Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC in the wild

just checked it and it seems to work for me...did not test AF but VC seems to work for me....this is on the beta and canon mount...
 
Hey Paul - this is with the BUILD 5.2.9 right?
OK - so maybe I need to eat some crow here (??)
Idiotically, I was testing the VC (Vibration Compensation -Tamron's name for Image Stabilization) with the autofocus on too (since I wanted to see if THAT had improved too).
I saw no signs of VC - but of course the lens was a bit busy with its somewhat glacial hunt for focus too.
Then reading Paul's statement above:

So - I popped the Tamron on to my old Canon Rebel, shut off the autofocus and Listened and Felt for the VC kicking in - which it actually does (no surprise on the DSLR) with a bit of a "thunk". On the DSLR the VC is ONLY active while the shutter is 1/2 depressed, so its not on ALL THE TIME.
So - back onto the scarlet. Autofocus: OFF (at lens sw). Scarlet booted up. VC sw "on" - "thunk" - I felt it engage and... son-ofa-gun the VC was working!
So again, apologies all-around for lame first-try on this!
BUT
Before we all get giggly about the new StediCam Tamron - the VC seems, well, pretty subtle!! The dampening feature does not seem to be as strong (heavy-handed?) as Canon's. To be fair, the IS I am looking at with the Canon is on a 70-200 so the dampening effect would be more pronounced. But even out at 70 on the tamron it is not anything like "dramatic" or "wow, that is stable!". Maybe I expect too much? The other question (not tested) is: does the VC STAY ON for any length of time (I only tried a few moments) or does one have to keep re-BOOTing it (on/off sw) to be sure its active for The Shot? The intent Tamron designed into the VC feature (I believe) is that it is a "momentary" engagement at the point of shooting, not designed to be on-all-the-time. This obviously has some battery -saving applications for still photography...

So I guess for those who are considering the Tamron just on the VC/IS-capability, they will likely be disappointed.
Look at the Tamron for these reasons:
1) 1/2 the price of a new similar Canon
2) optical performance that is close to, and at some settings (according to independent tests I read prior to purchase), exceeds the (FIRST GENERATION) Canon 24-70.

Obviously, I would urge fellow REDusers to at least go to your local photo-store and TRY the VC feature for yourself.

Stu Aull
SX199
Alaska
 
i have an update on this as well....
i agree that the VC is not as "strong" as canons (in the 17-55 or 24-105) it feels more dampened then actual IS or VC...
i find the lens remarkably beautiful on the Epic...sharp without a digital look or feel....much better then all canons i have used (17-55, 24-105 which is great but softer, and the new 24-70) i really, really like the lens....will look into the tamron 70-200 as well but doubt the VC works on Epic? any insights anyone?
 
I bought the Nikon version of the lens for use on my D800. But have found it on more than one occasion doing great service on my Epic. (Especially doc shooting, run & gun stuff.) I use it manually as a variable prime. I haven't detected VC support but then there isn't quite as much Nikon mount support for Red as for Canon. But I agree the lens is very happy with both MX and Dragon. And my copy (maybe sheer luck) is astonishingly close to parafocal. As close as any still zoom I've ever used.
 
Thanks for the updates guys, i think i'll finally try this one out soon.
 
Ok, second thoughts... You guys say the VC isn't that great, so i wonder, has anyone had a chance to compare this against the newer Canon 24-70/4.0 IS? ;)
 
Maik Müller said:
Ok, second thoughts... You guys say the VC isn't that great, so i wonder, has anyone had a chance to compare this against the newer Canon 24-70/4.0 IS? ;)
Click to expand...
i haven't tried the IS on that lens but have tried the lens...all i can say that i goes along with why i keep scratching my head about canon...the 24-105 is just the better option (ok, the much better option) and i am not even talking about price...if you can live with f4, then there is no reason to go with the 24-70 over the 24-105....neither are what i would consider great lenses but the extra reach of the 24-105 makes it a no brainer.....i also feel the IS on the 24-105 is better then the VC on the 24-70 tamron....but i find it really hard to judge/compare IS/VC...
the small/narrow focus rings and short throw on all these lenses drive me crazy....
 
paul schefz said:
i haven't tried the IS on that lens but have tried the lens...all i can say that i goes along with why i keep scratching my head about canon...the 24-105 is just the better option (ok, the much better option) and i am not even talking about price...if you can live with f4, then there is no reason to go with the 24-70 over the 24-105....neither are what i would consider great lenses but the extra reach of the 24-105 makes it a no brainer.....i also feel the IS on the 24-105 is better then the VC on the 24-70 tamron....but i find it really hard to judge/compare IS/VC...
Click to expand...
Ok, thank you very much for putting that into a better perspective. Yeah, i googled around for the 24-70/f4 and it's difficult to understand what Canon had in mind with it. I think i'll have a look at the Tamron and keep the 24-105.

the small/narrow focus rings and short throw on all these lenses drive me crazy....
Click to expand...
Oh yes, it's a pain.
 
paul schefz said:
i haven't tried the IS on that lens but have tried the lens...all i can say that i goes along with why i keep scratching my head about canon...the 24-105 is just the better option (ok, the much better option) and i am not even talking about price...if you can live with f4, then there is no reason to go with the 24-70 over the 24-105....neither are what i would consider great lenses but the extra reach of the 24-105 makes it a no brainer.....i also feel the IS on the 24-105 is better then the VC on the 24-70 tamron....but i find it really hard to judge/compare IS/VC...
the small/narrow focus rings and short throw on all these lenses drive me crazy....
Click to expand...

"If you can live with f4"?? You're already making a major compromise by shooting on a zoom lens over a prime... now you want to go even slower just to save the trouble of having a telephoto lens along as well? The difference between 70 and 105 isn't all that great... but the loss in depth of field will be significant, as well as the decreased low-light performance.

Personally, I think the Tamron lens is great. Our RED is currently out on a rental, but I just used it over the weekend on a 5D - I'd have to disagree that the IS is 'underpowered'. I've certainly seen more pronounced stabilizers, but not anything that works with a full-frame sensor (just in my experience). As soon as our Scarlet comes back, I'll update the firmware and test it... is it possible the VC works differently on the RED vs Canon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top