So how good is Tamron 24-70mm VC (on FF)

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
17,655
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
I am looking for some real world experiences from Tamron 24-70mm users. Ideally ex-Canon/Nikon f/2.8 zoom owners.

I am primarily looking at this for the IS (VC) function. My Canon mk1 is Ok, but I do miss stabilisation quite a lot. mk2 is a bit too expensive and being non-IS doesn't really interest me that much at the moment.

Is the tamron just as sharp in practice (I've seen the MTFs but are they really like that?) I am looking for good sharpness down to the corners at 100% for landscapes, so anything less than good copy of Canon mk1 won't cut it.

How is the focusing accuracy, speed and build quality? I won't throw it on the ground, but it will get some slight abuse in the rain or camera bag.

Finally had anyone had duff or misaligned copies (i.e. soft side, etc), or any other problems?
 
I know you're after real world users, of which I am not. However I have read quite a few reviews that say it's sharp in the middle but very soft in corners, even stopped down.
 
grotty said:
I know you're after real world users, of which I am not. However I have read quite a few reviews that say it's sharp in the middle but very soft in corners, even stopped down.
Click to expand...

hmm, that's maybe some pretty bad copies around which is not good. It seemed like photzone.de liked theirs but maybe this is an exception
Let's see some more real life stories for now.

I am not sure I like the idea (and more specifically price) of getting canon 24-70 f/4 IS as an additional lens. Maybe when it is around £550 (used)
 
Nikon user here, I bought one to replace a superb Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as i though the VC would be handy for me, it turned out to be a pile of mush, sent it back and bought another exactly the same, super sharp in the centre but mushy towards the edge of the frame, went back and found an even better 28-75mm

If you don't need the extra 4mm or the VC then save a shed load of cash and get the Tammy 28-75mm, class lens for £200
 
I debated long and hard on the Tamron before getting my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, thinking that the v.c would be handy. Eventually decided on the Nikon because reading around online there seemed to be a lot of people having issues with the Tarmon mainly problems with the v.c, soft edges and soft on the left hand side.

All that said, I am sure if you can get a good copy it will be superb.

DxOMark did a recent comparison on 24-70 lenses, Nikon fit on the D800 and the Tamron v.c scored really well.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...tandard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top/Comparison
 
Gary Coyle said:
Nikon user here, I bought one to replace a superb Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as i though the VC would be handy for me, it turned out to be a pile of mush, sent it back and bought another exactly the same, super sharp in the centre but mushy towards the edge of the frame, went back and found an even better 28-75mm

If you don't need the extra 4mm or the VC then save a shed load of cash and get the Tammy 28-75mm, class lens for £200
Click to expand...

So QC is looking like a very big problem. Perhaps it is just best to stick with Canon mk1 and wait till tamron drops down even further
 
daugirdas said:
So QC is looking like a very big problem. Perhaps it is just best to stick with Canon mk1 and wait till tamron drops down even further
Click to expand...

That suggests that you would buy the Tamron even if it is soft as long as it was cheap enough? :shrug:
 
Jackwow said:
That suggests that you would buy the Tamron even if it is soft as long as it was cheap enough? :shrug:
Click to expand...

That would have to be around £300 then :D. It would still be great for video and as a backup for weddings... presuming it was slightly soft but NOT deffective

Let's not forget I can always take it back next day, but I'd rather not over-spend on a problematic lens. I've already had it with 16-35 just weeks ago. Calumet is not the cheapest retailer just to have the luxury of a store nearby :bang:
 
daugirdas said:
That would have to be around £300 then :D. It would still be great for video and as a backup for weddings... presuming it was slightly soft but NOT deffective

Let's not forget I can always take it back next day, but I'd rather not over-spend on a problematic lens. I've already had it with 16-35 just weeks ago. Calumet is not the cheapest retailer just to have the luxury of a store nearby :bang:
Click to expand...

When I bought the Tamron I did loads of research and there seemed to be a lot of QC issues with the Canon MK II... I think this is just par for the course when new kit comes out.

Like I said I have the lens and it's serving me well... don't plan on switching to the L glass any time soon, in fact probably ever. I read loads of reviews and they all seemed to say there was sod all difference between the Tammy & Canon L, apart from price, but I guess with these things some people like to spend the extra for piece of mind.

I'd probs given the option buy the Tammy and a nice prime for the same price as the L glass, or like I did the Tammy & a 6D (y)
 
Gary Coyle said:
Nikon user here, I bought one to replace a superb Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as i though the VC would be handy for me, it turned out to be a pile of mush, sent it back and bought another exactly the same, super sharp in the centre but mushy towards the edge of the frame, went back and found an even better 28-75mm

If you don't need the extra 4mm or the VC then save a shed load of cash and get the Tammy 28-75mm, class lens for £200
Click to expand...

I've got the 28-75 tamron f/2.8 on my nikon D700 and think its brilliant, especially since I got it for £250 and its in mint condition!

When I upgrade it though I will go for the nikon 24-70 F/2.8 because its supposed to be amazing.

you're a canon shooter though so no idea what the cost difference is between the tamron VC and equivalent canon 2.8 lens
 
buzzlightweight said:
**my two cents**

Iv only heard bad things....... sorry i would look at a different lens
Click to expand...

Really? Only heard bad things?

What about what I posted with links to pics shot by it?

The reviews by the important sites all gave it a big thumbs up in the reviews.

I don't really care if the op buys one or not tbh but ONLY bad things? Seems a very bold statement
 
I did not read you post, I will do so but yes my statement holds true to me. Iv heard the VC is super slow, focus is slow and some can be soft.

OP please don’t let my statement put you off, you might be luck and buy one that is a good copy. On the flip side of things, i was being told not to buy a sigma 30mm f1.4 for my 550D many moons ago, best thing i did was not to listen to opinion.

I bought one from Amazon (not cheep!) because they have the best customer service, if you buy a lens or body from them and don’t like it you can always return it. Any way I bought a 30mm from them and it was a cracking lens, sharp at 1.4 only really softening to the extreme outer edges.

I cant look as im at work but there is a fantastic video on youtube where one guy tests the mk 1 canon 24-70, mk 2 canon 24-70 and the Tamron.
 
Last edited:
As i said, i had two and both were bad copies. IF they hadn't been faulty i would have kept with it.
For me VC was going to be a real boon, but this was the thing that kept braking down. I gave up after the second one.
I have no real complaints about IQ though, and was over the moon with what i was seeing coming out of the camera most of the time.
I concede i may have been unlucky, a mate has had his since before me and has no issues with it.

Matt Granger (thatnikonguy) did a great comparison review on YT, and showed there isn't a great deal in it for general shooting.

I also saw two other video reviews that gave conflicting reports about the difference in AF speed. My own personal observation was the Tarmon is slower but not by much.

Robert. Did your copy of the Tamron come with a Spanish warranty? Mine did and i believe Amazon stopped selling them for a while as they said they was going to sort this out.
Tamron did honor this, they give Amazon special allowance, but it was worrying that it wasnt a full UK version that i got.
 
dave_bass5 said:
As i said, i had two and both were bad copies. IF they hadn't been faulty i would have kept with it.
For me VC was going to be a real boon, but this was the thing that kept braking down. I gave up after the second one.
I have no real complaints about IQ though, and was over the moon with what i was seeing coming out of the camera most of the time.
I concede i may have been unlucky, a mate has had his since before me and has no issues with it.

Matt Granger (thatnikonguy) did a great comparison review on YT, and showed there isn't a great deal in it for general shooting.

I also saw two other video reviews that gave conflicting reports about the difference in AF speed. My own personal observation was the Tarmon is slower but not by much.

Robert. Did your copy of the Tamron come with a Spanish warranty? Mine did and i believe Amazon stopped selling them for a while as they said they was going to sort this out.
Tamron did honor this, they give Amazon special allowance, but it was worrying that it wasnt a full UK version that i got.
Click to expand...

ok, VC breaking is not good. I'll give it a year or so to let them sort it out then look at it again. My canon mk1 does a fine job for now, but I realise it is not the best for video.
 
It's brilliant, better than the 24-70L (though only used that for 2 months) but not as good as the 24-70 Mark II! It's still a brilliant lens and I couldn't live without IS now!
 
I don't get people who say you don't need IS as you can crank up the ISO.

I was shooting last week with IS and ISO at 6400, and getting good shots. Without IS the shots wouldn't of been useable as there would be too much blur!
 
I think what you don't get is that those who say this actually dont need it, not that it's not useful.
I've taken shots at 1/4 and 1/6 of a second with my Tamron. Without VC that would have been very difficult. I shot at these speeds to get a sence of movement, not because I was forced to use a slow shutter speed.
But looking at all the low light shots I've taken since getting rid of the Tamron I can see no real advantage of having VC, as I'm normally shooting moving subjects.

I would never say IS is not useful, and would prefer it over going to a very high ISO, I've always used it even at quite wide focal lengths, but looking at my recent shots its just not been needed.
 
Get the Nikon 24-70, no questions and it'll hold it's value better should you ever come to sell it at any point. Amazingly sharp, fast and accurate lens!
 
Azaboppa said:
Get the Nikon 24-70, no questions and it'll hold it's value better should you ever come to sell it at any point. Amazingly sharp, fast and accurate lens!
Click to expand...

excellent advise. It will fit canon bodies perfectly well (y)
 
Azaboppa said:
Get the Nikon 24-70, no questions and it'll hold it's value better should you ever come to sell it at any point. Amazingly sharp, fast and accurate lens!
Click to expand...

With only manual focus on a Canon body i fail to see how it could possibly the best choice :wacky:
 
;) Doh didn't read the post properly!, Saw the word 'Nikon' at the top and thought it was referring to Nikon :bonk:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top