24-70mm meatball.

[iGas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xat-cF1Aess

And, the homer turn out to be the Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 DI VC that sport image stabilization and cost only 1/2 of Canon or 2/3 of the Nikon equivalent.

It look like I'm going to trade in my 24-105L for the Tamron in the near future.

 

[jhansman]

Not surprising. The Tamron 90mm DI VC is, ounce for ounce, as good a lens as the Nikkor 105mm, at 2/3 the cost.

 

[gevorg]

yeah, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is amazing, but... did they really smash those pricey lens? WTF!

 

[jpeyton]

It depends entirely on your needs. If you find yourself running out of ISO headroom and/or shutter speed during your photography, the Tamron with OIS is easily the best option.

If low-light photography isn't your forte, or you shoot in situation where OIS can't help (sport's photography), then the Nikkor is a much better option. The sharpness tests showed a very pronounced difference the Nikkor and the Tamron, especially at the edges.

 

[Spoooon]

yeah, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is amazing, but... did they really smash those pricey lens? WTF!

Yeah, I don't think I could do it.

 

[darth maul]

I doubt they smashed working lenses, beyond repair, damaged yes, working 100%, doubt it.

 

[Anubis]

so they said the Canon and Nikon don't have image stabilization, but don't both canon and Nikon make an IS/VR version of the 24-70?

 

[Paladin3]

It depends entirely on your needs. If you find yourself running out of ISO headroom and/or shutter speed during your photography, the Tamron with OIS is easily the best option.

If low-light photography isn't your forte, or you shoot in situation where OIS can't help (sport's photography), then the Nikkor is a much better option. The sharpness tests showed a very pronounced difference the Nikkor and the Tamron, especially at the edges.

I've never understood why people get so weak in the knees over IS. If the subject is standing still and I can't handhold at f2.8 then I bring a tripod.

I'd love to have that Nikon lens on a FF camera if it was within my budget, but I'd probably choose the Tamron based on bang for the buck.

IS is handy, but it sure isn't the deciding factor over image quality and other factors when I choose my tools.

 

[jhansman]

BTW, Tamron is offering rebates on several of their newer lenses right now, including the 24-70mm Di VC. Here's a link to the form (on the right, under "Related Tools"): http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/rebates.asp. Think I'm gonna have to bite on the 90mm.

 

[AkumaX]

so they said the Canon and Nikon don't have image stabilization, but don't both canon and Nikon make an IS/VR version of the 24-70?

Canon just came out with a 24-70 IS... although @ f/4
Nikon doesn't have one

 

[Spoooon]

BTW, Tamron is offering rebates on several of their newer lenses right now, including the 24-70mm Di VC. Here's a link to the form (on the right, under "Related Tools"): http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/rebates.asp. Think I'm gonna have to bite on the 90mm.

Ended up biting (on the 10-24 though, last week). The rebates made for some difficult choices.

 

[MrSquished]

I've never understood why people get so weak in the knees over IS. If the subject is standing still and I can't handhold at f2.8 then I bring a tripod.



IS is handy, but it sure isn't the deciding factor over image quality and other factors when I choose my tools.

i'm pretty sure IS is a goshdarn good feature to have in a lens for plenty of photogs vs having to carry around a tripod.

it's definitely a significant and reasonable factor actually in many people's choices. and weighed into other things like IQ, sharpness, etc...

 

[iGas]

i'm pretty sure IS is a goshdarn good feature to have in a lens for plenty of photogs vs having to carry around a tripod.

it's definitely a significant and reasonable factor actually in many people's choices. and weighed into other things like IQ, sharpness, etc...

I agree wholeheartedly.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

The Canon 24-70L IS at F4 and Tamron tie at 24mm, while the Tamron is slightly sharper at 70mm across the frame.

Canon 24-70L f2.8 mkI is slightly sharper than the Tamron at 70mm wide open at the edges but tie at the center, but the Tamron is definitely sharper than Canon at 24mm across the frame wide open. At F4 the Canon start to catch up, but the still behind the Tamron. And, both seems to be on par at F5.6.

The Tamron even sharper than the 24-70L f2.8 mkII at 24mm wide open, and yield the same result as the mkI at 70mm. And, both MkII and Tamron match each others at F4.

IMHO, Tamron got a home run with this lens because it is just as sharp as Canikon f2.8 pro lenses that include IS/VR/VC, and the different in cost allow me to purchase the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC + Canon 135L F2.0 vs. Canon 24-70mm F2.8 mkII. Or, let me upgrade my 70-200L F4 IS to an F2.8 mkII.