Tamron 24-70 f 2.8 vs Canon 24-70 f 2.8

<p>Has anybody purchased or tried out the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 with VR. I'm not a third party lens afficionado but this lens is selling for about $1200- compared to the Canon mark II which is selling for about $1800+ last time I looked. Not sure about the specs for this lens, but from what I can tell it's significant smaller and maybe lighter than the Canon lenses. Definately smaller/lighter than the mark I and maybe the mark II.</p>

<p>Not sure it's smaller really: the Tamron has 82mm filter vs 77mm on the ver 1. The Ver II Canon is lighter than the Tamron (803 vs 825 g - hardly significant) but the ver II has no IS. Initial reports on the Tamron are good - my only concern is with AF accuracy - I found the Tamron 28-75mm not so accurate on the long end and when at f2.8 this was irritating. The hood on the ver 1 made the lens+hood length always the same, the Tamron and the ver II have lost this hood arrangement so the lens+hood length changes with focal length. The ver I is 953 g - is the 128 g difference compared to the Tamron significant to you?</p>

<p>I've just reviewed it. It's somewhere in the queue here at photo.net and I presume the review will appear before too long. Seems like a pretty good lens.</p>

<p>I purchased the Tamron a few weeks ago and I have only had limited time to try it out. I am generally very pleased with my results, except that I seem to be missing focus just slightly on a fairly high number of shots. This appears to be either operator error or the lens is slightly front focusing. <br /> All of these shots were taken at f/2.8 or f/4, with just the center AF point selected. The f/4 shots mostly seem okay.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_lexi_ann_201205">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_lexi_ann_201205</a></p>

<p>These shots are all slightly out of focus...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623504">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623504</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623505">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623505</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623506">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623506</a></p>

<p>From the 3rd shot, you can see that either my focus point was on her forehead or the lens is slightly front focusing. Hopefully, if it is front focusing, I can resolve using the micro-adjustment feature.</p>

<p>When the focus is correct, the shots seem quite sharp to me. The focus is fast, although not quite as fast as most of my L HSM glass. Overall, I am happy with the IQ. I have seen a number of comments about bokeh issues, but it seems okay to me. The build quality is excellent, and operation is fast, silent and very smooth. Overall, I would rate this lens very near Canon L quality. My biggest complaint is that the zoom function is backwards to Canon lenses, which makes the lens somewhat awkard to use until you get used to it (which I have not yet).</p>

<p>I had been waiting for the Mark II of the Canon 24-70, but when it came out with a huge price increase and no IS, I decided to give the Tamron a try. Once I resolve the focusing issue, I'm thinking I am going to be very happy with it.</p>

<p> Photozone have reviewed it here</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff</p>

<p>they seem to think its better than the original Canon 24-70 but haven't tried the MkII version as yet.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>I've had it for about two weeks. It's sharp, has good colors & contrast and the VC works well. The problem - as is often the case with 3rd party lenses - is AF. It nails focus at shooting distances of 5-6 feet or longer, but at <5 feet it back-focuses considerably, especially at 70mm.<br>

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem possible to fix with calibration. I've used Reikan FoCal a few times. If I calibrate it at close shooting distances, it will work well at those distances but not at longer distances. If I calibrate at 6-7 feet, it works well from that distance but not at shorter distances. <br>

I'm considering sending it in to Tamron for calibration, but I may be better off returning it and waiting for the Canon Mk II. I'd really rather not spend >$2k on a zoom in this range, but I can't stand the number of shots with missed focus.</p>

<p>I haven't had any focusing issues with mine, but have noticed a fair amount of vignetting which I did not seem to notice as much with my Tamron 28-75. Maybe its because I am looking for it.</p>

<p>Hi Harry, I purchased this lens here in Sydney about a month ago and I think its a great lens! I bought this to replace my trusty Canon 24-105mm, which died on me in the middle of a wedding shoot! ( the dreaded diaphragm ribbon issue which apparently is downfall of this lens).<br>

I normally weddings, and I need to use F2.8 and the IS or VC is very important point for me. Its a pretty good lens...very much usable at F2.8 and the AF is spot on, quick and bokeh isnt too bad either. The lens is adequately sharp and sharpens nicely with some post processing Very usable at F2.8 ( unless you shoot landscapes ). There is significant vignetting though.<br>

The VR is very useful....just dont rush, let it stabilize and shoot, it will give at least 2.5-3 stop advantage in my use ( only shot 4 weddings so far but looking forward to doing a lot more ). I have basically stopped using my 24L , Sigma 50 and 85mm F1.8 lenses outdoors since I got this lens.<br>

I also have a short - non brick wall review of this lens on my website. <br>

http://halophotos.zenfolio.com/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8-vc-review<br>

Cheers!</p><div></div>