The first thing I noticed about the 24-70 was it's weight! Over 2lbs! This thing is a beast! So I put in on the camera and took some test shots around the house. As you would expect inside with nothing but ambient left a bit to be desired. So today, my kids and I went outside for a little walk and I took this lens with us. I like it yes. Sharp, quick to focus of course. Solidly built but again, heavy.
Here are some of the shots I took outside. I've done nothing but some very basic editing to these.
They are nice but not really anything my Tamron could not do and it's worth less than half the price. So I decided to see how the 24-70 did against my Tamron 18-270 in the house. Here are 2 shots as close to identical as I could set it up. Both lenses at f/5.6 for 1/30 sec on ISO 800. My 50D gets great results at that ISO so would the lens make a difference?
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 at f/5.6 for 1/30 sec, ISO 800, 50mm.
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 at f/5.6 for 1/30 sec, ISO 800, 50mm.
I can see no difference in the photos. If you can please let me know. What does this tell me? Sorry Canon, I love you guys but I have to say no to this lens. Not worth the extra $800.00 to me. One thing I will say though is that it was nice to have f/2.8 all the way though the zoom. That was a definite plus.
Now, do I rent the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and compare again? Perhaps. One thing I will say though, this Tamron lens is awesome. I've always liked it. Now I know why. It holds it's own against the Canon L lens tested here. Sure I may not be doing a very thorough test but I don't feel I need to. Not for $800.00. I am going to continue to use it for the weekend though. It makes me feel......I don't know......like a better photographer! LOL.
[...] Before you get too excited for me, no I did not purchase this lens. It is a rental from Vistek that I am trying out to see if I someday want to purchase it. I’m excited to try this one out. Watch my stream this weekend for some samples. I’ll be posting my review and thoughts of this lens on my blog. [...]
ReplyDeleteLovely portraits! Your kids are so much fun.... and they don't seem to mind their personal paparazzi!!
ReplyDeleteI only see a slight difference in the color.... the Canon has richer reds.... see his cheek.... but this could be a product of post-processing as well. :-)
Thanks Jenn. I did notice the slight color difference. Both images were SOOC so it is the lens giving the more saturation. That was a plus for sure.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting these photos - beautiful kids - you don't need an excuse to snap their pictures.
ReplyDeleteI am impressed with your results from the Tamron. You asked if anyone could see a difference. I would say no, at least not where it matters. Looking at the upper left part of the frame, your son's hair was a tad sharper with the Canon. In the real world, no one would ever notice or care.
I just ordered the new version of the Tamron, the PZD motor unit. I need an all-in-one lens for times that it just isn't practical to carry a whole kit.
I don't own a 24-70 2.8, but I will compare the Tamron to my 24-105 f4. Not a fair comparison, but I expect the Tamron will be fine where it matters.
If you would like to know how they compare, email me, and I will send some samples.
Best wishes,
Thank you Dave for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the image of my son where no one would ever notice or care. You are the first to notice! Good eye! For my money I'm very happy with the purchase of this lens. It has given me fantastic results.
Chris.
My copy of the Tamron 18-270PZD arrived today. I had fun taking some test shots, and noticed the same things you did - great real-world results, softness and some CA in the corners, and amazing versatility for such a small, light lens. I don't have any sticky zoom issues with mine - it's a bit tight throughout, and one wouldn't mistake it for Canon L smoothness, but no problems.
ReplyDeleteI did notice one peculiarity, and perhaps you can speak to this. The zoom specs seem very far out of whack at close range. For example, at 10 feet, fully extended to 270mm, this lens seems to produce about 180mm, compared to my 70-200f4, and my old 75-300 - not even close to 270mm. At 5 feet the distance was even more pronounced. But when I shot from one side of the house to the other, a distance of about 35 feet, the discrepancy mostly went away. At 270mm the Tamron appeared to match about 235mm on my 75-300. It was too dark and cold outside here in Virginia for me to try it at infinity, so that's a job for tomorrow.
But I'm wondering - with a lens that claims 270mm with a length that is less thatn 200mm from the focal plane - do the actual results vary significantly with distance? My 70-200f4, for example, really is 200mm from the front element to the focal plane. The same can't be said for my 75-300mm, which is only about 240mm from front element to focal plane.
We'll see what I discover tomorrow in the daylight.
Ok. For what it's worth - I compared the field of view with my old Canon 75-300 lens at 270MM and the Tamron 18-270mm with both focused at infinity. They are essentially the same. But here's the rub: I was focusing on an outdoor scene at least 100 yards away. The Tamron was not in focus at infinity. It backed off quite a bit when autofocused, giving it a noticeably wider field of view thant the 75-300. In fact, I was not able to get the Tamron to focus at the infinity mark at all, even when I focused on a point several hundred yards away. That's interesting, and I haven't figured it out yet. Playing around with the Tamron, I have discovered a very broad range of field of view and, as a result, effective focal length, from about 100mm to 270mm. All lenses exhibit some of this, but it very pronounced on the Tamron.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, do you ever get the promised 270mm focal length in a real-world situation? Maybe not. I am not terribly concerned that 270mm translates to about 170mm at 10-15 feet. I wouldn't shoot portraits at that distance anyway. We generally want our long lenses to bring distant objects closer, and the Tamron does that, but maybe not all the way to 270mm.
Incidentally, the VC function seems to work very well indeed. I notice that some of my shots in program mode snapped at 1/40 or so. To get a clear shot at 270mm (more or less) at that shutter speed is unusual.
Any thoughts?
Wow Dave! You are really digging into this lens! I'm am very happy to read your thoughts about this lens. All I had was the Canon 55-250 which is not the best of lenses so I didn't really notice all the things you have mentioned. I'm thinking I may have to rent maybe the 70-200mm and see what the differences are there.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the information you have shared. Do you have some images showing the differences? I would very much like to see them.
Chris.
There are three shots I took last night. I can't figure out how to insert them in this thread.
ReplyDeletePardon my ignorance. I just can't figure out how to paste the images - they're pretty small, but no luck anyway. But what you would see if I could post them is described as follows:
These are all 200% crops. The 18-270 was set at 18 mm, the 18-55 was set at 18 mm, and the 24-105mm was set at 24 mm. So it's not really apples to apples, since the 18 mm shots are cropped a bit more. What should be pretty clear (no pun intended) is that the 18-270mm is simply out of focus. When I focused the lens manually I could get a clear shot. This is not a problem beyond about 70mm. I probably got a bad copy and should simply exchange it. It does a fine job otherwise, and at longer focal lengths. And a lot easier on the neck than carrying the 24-105, that's for sure.
BTW, the 55-250 is not a bad lens at all. In fact, for the money, I think it's a terrific lens. I had one for several years, and only just recently sold it to justify the money I spent on the 24-105. It is light, focuses quickly, and is really very sharp. It flies under the radar, but it is one of the best value lenses that Canon makes. Same goes for the 18-55 kit lens. I know it's very light and all plastic, but I have gotten some wonderful shots with it, and I don't plan to part with it.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteI think you may be right about your copy. I've never noticed the focusing issues you are having. I do know that I have my 50D adjusting the focus on the lens. It was back focusing a bit. But that was throughout the zoom range and it wasn't really too bad.
What camera are you shooting with? Can you micro adjust the auto focusing?