Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On

[unfocused]

That's real nice to see the third party manufacturers can make good lenses.  Thus, we will have more choices and it could push Canon making better products for us.  However, this lens is too late on the market.  Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2 have been released for three years.  Moreover, if the IQ is only similar to Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2, 1500 USD is too expensive.  The reasonable price tag should be about 1300 USD.

Agreed. However, Tamron tends to offer year-round rebates once a lens has been released for a few months, so I would expect the street price will be closer to your $1,300. Even at that though, for U.S. customers, the price of a refurbished 70-200 L II is not that much more when it is on special.

[Drizzt321]

This is so tempting. Oh so tempting. I'd love to see a comparison shoot of this and the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II with the same body (preferably 5d3, but 1dX would work as well), and with MFA. I'd also love a real world test of the weather-sealing on both of them, although I know the Canon's is quite good. If the Tamron claims weather-sealing, it needs to keep up. The other downside is I can't get CPS service on the Tamron...

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have been looking forward to reviews of this lens.  I have used the non-VC version and found it very competent optically but also found the AF too slow to use in professional work.  I took some really nice pictures with it for a few weeks and then sold it.  So, I am interested in this lens, but only if it is a true competitor for the Canon MKII version.  I get this magazine (it comes free to those who have bought and registered Tamron products) and find that they strive towards objectivity (i.e. they will be honest about downsides to Tamron products) but will typically lean towards the glass-half-full perspective.

I am personally disappointed with a couple of things here:

#1 The very flat and uninspiring conditions don't lend itself to overwhelming pictures here.  I would have liked to see a little more of a mixture of conditions (maybe some shots in the city at night) to show a larger gambit of color.  That being said, the color on the mallards looks nice.

#2  They spoke of how great the bokeh was, but none of these image show off bokeh in any kind of meaningful way.  How about getting a little closer to something?

I found the bokeh in the non-VC quite smooth, but I wouldn't say it threatened my 135L.  One big plus of the original as the minimum focus distance, which allowed for very smooth flower shots like this one (SOOC)


Windblown by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I wish they could have shown a little more inspiring images all with the text.  I have been very pleased with the new 24-70 VC, and if this was a true match, it might be worth the money.

[PhotoNewsCanada]

Thanks for sharing the article CR.

Just to clear up a few questions:

"Legendary image quality" -  Probably a bit strong  but refers to the previous lens it replaces (at the price it sold for). Certainly not a reference to every lens Tamron has ever made, or a comparison to a 600L. If you haven't used the older 70-200mm, it was definitely sharp and contrasty but had a few drawbacks, namely focus speed. Simply put, it was slow.

Yes, the weather sucked. Toronto in November, what can you do? We plan to upgrade the review with some more shots as we get them, but wanted to give people a taste as soon as we could.

Who in Canada shoots the best lens reviews? We'll get the 70-200 in their hands.

[bsbeamer]

wonder how this will stack up against the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (enough abbreviations?!) - looks like it's $250 more expensive than the Sigma

[killswitch]

I am actually very interested in this offering. I cannot afford the Canon's MKII and it's MK I (with IS) is not as sharp as the non-IS version. If this is sharper and has better color contrast than Canon's non-IS and Sigma's OS, I will probably pull the trigger on this. Having said that, if this was priced $1300 or less then it's a real winner.

[risc32]

 lengendary. I think they should have said "super awesome badass". howabout our bokeh? followed by shots that didn't really show any. then they, the "review" site, come on here and ask for our advise to locate a good reviewer guy so they can get him one of these lenses to review... weird. i know you are the importer, but man...
  with all that sillyness said, i do hope it all pans out, and that this lens is as good as stated. That'd be great. choice is great.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for sharing the article CR.

Just to clear up a few questions:

"Legendary image quality" -  Probably a bit strong  but refers to the previous lens it replaces (at the price it sold for). Certainly not a reference to every lens Tamron has ever made, or a comparison to a 600L. If you haven't used the older 70-200mm, it was definitely sharp and contrasty but had a few drawbacks, namely focus speed. Simply put, it was slow.

Yes, the weather sucked. Toronto in November, what can you do? We plan to upgrade the review with some more shots as we get them, but wanted to give people a taste as soon as we could.

Who in Canada shoots the best lens reviews? We'll get the 70-200 in their hands.

I'd certainly volunteer.  I am about to post my review of the 24-70 VC to my website.  I live in Ontario and am both a part time professional and full time enthusiast.  My work has been used in magazines and the Globe and Mail.  I'm interested in trying the lens.  That being said, I consistently like Bryan Carnethan's approach to lens review the most and would most respect a review by him.  I am a relative nobody.

[AtSea]

Thanks for sharing the article CR.

Just to clear up a few questions:

"Legendary image quality" -  Probably a bit strong  but refers to the previous lens it replaces (at the price it sold for). Certainly not a reference to every lens Tamron has ever made, or a comparison to a 600L. If you haven't used the older 70-200mm, it was definitely sharp and contrasty but had a few drawbacks, namely focus speed. Simply put, it was slow.

Yes, the weather sucked. Toronto in November, what can you do? We plan to upgrade the review with some more shots as we get them, but wanted to give people a taste as soon as we could.

Who in Canada shoots the best lens reviews? We'll get the 70-200 in their hands.

Nice to see you guys coming into the discussion. 

Thanks for the time spent on the review - I never decide based on one review alone anyway, but it's certainly a start.

As a fellow Torontonian, I concur about the weather.

[heptagon]

Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?

The sigma is good, but it has some drawbacks. The focus ring only turns about a quarter from nearest to infinity. It's hard to impossible to focus a shot manually.

Also some photos are out of focus (phase AF, centerpoint) but i don't know if it's the error of the lens and if the tamron/canon lenses would have less focusing errors. In the reviews i hear no complaint about the autofocus that's just personal experience.

[mrsfotografie]

I'm loving these third party lenses.

On my wish list:
Sigma 35 1.4
Tamron 70-200 2.8
Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?

the tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is supposed to be pretty good, apparently the VC version is a bit softer.  That being said I used to own a canon 17-55 2.8 it was awesome and I still miss that range on FF.  the 24-70 gets close, but I loved the fact that at 55mm on apc c the canon was a good portrait lens too.  70 on ff is just a little short of ideal.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is excellent! L-lens quality optics. The build is sturdy enough and there is no lens creep; AF uses a conventional micro-motor but is not really as slow as you would think. I use this on my 7D and 400D. Optically it beats my f/2.8 24-70L Mk I. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has the best performance to price ratio of any lens I can think of.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm loving these third party lenses.

On my wish list:
Sigma 35 1.4
Tamron 70-200 2.8
Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?

the tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is supposed to be pretty good, apparently the VC version is a bit softer.  That being said I used to own a canon 17-55 2.8 it was awesome and I still miss that range on FF.  the 24-70 gets close, but I loved the fact that at 55mm on apc c the canon was a good portrait lens too.  70 on ff is just a little short of ideal.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is excellent! L-lens quality optics. The build is sturdy enough and there is no lens creep; AF uses a conventional micro-motor but is not really as slow as you would think. I use this on my 7D and 400D. Optically it beats my f/2.8 24-70L Mk I. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has the best performance to price ratio of any lens I can think of.

+1 I only let go of mine when I went FF.  Sold it to a friend and now it lives on her 7D

[Scott911]

Looks like a great option to consider.  Glad to see another choice available for when I get to the point of needing to seriously look at that focal range in a f/2.8 lens.

[RafaPolit]

This really feels like a Tamron advertisement rather than an actual review .  I agree with others that reading the word 'Legendary' in any Tamron specification other than price just throws away the entire review.

Best regards,
Rafa.

[that1guyy]

This really feels like a Tamron advertisement rather than an actual review .  I agree with others that reading the word 'Legendary' in any Tamron specification other than price just throws away the entire review.

Best regards,
Rafa.

It doesn't seem like an advertisement to me. The reviewer seems fairly unbiased and presented both pros and cons. I agree legendary may not have been the best word, but the reviewer also posted on this thread and explained he meant "legendary" when referring to the previous version of this lens, which has very good image quallity, not the entire Tamron lineup.