TAMRON 24-70 f2.8 VC VS CANON 24-70 f4 IS

[nitewalk]

Horrible? :bsmilie:

Have you used the Tammy yet?

Again, he makes myths. :bsmilie:

 

[Kenneth Chen]

Most of the review on Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 vs Canon 24-70mm f2.8 to f4? its seem that original Canon optics are sharper in certain area and canon USD are also faster overall Canon seem to win over 2rd party lens? Is this very common?

 

[Kenneth67C]

Touched it once. Arrived same conclusion as thedigitalpicture:

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality

Corners really bad. It matters when you are trying to shoot a group shot... the people at the 2 edges is obviously blur (or rather, not sharp) even at f5.6 or f8 lol. Then again tamron is never strong on corners :/

You certainly live up to your nick...
Just go and see the pics in the Tamron thread:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/sigma-tamron-tokina/1071351-tamrons-new-24-70mm-f2-8-vc.html

 

[Learnphotography]

You certainly live up to your nick...
Just go and see the pics in the Tamron thread:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/sigma-tamron-tokina/1071351-tamrons-new-24-70mm-f2-8-vc.html

hi, the pictures posted in tamron thread are downsized heavily, of coz every thing looks sharp.
My eyes see the corners are really soft, so u mean digitalpicture's test is unreliable?

 

[avsquare]

hi, the pictures posted in tamron thread are downsized heavily, of coz every thing looks sharp.
My eyes see the corners are really soft, so u mean digitalpicture's test is unreliable?

Refer to my earlier comments:

IDK about you. Personally I do visit TDP's data base to have an overview of the crop samples but my general observation is that when it comes to field relevance it doesn't matter.

Just scroll though the list of L lens, you'll just find many lens with corners as "bad" as what you "see" over there. Heck, if I just look at the crops, the 24mm f/2.8 end of the 16-35L II is just as poor in resolution.

Instead of seeing charts, why not checking out real photos and see how they perform? I'm sure sites like photozone had full resolution photos for you to check. I think that do better justice than charts.

I can just go ahead and pick out a series of L lens, zooms and primes from TDP's charts and tell you how bad the corners are.

 

[Learnphotography]

im comparing apple to apple. tamron 24-70 with canon 24-70 mk2. im aware many L lens are not sharp at corners.

Anyway I dont want talk abt this sharp or not sharp already because i dont pixel peep. let the photograph tells the story.

 

[Kenneth67C]

hi, the pictures posted in tamron thread are downsized heavily, of coz every thing looks sharp.
My eyes see the corners are really soft, so u mean digitalpicture's test is unreliable?

FYI: the pics posted were linked from FB which already downsizes and compresses the original pics, which on my PC are much sharper.

If you only rely on digitalpicture's tests results, then you should also consider alternative views of other reviewers, like Photozone for example, which IMO less biased in their comments.

My own experience with the Tamron is that at f2.8, sure the corners are not very sharp, but neither are the Canon L lenses.
From F3.5 onwards to F8 or so, it is very sharp, sharper than the original 24-70L, but with VC thrown in.

 

[Learnphotography]

FYI: the pics posted were linked from FB which already downsizes and compresses the original pics, which on my PC are much sharper.

If you only rely on digitalpicture's tests results, then you should also consider alternative views of other reviewers, like Photozone for example, which IMO less biased in their comments.

My own experience with the Tamron is that at f2.8, sure the corners are not very sharp, but neither are the Canon L lenses.
From F3.5 onwards to F8 or so, it is very sharp, sharper than the original 24-70L, but with VC thrown in.

So TDP is more biasd than photozone. okk.
for me, i dont want judge them. I just real every reviews possible to get overall impression.

glad tammy works for u. i had 17-50 and i liked it

 

[avsquare]

im comparing apple to apple. tamron 24-70 with canon 24-70 mk2. im aware many L lens are not sharp at corners.

Anyway I dont want talk abt this sharp or not sharp already because i dont pixel peep. let the photograph tells the story.

So TDP is more biasd than photozone. okk.
for me, i dont want judge them. I just real every reviews possible to get overall impression.

glad tammy works for u. i had 17-50 and i liked it

The general reviews online seemed to agree that the Tamron performs better than the Canon's mark I while overall scores lower than Canon's mark II. There's also a general view that the Tamron had advantages over the Canon's mark 2 at certain focal length (I can't recall, and I don't bother to memorize them).

While the consensus is that the Tamron isn't as good as the Canon's mark 2 but it's trailing it and it has the distinctive attractiveness of lower pricing and VC. It's up to individual to decide, sharpness wise also relative. But in any case, I don't think there's a doubt that these lenses are great performers and perform most jobs required. But definitely not what the other user mythmaker has mentioned. It's totally ridiculous :bsmilie: He probably wanted a camera and lens that can take photographs that can be printed on billboard size but still look as sharp as any DSLR image resized down to 400 x 300 pixels :bsmilie:

 

[Kenneth67C]

So TDP is more biasd than photozone. okk.
for me, i dont want judge them. I just real every reviews possible to get overall impression.

glad tammy works for u. i had 17-50 and i liked it

Its not just photozone, there are plenty of reviews out there on the web, just search. A number were mentioned in the Tammy thread.
By and large, the conclusion is pretty similar and it is also covered in the Tammy thread, pros and cons. You can decide which works best for you.

A number of shots in low light or when moving, would not be possible if not for VC. Meaning you either get the shot, or you don't. For event photographer, that is important because it will not be repeated. You might say that raise ISO, but you will introduce noise. Also the F2.8 big aperture makes it useful for isolating subjects. The big plus of course is the price difference.