I bet he can't even explain what's the difference and the significance of the difference in the lens design. :bsmilie:
To him maybe more glass = better :bsmilie:
TAMRON 24-70 f2.8 VC VS CANON 24-70 f4 IS
- Thread starter Fishking
- Start date
I bet he can't even explain what's the difference and the significance of the difference in the lens design. :bsmilie:
To him maybe more glass = better :bsmilie:
That's still reasonable since the stuff is complex to understand. But most is confuse $$$ with quality. I guess that's how Canon managed to be so good at milking :bsmilie:
Hmmm maybe it's just me not getting it... but why would one get the 24-70/4 when there is the 24-105/4??? 
Hmmm maybe it's just me not getting it... but why would one get the 24-70/4 when there is the 24-105/4???
The lens is not available yet. So based on specs, if I want to consider the 24-70/4 IS, it would be even smaller, lighter and high magnification. Imagine u bring this lens for travel, can shoot from landscapes to insects. I would speculate the lens, being shorter and dated, have lesser distortions of all kinds, even faster AF and better flare control. But lets wait for the release before we really know.
I heard third party optics are not so sharp as compare with Canon in overall images details. Is this true. I know USD on Tamron are slower then Canon and the zoom is opposite (reverse) please comments.
I think this is abit OT, but...
Not sure where you heard that from... But 3rd party optics usually is not as sharp, but not all the time as there are always exceptions (e.g. 50 f1.4 from Canon vs Sigma). Or if you compare Canon optics to other makers like Carl Zeiss, I think there is a 'gap' also.
And the USD that you mentioned, it's AF, not Sharpness... And so far, the lenses I tried, Canon's USM is still the fastest. Followed by Sigma > Tamron.
he must have tried repeating the test and it was consistently soft. maybe need mfa, maybe tamron is simply too sharp, maybe its really inherit soft.
Last edited:
Over-all, the good thing is that we have choice. We have the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Each has its own subtle advantages and disadvantages but are quite equal in the over-all scheme of things. The user has to choose what is most important... IS/VC, best price or original brand loyalty.
I guess one must decide what to use the lens for mainly. I am not so into the technical nitty-gritty but more a practical camera user. I am sure there are technical differences (resolution, sharpness etc), all of which are really not that significant in the current state of possible software enhancements. furthermore who really print that big enough to see the difference.
To me, the main reason I would want a 27-70 is to use for wide angle landscape (this zoom size is not even suitable for travel photography). For landscape, shallow DOF is not that important (most of the time) especially if one is looking to use the wider angle. So 2.8 is not really that important. f4 is more than sufficient.
To me, the main reason I would want a 27-70 is to use for wide angle landscape (this zoom size is not even suitable for travel photography). For landscape, shallow DOF is not that important (most of the time) especially if one is looking to use the wider angle. So 2.8 is not really that important. f4 is more than sufficient.
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 :/
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
