Tamron 24mm - 70mm for portraits?

[LittleSparrow]

I'm just wondering what you think of a Tamron 24 - 70mm. I'll be primarily using for my own family lifestyle shots, children's portraits and pet portraits. I had a 70-200mm which loved but was way too bulky for me to carry around.

I'd love to see your photos taken with this lens to get an idea of quality, bokeh etc.
Thanks

[nardes]

Hi

I purchased this lens a few months ago as it was on special and I could not afford the Canon equivalent and so far, I have been mostly pleased with the performance of the lens. Subjectively, it is a large lens and quite heavy compared to the Canon EF 24-105mm F4L which it replaced. The following comments are not particularly related to portraits.

I have not yet used it extensively, but on the occasions where I have, the lens does deliver. At 24mm , F2.8 wide open it is noticeably soft and somewhat distorted in the corners - see the group image of Marvel characters below - the ones at the edge (e.g. the Hulk) are quite soft. The centre seems to be very sharp. At 24mm and F8, the uprooted tree appears to have nice edge to edge sharpness and is a 1.6 sec exposure (tripod).

In terms of handling, the zoom ring rotates in the opposite direction compared to all my Canon zooms, something that does sometimes trip me up.

I like the VC and it seems to be quite effective, although this may not be relevant to portraits.

The grasshopper shot (F10) shows a lot of detail, so this lens is sharp at 70mm, especially when stopped down.

The Ironman shot was at 40mm, F5.6, 1/125 at ISO3200 and I am happy with the IQ. The Hulk shot was 70mm, F2.8, 1/50 at ISO3200 and again, I am pleased with the results.

Cheers

Dennis

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops - here is the uprooted tree...

24mm, F8, 1.6 sec, ISO100

[Cage]

Great lens for your intended use.

It seems quite popular with wedding photographers and I have used mine for a wedding with pleasing results.

Once you get to about 28-29mm any distortion is negligible.

I don't have very steady hands so the VC is great. Some shots from my first outing with it. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...om-Kurri-Kurri

[arthurking83]

I've usually found Tamron lenses render very nice .. why I like them and have a few of their lenses now.

24-70VC is a great value for money lens. While I love the lens for what it can do, it's weakest performance is bokeh(background blur rendering). It's not bad, just not much better than good .. or excellent like some lenses are known to be.
Then again in saying that, it's better than some prime lenses at the same focal length too tho .. so like I said, it's not bad .. but it's not much more than good. And very occasionally ... rarely, it can do annoying bokeh(rare enough to make it hard to find such examples .. and I couldn't locate the ones I thought I could find for 'ya .. but:

example #1

OK, at 50mm but I see a very slight double lining which can be ignored(in many situations). I rate the bokeh here as good.

example #2

Ok again. I rated the bokeh here as very good. Lens at 35mm and bokeh isn't really a priority, but it's come out very good for a wide angle lens. (note that wide angle lenses are usually noted for their very bad to not so good bokeh rendering .. which we'll see later!)

example #3

Again, not bad, not excellent and I reckon I'd rate it good again here. But again if you look carefully it does seem to render some weird way a little.

example #4


top image is Tammy 24-70VC at 24mm andf/2.8 bottom image is Nikon 24mm f/2 Ais lens.
Tammy wins by 1 millions lengths in the bokeh race here! Nikon 24/2 isn't even in the same race, or same competition.
Nikon lens is one of those wide angle lens examples of very bad bokeh .. Tammy here is good again. Actually! scratch that, and make that very good(when you compare it to a prime lens at 24mm.
Nikon lens should theoretically render better background blur, as I'm sure I focused it closer to that purple flower than the Tammy lens focused to it's chilli plant. With a closer focus point distance, every thing in the background is blurred more, which the Nikon lens didn't really achieve.

example #5 .. another comparison this time to my old Tammy 28-75/2.8(lower image)


You can't see a lot of difference all the time, it's a hit and miss aspect of the way the 24-70VC renders. I know it's not related to the VC feature, but it's highly dependent on the type of background being blurred.

example #5a .. 100% crops of the above images in the same order again


24-70VC crop above shows the main reason that bokeh never really achieves excellent levels is that the lens relies heavily on aspheric lens element(s) and you can see this in the blur circles.
Top image shows circles inside circles(onion ring effect is how it's usually described) .. this affects bokeh in many situations
My understanding of the 28-75/2.8(quite an old lens now) .. is that it doesn't use aspherics, so it's blur circles are smoother in light inensity .. no circles inside circles .. just smoother looking orbs of blurred light.
Note that I stuffed up in those two test iamges, where I shot the 28-75/2.8 at f/4 instead of f/2.8 like the 24-70VC lens. So the older lens should render even nicer again .. but the point is to help show possibly why I can never get enthusiastic about the rendering of the 24-70VC.

Mind you this in no way means I don't like it, or am unhappy with it .. just that the price of modernity has made it 'compromised' a little.
It's size, I can live with .. love the VC(like Kev implied .. old and flaky = shaky ability! )
but because of the occasional strange rendering I see, I'm holding onto the vastly less sharp 28-75/2.8 lens

If I had to rate the Tammy 24-70VC overall it'd have to be an 8.5.
At least a 8.5-9 for IQ sharpness.
I reckon at least 8 for focus .. more like 9 as it's never slow, but I know Nikon and Canon fanboys like to elevate the focus ability of their respective branded lenses .. so 8 to keep them 'appy!
9 for build quality. It's solid! maybe made of a plastic outer shell, but it's solidly built.
Bokeh obviously brings the score down with a 7-8 score. Not bad, like a bad lens can be, but not 9-10 level scoring either.
Chromatic aberration is noted for it's complete lack of .. 9 at least .. I hate CA more than I hate average bokeh!!
Size is a baddy score if small size is important .. but it's still an 8-9, only because all the modern 24-70 type lenses are huge and heavy(Nikon's 24-70/2.8 VR shows just how big and heavy they're getting now. SO in that respect the Tammy has done OK.
But I still have the old 28-75/2.8 and it's a teensy weensy little micro 4/3rds type small featherweight by comparison .. so like I said earlier .. it's staying in my collection.

[nardes]

Here is a link to a review that I used to help me make the decision to purchase the lens:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...on2470f28eosff

Cheers

Dennis

[arthurking83]

Yeah, Pz is a good resource, but you need to 'make sense' of the results, which is not a simple matter for many folks. I still use Pz for assessing potential lens purchases too.

But for less work in terms of trying to understand if the sharpness increases in one lens vs another actually means anything, I find TDP an easier resource to do comparisons with.

that is if I'm unsure if Lens A is what I really want, or Lens B is the better buy, I check Pz to see what the numbers say, but my choice is made easier by using TDP to visualise if $1K more for 0.015% increase in sharpness is actually worth it in the end.

TDP Tamron 24-70VC vs Canon 24-70MkII test charts.

To my eyes on that resolution test chart, I don't see enough increase in sharpness on the C24-70 to justify the double price tag.
To my dismay tho! .. I did see a massive difference in IQ overall between the T24-70VC and the T28-75/2.8 I'd used for a while up to my purchase of the 24-70VC.
Now I was armed with a better resolving lens for the hi res D800E .. you'd think I was a happy chappy .. but dismay kind'a almost set in a little too.

For normal shooting stuff, like inanimate objects, static scenes, landscapes and suchlike, I was happy for sure. But I just never found I was happy with it for people shots, the way I thought I was going to be.
Main issue was that reduced bokeh quality in some instances, and then after looking at the images of people made with the 24-70VC I found I was using the portrait picture control more and more to decrease contrast .. where the old hazy looking 28-75mm needed no PP at all for a similar image. 28-75 was still sharp(enough) just not as contrasty, so it made for a pleasant rendering with no need to pushing and prodding buttons on the PC later on.

At my sisters wedding a while back, I didn't consider the 24-70VC, even tho it was in the bag(always is, has it's spot). But being in a rush, I left without the 28-75/2.8(on the shelf, it's usual spot)
So in the bag my choices were 70-200/2.8(too long), 24-70VC, 50/1.2, 105/1.8 and 105/2.8 VR .. as well as a couple of others not really suited for portraits. I chose to use the 50/1.2 with the 105/1.8 as the backup if I found I wanted closer in shots.
So because of the mixed feelings about the 24-70's bokeh, poor thing didn't even rate a look in at all.

What made the 24-70VC an easy choice to buy tho was the VC, where no other lens in that genre had it. So for example walking about in the city, or through a park or something like that .. it's my first choice.
You'll read that many experts will explain that image stabilisation isn't all that useful at say 24mm or even 50m or 70mm with good use of technique ... but I'd counter they're too caught up in the numerical aspect of the feature rather than actually using it for themselves.
(ie. armchair experts that don't appreciate that you're not required to have to use VC all the time! .. there is a switch for it )
I've learned to just leave it on, and IF(big IF) I see that it's counter productive, I then turn it off. Obviously always off when on tripod tho.