Jump to content

Thoughts on $1299 price tag for Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR


Recommended Posts

<p>I was really looking forward to picking up the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR lens when it came out. However, I completely did not expect it to be the same price as Canon 24-70 F2.8 L version 1. Now I have a hard choice to make original Canon 24-70 F2.8 L or new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR.<br />Since both are now the same price this really becomes a difficult decision. Without seeing any images of the new Tamron lens it is hard to make a choice. Based on the specs however it seems to be a better lens than the original 24-70L.<br />I come to this conclusion in that the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 was very close in performance to the Canon 24-70L and Tamron is saying the new lens has the low dispersion glass and has bigger diameter than both the original Tamron and Canon 24-70. With the added benifit of Vibration Reduction which for shooting video is a major plus. Espeacially since I don't have any IS / VR lenses in my collection.<br />What do you think?<br>

Also, do you think this price will eventually come down lower or will it stay at $1299 for some time?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Also, do you think this price will eventually come down lower or will it stay at $1299 for some time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and yes.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Without seeing any images of the new Tamron lens it is hard to make a choice.<br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then don't make one. Wait. I'm on the list for a lens for review as soon as one becomes available in the US. I would think that by early next month there will be quite a few reviews and image samples on line.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe Tamron will come out with a budget version: remove IS, weather sealing, FTM, one aspherical element (or 2) and use front element extension focus. Bet it would go for 5 benjamins...</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>MTF charts are available. The Canon 24-70/2.8L II looks best, followed by the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC and the old/current Canon 24-70/2.8L looks the lowest performer. (see <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_24-70vc_preview.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_24-70vc_preview.html</a>). However I don't trust published MTF data, especially when published by different manufacturers. Usually the data is theoretical, not measured on a production lens, plus it doesn't show things like flare, distortion and vignetting.</p>

<p>Tamron already have the budget version. It's their 28-75/2.8. $499 and it's yours.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not so sure in this case. Certainly if you want Canon glass it might apply, but if I needed a lens of that range and f2.8, I'd certainly wait to take a look at the Tamron. I suspect it will be very good, but until I get my hands on one, that's just a guess.</p>

<p>I'd fully agree though that Canon's most recent lens "updates" have pushed the prices beyond my level of acceptability. $7300 for a 300/2.8, $10,500 for a 500/4 and $13,000 for a 600/4 are prices I'm just not prepared to pay - and this is speaking as someone who has owned a Canon 300/2.8L and 600/4L in the past. Even the excellent 70-200/2.8L II USM is pushing the envelope at $2500.</p>

<p>If I was a 3rd party lens maker, I'd be looking at what Canon is pricing out of the market and developing my own versions. Just like the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC. I'm sure that it won't be too long before we see a Tamron 70-200/2.8 OS lens too. Sigma already have an OS version of their 70-200/2.8 that's 1/2 the price of the Canon.</p>

<p>Maybe the 3rd party lenses aren't as good, but if they are 90% as good at 50% of the price, that will be enough for a lot of photographers (me included).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am happy with my canon 24-70 mark I. I don't miss IS on this lens but I don't shoot video. Just looking at the digital

picture crops it is much sharper than the TAMRON 28-75. I cannot comment on the new TAMRON lens

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?

Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=366&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've always been happy w/ my 24-70/2.8L, and didn't relish the idea of paying $2300 to 'upgrade' it. I have also been waiting with baited breath to see what the Tamron can do. Frankly, given what I know my L can do, if the Tamron can even be equivalent (which, based on those MTFs, is pretty likely), I'll lay down my $1300 gladly. </p>

<p>In a way, the new 24-70/2.8L II has got to be a relief for companies like Tamron. Afterall, it gives them a bit of room to wiggle (under the $2300 price point there's a LOT of room - a LOT more than under the $1399 of the original). So even though @ $1300, it's about the priciest lens Tamron has to offer (in this general category), it's still less than 60% the price of the equiv. new L ... Plus it has IS! </p>

<p>As I start to play with video more and more, this feature <em>alone</em> becomes incredibly valuable. WTH was Canon thinking!?! They recognized the video demand in the new 24/2.8 & 28/2.8 (adding IS, and USM), but had a brain fart over a FF medium zoom w/ IS? Somebody should get fired over that idiocy. </p>

<p>Of course all of that depends on what the pictures look like....</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I liked the Tamron 28-75mm, except that AF was off at 50-75mm (visible at f2.8-4). This is not an issue with the 24-70 mk 1 which makes it better in my book, but if you can live with that (or the chance of it) then the Tamron's a great buy.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In yesrs past my goal was to eventually upgrade to all L-series "Professional Lenses". However, as I have "learned" photography and the business of photography. I have found L-series lenses have nothing to do with createing professional quality work. <br>

I feel better when I create great work when using the minimal amount of tools.<br>

For example this was created with one LED light panel and my trusty Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and 50 1.8. Everything used here except the 5D Mark II was well under $1000. <br>

This is why I really want the Tamron 24-70 VR for the low light work I do.<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0xeoxUSNpA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0xeoxUSNpA</a> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I was a 3rd party lens maker, I'd be looking at what Canon is pricing out of the market and developing my own versions. . . . <br>

Maybe the 3rd party lenses aren't as good, but if they are 90% as good at 50% of the price, that will be enough for a lot of photographers (me included).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is how I ended up with Sigma lenses on my t2i: Canon's 17 - 55 was $500 more than Sigma's 17 – 50 OS, and Canon's 28mm f / 1.8 was the same price as Sigma's 30mm f / 1.4, but the latter is a much newer design and has a wider aperture.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So does everyone agree that the new Tamron 24-70 VR if the optics are at least 90% as good as Canon 24-70 version I, that the Tamron because of VR is still a better buy?<br>

At the $1300 price I am concerned about build quility and resale value. Many will pay over $1000 for a used Canon 24-70 F2.8 I. However, I am not sure you could get that for ANY used Tamron.<br>

<a href="http://patrickwheaton.com">Http://patrickwheaton.com</a></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>At the $1300 price I am concerned about build quility and resale value. Many will pay over $1000 for a used Canon 24-70 F2.8 I. However, I am not sure you could get that for ANY used Tamron.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Good third party lenses retain their value. Their depreciation is marginally more than OEM, but not by much. The newer Sigma and Tamron lenses Pro are in this category. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

<p>Purchased both the Tamron 70-300 VC and Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC.<br>

1. Love the 70-300 VC - no brainer at $399 excellent lens super excellent at the price.<br>

2. Not so in love with the Tamron 24-70 VC. VC effect is not as noticable as with the 70-300 @ 300mm. Sharpness doesn't stand out looks about the same as Tamron my Tamron 28-75 and 70-300. Built better than 28-75<br>

Con - seems to have a lot of vignetting at F2.8 and higher. Seems to be more than Tamron 28-75 but will test to confirm.</p><div>00ao4d-496079584.thumb.jpg.07a2041eac8e97f6dd9be3c70350b5ee.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...