# downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests well



## Aglet (Jun 1, 2012)

I was actually hoping for even better performance from Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8 in the borders and bokeh from the originally published MTF charts but, considering the price, build quality and optical stabilization, this is likely to become a very good budget-minded choice for full-frame mid-range zoom. It does beat the previous EF lens in most areas, the vII will be interesting to see tested.

Tamron test link below

www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff


----------



## pwp (Jun 1, 2012)

History suggests that the new release of a premium high volume category product from Canon will remain premium priced for some time, most likely years. This will be the case with the 24-70 f/2.8II especially if it delivers on it's promises. Look to long term pricing trends of the L70-200 f/2.8isII and the L16-35 f/2.8II as indicators. The new 24-70 is a lens that Canon will expect to see land in most professionals bags, plus a staggering number of cashed up, impatient enthusiasts who have been hungry for this lens for years.

I hope Tamron has a big winner on their hands with their new lens, but don't bet the farm on its effect on Canon pricing.

PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

pwp said:


> I hope Tamron has a big winner on their hands with their new lens, but don't bet the farm on its effect on Canon pricing.



I guess it'll be the other way around: With the lack of other alternatives and the fact that Canon's 24-70ii will stay @$2000+ for a long time to come, the Tamron maybe won't see the usual price drop of 3rd party lenses after release... if people can work around the sharpness falloff of the Tamron on full frame and the mediocre quality control.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jun 1, 2012)

It could possibly affect the used price of the MK I. Not saying that it will be cheaper after the MKII hits the street but perhaps it won't increase in price as much as it is expected with the release of a much more expensive replacement. 

On the other hand, perhaps Canon will continue selling the MKI which could be interesting.


----------



## Janco (Jun 1, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> On the other hand, perhaps Canon will continue selling the MKI which could be interesting.


Isn't it already officially discontinued?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/official-discontinued-list/


----------



## pwp (Jun 1, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:



> It could possibly affect the used price of the MK I. Not saying that it will be cheaper after the MKII hits the street but perhaps it won't increase in price as much as it is expected with the release of a much more expensive replacement.
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps Canon will continue selling the MKI which could be interesting.




I'm not sure which way to look at this. One one hand, the expected large increase in numbers of pre-owned 24-70 f/2.8 MkI lenses on the market as photographers upgrade to the MkII may push down prices of the older lens. Basic supply & demand. On the other hand the high price of entry to the new lens may artificially boost achievable prices for pre-owned MkI lenses, especially as stocks of new MkI lenses evaporate. 

If I was a second hand lens speculator/dealer I'd be tossing a coin whether to spill my stock of MkI glass now, or buy up where possible & hoard for a few months. Sheesh! Why am I even thinking about this? Does it matter? 

PW


----------



## Aglet (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *

Late nite post, I shoulda been more clear. 
I'm thinking this could put significant downward pressure on the original version of Canon's lens.
The v II OEM product will likely be lapped up by those who have a need for it but the Tamron may make for an interestingly volatile market for the older Canon lens.
AND the Nikon version as well. I may actually consider buying the Tamron in an F-mount since my EOS line is adequately covered for my needs in this range.
Time'll tell.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Aglet said:


> I'm thinking this could put significant downward pressure on the original version of Canon's lens.



Again, not necessarily: The distance to the mk2 is very large, and the Tamron's 24-70's af is not good as Canon's which might make a decisive difference to event photogs. So people wanting a Canon 2.8 mid-range zoom but not wanting to spend $2000+ might still go for the mk1 - thus demand will stay high even if supply will be somewhat higher than now.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Marsu42 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking this could put significant downward pressure on the original version of Canon's lens.
> ...



The AF comparisons I've seen puts Tamrons AF speed/accuracy very close to Canon 24-70 mkI, and certainly "good enough" for event photography. The MTF test from Photozone is actually a little better than I was expecting, and the great center sharpness at f/2.8 from about 35mm to 50mm bodes well for that critial range where 35mm and 50mm primes usually rule. 

I think a sensible event photog could EASILY produce fabulous photos for clients with this Tamron, and with the money saved from not buying the Canon 24-70 MkII, a nice, fast prime lens could be added to the bag. And when lights go low during receptions, the IS on Tamron could spank the Canon 24-70 II no matter how much better the MTF may look in lab. 

I hope the stiff competition being put up by Tamron for lenses and Nikon for bodies will at least give pause to those Canon Exec's who seem hell-bent ONLY on pricing their gear as high as possible as they can get away with.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Aglet said:


> AND the Nikon version as well. I may actually consider buying the Tamron in an F-mount since my EOS line is adequately covered for my needs in this range.
> Time'll tell.


 
I'm not sure it would put much pressure on the Nikon version, its pretty much inferior accross the board. It does have lower CA's, but sharpness really is not close. Its not priced at much less either. I was interested in seeing how it compared to the nikon 24-70G for my D800, but it would be a downgrade.

In the case of the old canon lens, it might be a better lens, but the focus shift bothers me, as you stop down, focus moves backward. Doesn't do that on the Nikon version either.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



drjlo said:


> And when lights go low during receptions, the IS on Tamron could spank the Canon 24-70 II no matter how much better the MTF may look in lab.



That's the reason why Canon probably didn't put IS in the 24-70ii - what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required? IS is certainly nice and helps composition, but it doesn't freeze the world around you. If you want to read more, look at the last pages of this thread for real world Tamron performance:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772&page=36



drjlo said:


> And when lights go low during I hope the stiff competition being put up by Tamron for lenses and Nikon for bodies will at least give pause to those Canon Exec's who seem hell-bent ONLY on pricing their gear as high as possible as they can get away with.



I'm hoping with you - maybe in the future, Canon might even include lens hoods on $800 non-L lenses or tripod rings on $1300 tele lenses?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Marsu42 said:


> That's the reason why Canon probably didn't put IS in the 24-70ii - what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required? IS is certainly nice and helps composition, but it doesn't freeze the world around you.



+1
For me Canon 24-70 MK2 and Tamron 24-70 VC are in different market.
MK2 is for kind PRO shooting for events and high speed.
Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.

Actually I am more interested in Tamron because I am not a PRO and shoot a lot photo for my family. VC is very important for me.


----------



## picturesbyme (Jun 1, 2012)

Could you guys post some links to see some comparison of the Tamron and the Canon MK2?

Got the 24-70 v1 and I'm pretty happy with it (photo  ), I think it's pretty sharp but if the Tamron is sharper than that (and has IS) I would sell my Canon in a heartbeat. 
I have no brand loyalty when it comes to quality and all I care is the picture not the name written on the lens..







http://atlanticpicture.com/


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 2, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> Could you guys post some links to see some comparison of the Tamron and the Canon MK2?


MK2 is not released yet.



picturesbyme said:


> Got the 24-70 v1 and I'm pretty happy with it (photo  ), I think it's pretty sharp but if the Tamron is sharper than that (and has IS) I would sell my Canon in a heartbeat.
> I have no brand loyalty when it comes to quality and all I care is the picture not the name written on the lens..



I suggest you check this thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
Many people are sharing their experiences there.

The biggest issue for this lens is onion bokeh. If you are a PRO, I will say don't waste your time and go with MK2. If you are not a PRO, you can get one from Amazon and try it. If you like it, keep it. Otherwise, just return it. That's very easy to return a lens without any cost if you buy from Amazon.


----------



## picturesbyme (Jun 2, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> MK2 is not released yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm far from PRO I still have some non L lenses  but the day will come )
Thanks for the link, I'll wait to see some tests on that Tamron, I just don't get how many here know so much about this two lenses if there are barely any tests out with them??


----------



## elflord (Jun 2, 2012)

Aglet said:


> I was actually hoping for even better performance from Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8 in the borders and bokeh from the originally published MTF charts but, considering the price, build quality and optical stabilization, this is likely to become a very good budget-minded choice for full-frame mid-range zoom. It does beat the previous EF lens in most areas, the vII will be interesting to see tested.
> 
> Tamron test link below
> 
> www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff



I don't see it putting price pressure on the Canon regardless, because some people will pay a premium for the Canon lens. The topic of this thread reflects that -- the first reaction when Tamron seem to have a winner is not to buy the Tamron, it's to hope for a cheaper Canon lens. The Sigma 85mm hasn't put much downward pressure on the flagships from Sony, Nikon or Canon, and I don't see this doing the same.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



cliffwang said:


> The biggest issue for this lens is onion bokeh.



Yep, it's still got something ugly goin' on in OOF hilites, but so does Canon's v1 lens and, to a lesser degree, so does Nikon's.

[/quote]


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm not sure it would put much pressure on the Nikon version, its pretty much inferior accross the board. It does have lower CA's, but sharpness really is not close. Its not priced at much less either. I was interested in seeing how it compared to the nikon 24-70G for my D800, but it would be a downgrade.
> 
> In the case of the old canon lens, it might be a better lens, but the focus shift bothers me, as you stop down, focus moves backward. Doesn't do that on the Nikon version either.



Yes, have to give the nod to Nikon's current lens for IQ at the moment. The Tammy does pretty well tho, and might be a suitable compromise if you want to save a few hundred $. Too bad it's priced a little hight at the moment, maybe it'll come down a tad in a year.

And that focus shift issue is something that really dogged me when shooting with their first 18-270mm and that's really annoying. I was shooting some really nice close-ups of fruit on a tree, the backgrounds were terrific but when I got them back to the computer I found that on 2cm subjects the focus had shifted by nearly that much with only a few f-stops! All the shots were so OOF they were useless. Then the IS acted up and started *causing* blurring. I got rid of it and picked up the Canon 18-200mm zoom instead; it works much more reliably and I still have it for a walk-around.

One would have to see to what extent the new 24-70 focus-shifts at "normal" shooting distances but it could be a deal-breaker.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Aglet said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest issue for this lens is onion bokeh.
> ...



That's why I only like, not love, my Canon 24-70mm. I will buy either this Tamron lens or Canon's MK2. I will make a decision in few months.


----------



## VanWeddings (Jun 2, 2012)

i don't think it's going to affect the mk2's price, but i've got the tamron 24-70 and i'm extremely happy with the build and sharpness. the sharpness is comparable to the 70-200L. love the VC. only thing i don't quite like is the opposite direction for the rings, but i'll get used to that.


----------



## Z (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *

I really don't know why people keep saying this:



drjlo said:


> And when lights go low during receptions, the IS on Tamron could spank the Canon 24-70 II no matter how much better the MTF may look in lab.



when the answer is clearly this:



Marsu42 said:


> what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required?



If you have to rely on IS in the 24-70 focal length for shooting *people*, your shutter speed is far too slow for anything but artistic blurs.


----------



## picturesbyme (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



dilbert said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron is more like all purpose workaround lens with very good, but not great IQ.
> ...



Nothing. Only, if it would be "Canon" printed on it vs "Tamron" 
..
Now, PUT DOWN that stone...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



cliffwang said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the reason why Canon probably didn't put IS in the 24-70ii - what's low shutter speed good for when for shooting people 1/100+ is required? IS is certainly nice and helps composition, but it doesn't freeze the world around you.
> ...



I'm not a PRO neither and don't do photo for living. I JUST enjoy the IQ on L lenses. I'm going for mrk II.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Z said:


> when the answer is clearly this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand why people keep minimizing IS for not being able to freeze subject motion. I know IS can't freeze subject motion, but it sure helps to get more keepers in low light by reducing camera shake, especially at the 70mm end, which can mean the difference between either getting that magic moment (say a bride) or NOT getting it At All.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



drjlo said:


> I know IS can't freeze subject motion, but it sure helps to get more keepers in low light by reducing camera shake, especially at the 70mm end



Nobody (I guess) disputes that having IS is better than not having IS given the same lens. But the main difference IS makes for me @70mm is that it reduces camera shake so I can place the af point better, but I still shoot at higher speeds for things that move at least a bit, i.e. not someone posing for the camera like in the good ol' days with a stick behind him to hold his neck.

It might be true that you get a *little* higher keeper rate with IS, but it is disputable if this is worth it esp. there are tradeoffs in iq or weight - Canon obviously didn't think so.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 3, 2012)

*Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests *



Marsu42 said:


> It might be true that you get a *little* higher keeper rate with IS, but it is disputable if this is worth it esp. there are tradeoffs in iq or weight - Canon obviously didn't think so.



I really don't get why Canon decided not to include IS on the 24-70 L 2 when they seem to be putting into the new wide primes.
I think I'd prefer my wide prime w-o IS more than a midrange zoom I may use in low light.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 13, 2012)

corner performance seems to be an issue with the tamron lens - this can be expected looking at the mft charts and test charts at the-digital-picture confirm this - even though i'm not sure these are the final results. corner to corner performance of the canon mark I is better. corner performance of the canon mark II must be awesome - if the mft charts are for real.


----------

