department. She looked up the repair order and put me on hold in order to speak with a repair technician. She came back and told me that a new board was required and it was not in stock, that *they were waiting for it to be shipped from Japan*. She tried to reassure me that the turnaround would be quick once the board arrived, although she had no idea when that might be. I explained that I was not satisfied and asked to speak with a manager. After about ten minutes on hold I spoke with a supervisor. I explained to him that the current state of affairs was unacceptable and that if they could not repair a brand new lens in their guaranteed turnaround time, they should replace it. I also mentioned that it would have been good service to have initiated contact with me since they had my email address and my mobile phone number. He basically agreed and said he would speak with his manager.

He called back an hour later and said they were going to overnight a brand new lens to me that was being pulled from their stock.

On the whole I'm not really happy having had to chase them down on this.

I will post further when the new lens arrives.


----------



## luciolepri (Sep 27, 2013)

I finally had the chance to use the first stabilized 24-70/2,8 in the history of mankind.
Unfortunately, being the focus ring at the bottom of the lens, using it on a rig with a follow focus, as I suspected, is not comfortable at all and that's already a "no go", for me. Anyway, I considered to keep the lens anyway, even if it could not replace the Canon 24-70/2.8, for times when I have to act fast and use the camera on a monopod or even handheld. But... VC doesn't work, at least on my sample, as well as it should.
I noticed it shooting stills, but this makes me suspicious about its video skills too.
What I noticed is that it takes a while for the VC to start working after you half press the shutter button, so it is not very helpful if you have to to take a picture "on the fly", like during an event.
What's more, with faster shutter speeds (let's say over 1/60) if I leave the VC enabled I get less sharp images than if I keep it disabled, so I always have to check the shutter speed I'm using to decide whether to live the VC enabled or not. Way too annoying.
After a couple of days of testing, I brought the lens back to the shop. They told me than in a week they'll give me another copy to verify if this issues are to be considered "normal", but I think I already made up my mind.
As far as the optics is concerned, that's definitely a very good lens, considering its price, but the mechanical side leaves a lot to be desired, as often happens with third-party lenses. And I'm also afraid, from what I read in many posts, that QC is quite an issue at Tamron's. I don't wanna have to test 3-4 lenses before getting a decent one and keep worrying that it could suddenly stop working properly...
Anyway, I will check this second sample before deciding.


----------



## Ewinter (Oct 6, 2013)

I finally have my thoughts to chime in.
I like this lens, though have to say I won't be using it for probably 70% of my work. Why? 
I shoot lots of gigs. Often the light is bad at best, but when I broke out my tamron 24-70 VC I found it could not focus in poor light. It was probably -1EV, but even with the AF assist lamp it was returning drastically OOF images, while acknowledging accurate focus.

The 50 1.4, 85 1.8, sigma 35 1.4 and the Canon 24-70 2.8 I&II all focused like champions in the same conditions _even in servo with no assistance_

So, in a bizzare turn of events, I find myself unable to use a standard lens designed for low light work in a low light environment. I guess I'll be using it for weddings, portrait shoots etc, but it'll be staying in the gear cupboard for gigs. Which is a shame, really....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 6, 2013)

Ewinter said:


> I finally have my thoughts to chime in.
> I like this lens, though have to say I won't be using it for probably 70% of my work. Why?
> I shoot lots of gigs. Often the light is bad at best, but when I broke out my tamron 24-70 VC I found it could not focus in poor light. It was probably -1EV, but even with the AF assist lamp it was returning drastically OOF images, while acknowledging accurate focus.
> 
> ...



If what you are saying is true, I would return/exchange the lens. I have no such issue and after AFMA have consistent focus results on all of my bodies with the Tamron. It shouldn't perform any differently in low light than the other lenses save perhaps the Canon 24-70II. I get much more accurate and consistent results from the Tamron than I do from my own copy of the 85mm f/1.8 (which is actually my most inaccurate focusing lens even after careful/multiple AFMA). It's not terrible, but I have very high sharpness/accuracy expectations for all of my kit.


----------



## luciolepri (Oct 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *All* image stabilisation (including that on Canon lenses) works in this fashion. So if you don't like its behaviour then IS/VC lenses are not for you regardless of who makes them.



Obviously, all lenses stabilizers need a bit of time to star working, but the VC of the lens I tried took way too long.



dilbert said:


> luciolepri said:
> 
> 
> > What's more, with faster shutter speeds (let's say over 1/60) if I leave the VC enabled I get less sharp images than if I keep it disabled, so I always have to check the shutter speed I'm using to decide whether to live the VC enabled or not. Way too annoying.
> ...



That's the other reason why I guess VC has something wrong in that sample.

Anyway, they already gave me another sample, I hope I'll be able to run some tests in the next few days. I'll post here my considerations about it. I really want this lens to be up to my expectations, a good 24-70/2.8 with image stabilization would be extremely useful, for me...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 8, 2013)

I just did a tour to Israel and Rome, and ended up using the Tamron for about 75% of the shots. I brought home great results despite dealing with often less than ideal lighting conditions: Here's a few samples:


----------



## bholliman (Dec 12, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I just did a tour to Israel and Rome, and ended up using the Tamron for about 75% of the shots. I brought home great results despite dealing with often less than ideal lighting conditions:



All very nice! I especially like the columns shot.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 14, 2013)

1/15th second @ 70mm = no hesitation. Just part of the reason why the Tamron is just a great travel lens. And that bokeh ain't bad, either


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 13, 2014)

Just wanted to share another travel pic - from Rome:




Bless Me Father by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------

