Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8

I have a hard time believing that a 2.8L lens is that soft at 5.6 in the middle. Even the worst lenses are pretty sharp at 5.6

that's at the corner.

lol at my reading failure. Still, 5.6-8 im shocked an 2.8L lens wouldn't be sharp, especially a 2.8L.

I'm pretty impressed with the VC in that lens from the video, but for the price I'd rather cough up the extra couple hundred and get the Canon 24-70. I've got to use it a lot and it's such a great lens. Also from my experience, tamron's image just seems pretty bland to me

No worries. and they said that there was a noticeable sharper image out of the canon in the center at 24mm. also the tamron had a lot of vignetting.

from my experience the canon 2.8 is really sensitive to the type of lighting there is. In daylight it's tack sharp but in a studio/indoors it doesn't perform nearly as well

shell out more for the mkII? The mkI is cheaper than the Tamron, and the mkII lacks IS/VC/VR/OS which, IMO, is a big mistake for canon at the price

who needs IS at 70mm, learn to hold a camera. IS adds weight and cost, neither would be a good thing for the 24-70L

I'd still rather have a 28-70L, sharper then the tamron and canon (mk1 at least, not sure how it compares to the 2), and costs under a grand used

Like said: I think the comparison should be between the Canon mark II and not the mark I.

I still don't know why mark II doesn't have IS. Should be a given for the price (1700- 1800$?). It has got to be really awesome for that price-tag

i agree, plus almost all of the things I shoot is with tripods or atleast monopod so IS doesn't do much for me (i'm 99 percent video)

IS should still work for video.  My Nikkor with VRII is awesome, I'd never even think of going back to a lens without it.

This lens is very soft at all focal lengths and I found its sharp spots between 5.6 and 9.0, outside of that above 9.0 it got incredibly soft even in the center of the image.  I might've had a bad lens, but I know multiple people who owned this lens that sold it quickly shortly after purchase. 

When shooting at a resolution higher than 1080 the softness shines through no matter what focal length or where the iris is set at. 

I got rid of this lens very quickly, while it looked good compressed to 1080/720, it showed glaring weaknesses compared to other lenses on the market.

I loved it on my 7D, I can't stress how disappointed I was with it on my Scarlet and other cameras I operated using this lens.  I found the Sigma 17-50 to be much sharper.  Other issues I had with the 24-70 was purple fringing, soft in the center at times, very short focus throw, and it often fell victim to gravity when shooting at a downward angle.

I also felt it was semi poorly built as I went through 2 and both focus rings broke while pulling focus during concerts.

I might've gotten some bad eggs, but I was highly let down with this lens.

i thought the 24-70L would be the logical step up from my tamron 17-50 once i switch to a full frame body, but this thread makes me wonder
what else would be a good option?

Everyone will have a different opinion, I personally chose to switch from most Canon lenses outside of a couple (70-200 2.8L IS II, and 100mm 2.8L macro) to Leica R primes and zooms.  Unfortunately they're a bit pricey and it takes some time to build a good collection of them since they're no longer made but you can find them here and there, I've found three for incredibly cheap at local thrift shops. 

Due to cost I sacrificed a bit of speed, rather than having a full set of 1.4's, most are 2.0's but they produce a much smoother image with a long focus throw.  For example, I love this lens  http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20471421.html

It's a bit slower than the 24-70, but for the majority of content I shoot in lowlight anyways I use primes.  This lens is a bit lower cost in the Leica lineup because it was actually produced by Minolta, but it still is Leica glass, and Leica designed, and is consistent with the other lenses in the Leica R aresenal.