Jump to content
Welcome to the NEW Photo.net! ×

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


model mayhem gallery
 Share

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>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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...