New stabilised 24-70 from Tamron

divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
edited June 14, 2012 in Accessories
http://www.tamron.eu/uk/news/read/data/tamron-develops-full-size-high-speed-standard-zoom-with-built-in-image-stabilization-sp-24-70m.html

If that thing has the optical quality of some of its siblings - and faster AF - it should be a fabulous lens!
facebook | photo site |
«1

Comments

  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2012
    Yea, I saw it this morning... Good stuff... But probably gonna wait for Canon version, as it would *finally* make a replacement for EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, but now for FF...
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 6, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    http://www.tamron.eu/uk/news/read/data/tamron-develops-full-size-high-speed-standard-zoom-with-built-in-image-stabilization-sp-24-70m.html

    If that thing has the optical quality of some of its siblings - and faster AF - it should be a fabulous lens!
    Very interesting. I've been shooting with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for years and have been quite happy with it, BUT--it's slow to focus in low light and it's just a little too long at the wide end. This seems to address both issues while giving IS as an extra. If it's not too expensive (and the optics are as good), this looks like a winner to me.
    My Pics
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2012
    Given today's rumored cost of a 24-70L II, I can't imagine how I'd begin to afford it - it's nearly as much as a 5dII! So... the possibility of Tam stepping in to offer another alternative is GREAT news. I love my 24-70L, but I can't deny that I'd love IS (I'm a crappy hand-holder, so it would definitely be useful for me, even at these "short" lengths). And I've always been superhappy with my Tam 17-50 except for the slower/less accurate in low light AF. So.. waiting and watching. Seems like it's going to be an interesting year in Gearland..... :D
    facebook | photo site |
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2012
    Wait.. do I hear now Canon's not even IS??? headscratch.gifdunno
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2012
    Nikolai wrote: »
    Wait.. do I hear now Canon's not even IS??? headscratch.gifdunno

    That's the current rumour. Along with $1700-1800. OUCH! Course, who knows until it's released.... I'm following this particular race closely, I have to admit. I love my 24-70L, but as anybody who's ever used one knows, it tends to be like the little girl with the curl and "when it's good it's very very good, and when it's bad it's horrid"! It would be nice to have a more modern version that is at its best ALL the time. thumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited February 7, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    That's the current rumour.
    Rumor confirmed.
    My Pics
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    Rumor confirmed.

    Yeah :cry http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS
    And no news on 5DIII/X :-( ne_nau.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    See other thread about the Canon lenses. Pretty sickening, eh? :( Actually, I just wonder who they're catering for. Is it moving towards more video, hence the choices?? I'm kind of baffled, and it makes me wonder what hte next camera will be ne_nau.gif

    However, it DOES make the Tamron an attractive lens to watch for. I can live with my 24-70L I (especially once it comes back from the Canon hospital), but if I decide I really must have IS, then Tamron, here I come.............
    facebook | photo site |
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Canon is seriously making me second guess my interest in a full frame camera at this point.
    My 10-22 is awesome and I don't think the 17-40 quite matches it so would need to go to the 16-35 for easily $1000 more
    My 17-55 2.8 IS is awesome and has IS. The new 24-70 doesn't and costs over $1000 more
    The 5D III will likely be at least $1000 more than the 7D replacement.
    While I do sell my landscape work, I can't imagine realizing the $6000 it would cost to purchase a 5D III and replace the lenses above.

    Meanwhile, Nikon brings out a 36 MP full frame behemoth at under $3k...
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Canon is seriously making me second guess my interest in a full frame camera at this point.
    My 10-22 is awesome and I don't think the 17-40 quite matches it so would need to go to the 16-35 for easily $1000 more
    My 17-55 2.8 IS is awesome and has IS. The new 24-70 doesn't and costs over $1000 more
    The 5D III will likely be at least $1000 more than the 7D replacement.
    While I do sell my landscape work, I can't imagine realizing the $6000 it would cost to purchase a 5D III and replace the lenses above.

    Meanwhile, Nikon brings out a 36 MP full frame behemoth at under $3k...

    Well, in all honesty, since I had a first-hand experience with both "(20D | 30D | 40D | 50D | 7D) + 10-22" and "5D2 + 16-35", I can tell you this: yes, it costs significantly more; and yes, the image quality is significantly better.
    Of course, it's only my personal take on it. "Depending on circumstances", YMMV, etc.
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 6, 2012
    Update: The lens can now be preordered from B&H.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • chrisdgchrisdg Registered Users Posts: 366 Major grins
    edited April 6, 2012
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Canon is seriously making me second guess my interest in a full frame camera at this point.
    My 10-22 is awesome and I don't think the 17-40 quite matches it so would need to go to the 16-35 for easily $1000 more
    My 17-55 2.8 IS is awesome and has IS. The new 24-70 doesn't and costs over $1000 more
    The 5D III will likely be at least $1000 more than the 7D replacement.
    While I do sell my landscape work, I can't imagine realizing the $6000 it would cost to purchase a 5D III and replace the lenses above.

    Meanwhile, Nikon brings out a 36 MP full frame behemoth at under $3k...

    I'm struggling with the same dilemma. The other added expense of moving from the 17-55 EF-S to the 24-70 (either Canon or Tamron) is that all my expensive B+W 77m filters won't fit the 82mm diameter of the 24-70's. :(
    -Chris D.
    http://www.facebook.com/cdgImagery (concert photography)
    http://www.cdgimagery.com (concert photography)
     http://chrisdg.smugmug.com (everything else)
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited April 6, 2012
    Chris-
    I've had a complete change of heart since that post - mostly prompted by my taking a friend's 5DmkII and 24-70 mk I out for a shoot.
    The difference between my 50D and her 5D was eye-opening. While the APS-c sensor and a good lens like the 17-55 can produce great shots, I decided to bite the bullet and move to full frame. Just sold my 17-55 and am planning to start with just the 17-40 and 70-200. The 17-40 will still take my 10-stop ND at 77mm. Going to wait and see how much I miss the 24-70 range but may end up shooting portraits with the 35/2 and 85/1.8 instead to save a chunk of change.
    Will be waiting to see the first reviews of Tamron's new lens...
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Let the speculation begin....

    I admit I'm VERY interested in this lens - I would actually find IS (VC) helpful (frankly, I"m such a crappy hand-holder I probably should have it on ALL my lenses, although at this point I don't), and have always been very pleased by the optics on my Tam 17-50. If this one can match/surpass that, I will definitely consider it.

    www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/06/tamron-24-70mm-2p8-VC-price
    facebook | photo site |
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Here are some fullframe (21MP) samples taken with the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    Ooh, good catch Manfr3d. Hard to tell from those though - only 1 f4 shot which looks kinda poor, actually, although the shots look phenom at f8 Then again.... most do :D I want to see f2.8 shots - that'll be the real test.
    facebook | photo site |
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 9, 2012
    I agree! I wasn't too impressed with the edge performance of the lens stopped down in these samples either. Lets hope we can examine some RAW files soon.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    Hi guys,

    a first technical review with 21MP sample images can be found here.
    To me this looks very good!!
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    First reviews finally out:

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

    It's looking good, although $1299 is a higher initial price than I was expetcing :-/ Still waiting and watching as this one hits the streets.... :)
    facebook | photo site |
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    First reviews finally out:

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

    It's looking good, although $1299 is a higher initial price than I was expetcing :-/ Still waiting and watching as this one hits the streets.... :)

    same link as above ;)
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Oh man, this thing has me drooling. Lemme know if any of you find ISO chart shots with it...
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Sorry Manfred - was posting in haste and didn't see yours before doing so! They are indeed the same.... :)
    facebook | photo site |
  • MacroPhotoFlyMacroPhotoFly Registered Users Posts: 13 Big grins
    edited April 27, 2012
    Anyone have a view how this lens will compare with the canon 24-105L? Like so many other owners of a 5d2 I have that lens and would step "up" to a 24-70 providing the f2.8 gives me the necessary quality of shallow DoF, bokeh, etc + sharper + IS/VC. I can trade off the longer length if I get all the prior three
    Regards,
    Mac Fly
    HomePageLink
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    Here's the MTF data:

    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited April 28, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Here's the MTF data:

    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

    That link also has a brief review and comparison to the Canon equivalent. Recommended reading. thumb.gifthumb
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    Can somebody here who's good at interpreting the numbers enlighten us as to what those MTF charts are likely to mean? ~hopeful look~

    Also, what about those "onion" highlights? I only saw one particular highlight which did that in the sample - I'm curious as to why it WAS only one higlight in the image (which seems weird), and also what that kind of bokeh indicates. ne_nau.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited April 30, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    Can somebody here who's good at interpreting the numbers enlighten us as to what those MTF charts are likely to mean? ~hopeful look~

    ...

    The problem with MTF charts is that there is no single standard or even a single agreement on MTF testing methodology or testing limits. In other words MTF charts only allow comparison between lenses from the same manufacturer or tests at the same testing facility. You cannot directly relate MTF from one source to another source.

    To drive home how important this is, almost every manufacturer of lenses does optical MTF testing for quality control and versional testing. Canon uses "calculated" MTF methodology for it's public MTF tables, which only loosely compares to optical methods. Both results can be valuable, but only in the context of each manufacturer and not between each manufacturer.

    In general, the horizontal scale is lens center to lens edge, while the vertical scale is contrast and resolution (global contrast versus micro-contrast).

    The dotted and dashed lines represent the visual OOF qualities and generally the closer the dotted and dashed lines follow each other, the better the bokeh will appear.

    Here is a pretty good video explanation of MTF charts and what they mean:

    http://youtu.be/DjCoD0_V2RM
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • DemianDemian Registered Users Posts: 211 Major grins
    edited June 14, 2012
    If anyone is interested, there are ISO crops up on the digital picture:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


    The reviewer mentioned he had some problem with bad lenses, so IDK how accurate these shots are, but.... they don't look too hot. At every focal length except 70, the Canon 24-70 is sharper at f2.8 than the Tamron is at f8 :x
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited June 14, 2012
    Am I reading it backwards? I'm jut looking at it now, and it looks like the Tam is sharper in the center (although, granted, not at the edges). The mouseover is the Canon, right? ne_nau.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited June 14, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    Am I reading it backwards? I'm jut looking at it now, and it looks like the Tam is sharper in the center (although, granted, not at the edges). The mouseover is the Canon, right? ne_nau.gif

    At 24mm, I see that too. (... That the Tamron is sharper in the center than the Canon.) The difference is not great, however.

    Overall, I agree that the Canon has a better showing. The Tamron images do look like they might respond very well to post-processing sharpening techniques.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.