Is VC worth higher vignetting? Tamron 24-70 VC

<p>I was very happy with the results of purchasing the Tamron 70-300 VC which I got for $399 after rebates. However, I have now purchased the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and at $1300 not nearly as happy with the results. Maybe its just me but I seem to notice considerably more vignetting than I noticed with my Tamron 28-75 F2.8. I origianlly thought it was just because of the 24 vs 28mm until I also noticed vignetting when I was at 70mm. Is this normal or is it just than tI am not used to spending this king of money for Tamron Lens.<br>

Images both corrected in Lightroom and lens correction off<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=417624">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=417624</a></p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Testing of the two lenses on full-frame at photozone.de shows that the 24-70 VC is a bit - but not dramatically - worse than the 28-75.<br>

<br /> For the 24-70 VC @ 24 mm it ranges from 2.15 stops at f/2.8 to 0.8 stops at f/8. The 28-75 runs from 2.11 stops at f/2.8 to 0.68 stops at f/8 at 28mm.<br>

<br /> At 70/75mm the 24-70 is also a little worse: it ranges from 1.86 to 0.45 stops, compared with 1.6 to 0.29 for the 28-75.<br>

<br /> 24-70 test: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff<br /> 28-75 test: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d<br>

<br /> (in both cases I've linked to the start of the test report - the vignetting results are on page two for both lenses.)</p>

<p>Even the Pop Photo test of the 24-70 VC mentioned considerable light fall-off so it seems to be a feature of this particular design. Probably not enough for me as I like to add considerable vignette to my images. Since many aberrations are easily fixed in PP, light fall-off and distortion are common techniques of controlling cost and lens size. It may make you feel better to know you'd have to spend twice as much for the EF 24-70 2.8L USM II for only a wee bit more IQ and no IS/VC.</p>

<p>Actually it seems the old Canon 24-70 F2.8 I, had less vignetting than either of my Tamron lenses. I was surprised I could actually notice the vignetting on 24-70 VC more than I could on the 28-75. I was 100% ok with a little extra vignetting on 28-75 because of all the money I saved not getting the Canon 24-70 2.8 I. However, now spending $1300 I would absolutely expect less vignetting than cheapo 28-75. This is exactly why I never purchased the Canon 24-105 F4 IS. The vignetting differences between that lens and my Canon 17-40 F4L was huge and didn't want to pay so much for a lens with noticeable flaws.<br>

Now I am really confused. Do I just continue with my old Tamron 28-75 which actually does a pretty good job? Ditch the new Tamron and get a used Canon 24-70 F2.8 I, and save a little money. Save my money up and spring for the new Canon 24-70 F2.8 II (Doubt it). Or just maintain being a little less than 100% happy with the Tamron 24-70 VC? I can fix in Light room no problem, but I really prefer getting things as close to perfect when I shoot and not needing to correct thousands of photos in Light room. Now that I know what I am am looking for I really notice the vignetting in almost every picture Tamron 24-70 VC sample I see now.<br>

I haven't shot with it enough to say I really love the VC, sharpness is about the same as 28-75 build quality is better but not $1300 better. Vignetting is noticeably worse. I wanted the lens for shooting video handheld using VC but how do you fix vignetting in video? Will it be apparent in videos as well?</p>

<p>Vignetting is a fact of life, or rather a phenomenon of light and lenses. Many people don't mind it in moderation, most people don't really notice it in most cases, and it is almost always easy to fix in post processing in ACR or manually in many programs.<br>

Or, if it is going to bug you every time you use the lens, then cruise through the Photozone.de tests for this variable in this focal range along the lines started by Ian, and sell yours, and get a different one.<br>

If you don't really need the f/2.8, then you might also look at the vignetting on the various ~f/4 zoom lenses.</p>

It really depends on how much you think you need VC. I have shot the Canon 24-70 for many years and even this

vignettes quite a bit wide open at 24mm. Personally I am not bothered about IS on standard and wide angle lenses but I

suspect this may become more of an issue if the megapixel race continues. The canon lens is big and heavy and even

the new model lacks IS.

It really depends on how much you think you need VC. I have shot the Canon 24-70 for many years and even this

vignettes quite a bit wide open at 24mm. Personally I am not bothered about IS on standard and wide angle lenses but I

suspect this may become more of an issue if the megapixel race continues. The canon lens is big and heavy and even

the new model lacks IS.

<p>If you are shooting handheld video, then the VC (or IS) is a HUGE improvement over non-IS/VC equipped lenses. For those of us who primarily take still pictures, it's not as important (in most circumstances) for the wide-normal zoom range (esp. fast), but based on the reviews, I'll probably end up swapping my 24-70/2.8L for the Tamron.</p>

<p>Of course, I spend most of my time shooting portraiture, or specific subjects, so the vignetting could be considered a feature not a flaw (especially since I can so easily correct it in the rare occasion I <em>don't</em> want it) - to me. </p>

<p>The bottom line though is that if it bothers you this much now, you are only going to grow to hate the lens for this 'flaw', no sense in that! save yourself some stress and sell it (plus a kidney) to get the 24-70/2.8 II L - that one even comes with a red ring, which we all know imbues magical properties on images!<br>

</p>

<p>Here is where I am with this. Photgraphy is more of a hobby to me than the business I once tthought it would be. I have found the 24-70 range is where I do probably 60% or more of my shooting.<br>

I have outgrown the 28-75 due to not having full time manual focus overide and the horrible clunk sound it makes when zoom hits bottom. This was fine for photos but is really loud when shooting videos with onboard mic.<br>

Neither of these issues exist on Tamron 24-70 plus has the VC as a bonus. The vigneting is easy to fix in Lightroom which I can set as the default lens since I use it most anyway. I do find overall the new Tamron 24-70 VC with added features is a justifiable upgrade over Tamron 28-75 which by the way is for sale.<br>

This being more of a hobby, I just do not see m self purchasing the Canon 24-70 II. I think VC will be more benificial for how I shoot than the increase in image qualty from Canon 24-70 II both being F2.8 lenses. Plus, the Tamron doesn't have a red stripe but looks darn good.</p>

<p>Today I was able to do som testing with a Canon 24-105 F4 IS. Here are my test results.<br>

http://patrickwheaton.com/lenstest<br>

The Tamron is about 1/2 stop brighter than the Canon at the same settings so doesn't look quite as rich unedited. When I set Tamron 1/2 stop underexposed it colors get richer and look just like Canon .<br>

My tests show the Tamron has less vignetting than Canon 24-105 @ 24mm. Canon may have a little bit better colors but I can easiy adjust this in camera by adding a hair more saturtion..<br>

Results Tamron is a keeper....</p>

<p>Today I was able to do som testing with a Canon 24-105 F4 IS. Here are my test results.<br>

http://patrickwheaton.com/lenstest<br>

The Tamron is about 1/2 stop brighter than the Canon at the same settings so doesn't look quite as rich unedited. When I set Tamron 1/2 stop underexposed it colors get richer and look just like Canon .<br>

My tests show the Tamron has less vignetting than Canon 24-105 @ 24mm. Canon may have a little bit better colors but I can easiy adjust this in camera by adding a hair more saturtion..<br>

Results Tamron is a keeper....</p><div></div>