Tamron 24-70 - what to do?

divamum

So.... with my first wedding coming up, I decided to take the plunge and try one of these. Arrived yesterday, and I am really disappointed.

The good:
- incredibly quiet AF (which seems as fast as any Canon I have)
- lighter than the Canon 24-70 I
- IS is quiet and seems to work very well
- nice included hood

BUT... it's soft. I need to try it just a little more in some "real life" situations, but given that I will likely be using it in crappy light much of the time, I'm not sure having it perform well outside in sunlight is much help to me. I am SO disappointed - I was REALLY hoping it would match my 17-50 for sharpness, a lens which has never let me down for IQ. But my first tests have definitely not been as good as that; other than at 24mm where it was about the same as the Canon, it has been noticeably softer than the 24-70.

Should I send it back and try a different copy?

It's had decent reviews most of which say it matches or exceeds the 24-70. Is it worth trying a 2nd copy, or is it just that this lens can't deliver what I need? If it can deliver what it's crop-sensor sibling offers, I'm happy, but this copy definitely has NOT offered that kind of sharpness.

PS the 24-70 II simply isn't an option - I don't have the extra thousand bucks. Yes, I could rent it... but I'd prefer to get something I can keep and use as needed. I also really, really REALLY want (need) IS, even at lower focal lengths...........

Richard

Have you tried microfocus calibration?

divamum

No, not yet. I probably should. But my experience with afmf with other zoom lenses is that if there is ANY variation of focus between the focal lengths, it's a waste of time and make things worse. It's been good with my primes, but every zoom I've ever used it with has proved an exercise in frustration. That said, I suppose it can't hurt to try. Now to figure out how to get FoCal running on Win 7

Mitchell

My experience with microadjustments on zoom lenses has been the same. There seems to be a variation between the ends of the focal lengths that make setting the adjustment impossible. I've taken a FoCal reading at both extremes of a zoom and typically split the difference or I tend to err on the longer length setting.

Is your lens soft at all focal lengths? If so, I would try another copy if you have time before your wedding.

divamum

Thanks, Mitchell. I've just taken it and the Canon for a spin in the same light conditions etc etc and will compare. I'm NOT doing "scientific" testing simply because I need to know it will work in the situations I"ll use it rather than under optimum conditions.

May order another copy; enough reviews have raved about it that I do have to wonder if I've simply managed to land a dud. Everything else to do with cameras and mail order has gone wrong this week, so why not this too?! Course, if they're both the same, I'm out about $40 in return postage to get them back to Amazon with insurance. Le sigh.

mrcoons

I had a Tamron 28-75 a few years ago and it was soft (in my opinion) and the AF hunted in low light. So I sold it. I had been researching the 24-70 but had seen other comments about the IQ and had backed off. I was contemplating renting the Sigma 24-70 as the reviews and comments on it have been positive but have not done it yet. (I could use it for a shoot tonight but will suffer thru with my 24-105 f/4!) But the Sigma might be a viable alternative to the Tamron.

ephur

mrcoons wrote: »

I had a Tamron 28-75 a few years ago and it was soft (in my opinion) and the AF hunted in low light. So I sold it. I had been researching the 24-70 but had seen other comments about the IQ and had backed off. I was contemplating renting the Sigma 24-70 as the reviews and comments on it have been positive but have not done it yet. (I could use it for a shoot tonight but will suffer thru with my 24-105 f/4!) But the Sigma might be a viable alternative to the Tamron.

I owned the Tamron 28-75 for a couple of years, and used it quite a bit but I also found it lacking sharpness and the AF both noisy and slow. I didn't have to many problems with hunting, but AF performance was just not good.

I recently replaced that lens with the Tamron 24-70 VC (canon mount) and have been extremely happy with the new lens. It is sharper, autofocuses well, and lends a nice balance to the camera.

divamum

Hmmm.... generally been told the Sigma isn't in the same league as the Canons, and their quality control is known to be iffy. Btw, the Tam 17-50 (which I own) was always though to be a little sharper/more responsive than the 28-75; neither of those lenses have blazing fast AF (although it's acceptable), but I can tell you the new 24-70 really is zippy. Completely different lens in that regard and felt easily as responsive as many of my Canon lenses (and more responsive than some of them, eg the 50 1.4).

I'm glad you like yours, ephur. I do love the size, weight, handling, AF, IS and everything else.... I just want sharper pictures. I had a good look at my test shots and it MAY be that it is consistently front-focusing, so I'm going to try microadjusting and seeing if it helps, but if not... still have to decide whether to bother with another copy or not

divamum

Ok, I'm going to try a second copy - if I MA I know I'll never fully trust it (cf above comments re: afma on zooms - another reason to look forward to a 5dIII which can register different adjustments at different focal lengths!!). I really - REALLY - want this lens to work out, so crossing fingers it's just copy>copy variation. :

PS Actually, what I really really want is a Canon L Mk II, with IS, for under $1500. Yup, that'd be the optimum for this particular focal length. Was shooting with the 70-200II yesterday and thinking how very, very much I'd love that kind of sparkle, accuracy, and stabilisation in a 24-70!!

Demian

Lemme know how the second copy works out, Divamum

I rented the Tamron 24-70 vc a while back and I was pretty unimpressed. I generally use primes for that area, but I wanted more flexibility. And I know a zoom isn't gonna match up with primes, but... I was pretty unimpressed with the IQ AND I had a bunch of missed shots due to awful AF times, even with a flash for AF assist. It wasn't worth it, for me.

I've never used another midrange zoom for full frame, so I can't say how it measures up to the Canon L, etc. But when I shot crop, I had the Tamron 17-50 which I adored. This... just didn't work out for me.

divamum

This is so NOT what I want to hear I'm actually hoping I can find another copy locally - it'd be worth driving to pick one up if I don't have to pay return postage in the event I don't like the second one either!!

Yeah, I guess I'm hoping for 17-55is performance. While this one isn't bad at f4, it's either front-focusing, or just not that good. Hence why I want to try a second copy. I'll get back to you....

JimKarczewski

I've had sigmas, never tamron. In the future Sigma will be the one to watch. They know there is no way to microfocus at various focal lengths, so their new 120-300/2.8 has a lenscap->usb that allows you to calibrate 5 different focal lengths. It sounds like they will be doing this on all of their new zoom lenses.

divamum

JimKarczewski wrote: »

I've had sigmas, never tamron. In the future Sigma will be the one to watch. They know there is no way to microfocus at various focal lengths, so their new 120-300/2.8 has a lenscap->usb that allows you to calibrate 5 different focal lengths. It sounds like they will be doing this on all of their new zoom lenses.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1911199#post1911199

divamum

Copy #2 - MUCH MUCH better. I think the first one was front-focusing; this one has so far been dead on at all focal lengths on two different bodies.

Thoughts:

- performed equally well on the 7d and 5dII; perhaps slightly better on the 7d, but I'll attribute that to the 7d's better AF rather than a fault in the lens.
- No, it doesn't approach the sharpness of the 70-200L II (few lenses do lol)
- it IS pretty darn close in quality to the Tam 17-50, which is a very good thing
- Like the 17-50 it is not as good at 2.8 as it is at 4.0, but entirely acceptable
- doesn't have the same kind of "sparkle" as the 24-70L I at its best, but it is equally as sharp (or sharper), and does have IS

Need to use it a little more tomorrow to be sure, but if these initial tests are any indication, this one's a keeper.

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

Copy #2 - MUCH MUCH better. I think the first one was front-focusing; this one has so far been dead on at all focal lengths on two different bodies.

Thoughts:

- performed equally well on the 7d and 5dII; perhaps slightly better on the 7d, but I'll attribute that to the 7d's better AF rather than a fault in the lens.
- No, it doesn't approach the sharpness of the 70-200L II (few lenses do lol)
- it IS pretty darn close in quality to the Tam 17-50, which is a very good thing
- Like the 17-50 it is not as good at 2.8 as it is at 4.0, but entirely acceptable
- doesn't have the same kind of "sparkle" as the 24-70L I at its best, but it is equally as sharp (or sharper), and does have IS

Need to use it a little more tomorrow to be sure, but if these initial tests are any indication, this one's a keeper.

Sounds about right. Canon / Nikon flagship glass will always have a little bit better vibrance and color overall, when you're spending an arm and a leg, but the Tamron is ranked to be almost as sharp as even the new Canon 24-70 mk2 L. And in the off-center areas, it utterly disgraces the original Canon 24-70 in my opinion. The old Canon 24-70 had nasty issues with field curvature, and pretty pathetic off-center wide-open sharpness in general.

Overally, if I were a Canon shooter I'd take the Tamron 24-70 any day over either of the Canon L's. Of course I'd be using primes quite often anyways, and I would be going for (gasp) Sigma's 35 and 85 for sure, they're both way better values than the Canon equivalents, and as sharp or sharper.

Third parties are always going to be a hit-or-miss thing, and if you're the type of person who freaks out about poor quality control, in this world of ever-increasing mass-production, well, you're going to miss out in life... Even Nikon and Canon can ship you a front-focusing or back-focusing camera, nobody's record is spotless...

=Matt=

divamum

Still liking this copy so far! We'll see how it does under pressure. Going to use it to shoot the rehearsal tomorrow (so that if it falters I can still make other choices on Saturday!!)

divamum

Final update on this: still liking it. It's not a perfect lens, but it's very, very good. I'd say that it's sharper than the Canon L mkI wide open at 24mm, and not quite as good as the Canon at 70mm. AF is fractionally slower than the Canon, but not enough to make a significant difference. IS? Beyond helpful.... even at shorter focal lengths. Made a HUGE difference for me on Saturday.

Icebear

Lens Quality Variability
Hi everybody,
I stumbled across this and thought I'd post it here 'cause it's very applicable to the experience our Diva has related to us. I think I'll also start a new thread with this link, since many folks might not pick up on this one.

CynthiaM

divamum wrote: »

So.... with my first wedding coming up, I decided to take the plunge and try one of these. Arrived yesterday, and I am really disappointed.

The good:
- incredibly quiet AF (which seems as fast as any Canon I have)
- lighter than the Canon 24-70 I
- IS is quiet and seems to work very well
- nice included hood

BUT... it's soft. I need to try it just a little more in some "real life" situations, but given that I will likely be using it in crappy light much of the time, I'm not sure having it perform well outside in sunlight is much help to me. I am SO disappointed - I was REALLY hoping it would match my 17-50 for sharpness, a lens which has never let me down for IQ. But my first tests have definitely not been as good as that; other than at 24mm where it was about the same as the Canon, it has been noticeably softer than the 24-70.

Should I send it back and try a different copy?

It's had decent reviews most of which say it matches or exceeds the 24-70. Is it worth trying a 2nd copy, or is it just that this lens can't deliver what I need? If it can deliver what it's crop-sensor sibling offers, I'm happy, but this copy definitely has NOT offered that kind of sharpness.

PS the 24-70 II simply isn't an option - I don't have the extra thousand bucks. Yes, I could rent it... but I'd prefer to get something I can keep and use as needed. I also really, really REALLY want (need) IS, even at lower focal lengths...........

I recently switched to a full frame camera (canon 6d) and have two zooms that I have calibrated using the micro af feature. Prior to the 6d I had the 7d. From what I remember on the 7d if you did the af microadjustment on a zoom, there was just one adjustment. On the 6d, and probably the same on the newer cameras, you do an af microadjustment for both the long and wide end of the lens. And when the lens is on the camera and shooting you will see the af adjustment changing for those areas in between the long and wide ends. So if you have a camera that can do the af microadjustment, do it no matter what lens you end up with. I have the tamron 28-75 and thought for sure I would see the shortcomings of the lens if I stuck it on the 6d but to the contrary, after the af micro adjustments, I was blown away. I took my kids out for an engagement shoot and lets just say that I didn't realize that my 28 year old daughter was developing crows feet until I looked at these at 100% magnification! If it would help, private message me and I can give you links to the original full resolution images (jpegs rendered from lightroom with minimal lightroom adjustments).

divamum

Icebear wrote: »

Hi everybody,
I stumbled across this and thought I'd post it here 'cause it's very applicable to the experience our Diva has related to us. I think I'll also start a new thread with this link, since many folks might not pick up on this one.

Yup - that article was one of the reasons I was hesitant simply to order a 2nd copy but, in this case, I'm glad I did

I need to run the Tam I'm keeping through FoCal - it worked pretty well out of the box and I just didn't have time to run it through. As long as the adjustments aren't different between the focal lengths, I suspect it will give it a little extra oomph.

The Tam isn't a perfect lens - and I can definitely see its limitations when comparing shots in the same scenario taken with the 70-200 2.8 is II (which might as well be a prime for clarity, sharpness, speed and everything else) - but I shudder to think what Saturday's images would have been like using a lens WITHOUT IS. I was regularly having to shoot at 1/50 which, for me, is likely to result in motion blur regardless of focal length (I'm a crappy hand-holder because I tend to bop around a lot when I shoot).

I'll be keeping it for the time being for sure. And continue to hope that it will spur Canon to release a 24-70L with the image quality of the mk II 2.8 AND IS. THAT would be a lens worth saving the pennies to buy..........

Icebear

divamum wrote: »

I'm a crappy hand-holder because I tend to bop around a lot when I shoot.

Is there video?

divamum

Ha - someday we'll shoot together, and you'll see what I mean.............