Unsurprisingly it is even better on APS-C (but less attractive):
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/742-tamron2470f28eosapsc"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/742-tamron2470f28eosapsc[/url]
typo perhaps? ...
"So technically the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC surely deserves our "highly recommended" batch."
... I thought this should read "badge" (rather than "batch").
... nice review ... albeit ... I cannot really imagine having the Tamron
on a crop-1.6 camera.
just my 2cts ... Rainer
So technically the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC surely deserves our "highly recommended" batch. However, remember that its zoom range isn't overly attractive on APS-C DSLRs and the lens is also substantially bigger, heavier and also more expensive than the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM [color="#FF0000"]L[/color] IS which remains a more obvious choice here in our opinion.
While I agree the 17-55 has L performance, it does not have the red ring.
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1338587082' post='18606']
... nice review ... albeit ... I cannot really imagine having the Tamron
on a crop-1.6 camera.
just my 2cts ... Rainer
[/quote]
I beg to differ (this is also to Klaus I suppose) because some people I know are happily using the 24-xx lenses on whichever body they have and also employ an ultrawide zoom (of the 12-24ish kind). I guess this kind of arrangement makes more sense than just having a 24-xx zoom lens, whatever the format (I for one don't find the 24mm - or even the 21mm equivalent of my 16-35/2.8 - quite wide enough). So I can hardly imagine anyone surviving without a wider lens anyways, and this makes the issue rather irrelevant in my view.