Full Specifications for the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 VC

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
  • Jul 20, 2010
    The full specifications for the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 VC are now available ahead of tomorrows launch.</p>
    <p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><strong>Tamron 70-210 mm f/4 Di VC USD Specifications:</strong> (Google Translated)</span></span></p>
    <li>Model A034</li>
    <li>High performance telephoto zoom lens with F4 fixed</li>
    <li>Realized image stabilization effect for 4 steps</li>
    <li>Lens construction: 14 groups 20 pieces</li>
    <li>Maximum photographing magnification: 1: 3.1</li>
    <li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular aperture)</li>
    <li>Filter size: 67 mm</li>
    <li>Size: 76 mm x 175.26 mm</li>
    <li>Weight: 859 g</li>
    <li>Mount: For Canon · For Nikon</li>
    <li>Reservation start date: February 22, 2018</li>
    <li>Expected release date: April 26, 2018 (for Canon) · April 2, 2018 (for Nikon)</li>
    <li>Mass retailer price: 94,500 yen (tax included)</li>
    <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


    Canon R5
    CR Pro
    Feb 16, 2017
    Vancouver, BC
    slclick said:
    $878 USD? Too rich Tammy. Maybe $799 but anything higher and I'll stick with 1st party AF. Although that foot looks nice.

    Wow. That's way too expensive. In the guessing game earlier, this was really the problem that I had with a nice, third party 70-200/4.

    Canon's lens is excellent, and between $1050 - $1150. The 2.8's had lots of room to come down, but not so much the f/4's. I think $600-$700 was the magic number, $750 absolute max, and I think that's pushing it, because it's more expensive than a good quality used Canon, and will have a comparatively poor resale value if you want to upgrade it some time in the future.

    I think the Nikon version is more expensive, so perhaps it makes more sense there.

    Finally, I think it's too close in price... to the Tamron 70-200/2.8. It shouldn't be more than half the price of that, which would peg it at $650. If they had to, sell the hood/collar separately. They could easily sell the hood for $50 and collar for $90 on top of that, to get it to their target price.

    Sharlin said:
    Interesting. A bit more expensive than I expected. Is the tripod collar included after all? We’ll see soon enough I guess.

    At the price, one would think so.
    Upvote 0


    EOS RP
    Sep 1, 2014
    @Sharlin: the sigma 100-400 was in the same situation at launch: i believe US price was 799 and it came to EU at 899 if i remember correctly. now it can be found for as low as 600€, new, whixh is way less than a second hand canon 100-400 V1.

    if tamron launch at 899 in europe and price will go down to maybe 700€, then it will be compelling against a second hand canon lens, which is currently around 750€
    Upvote 0


    EOS R
    Jul 22, 2010
    Woody said:
    859g?... Way too heavy... After all these years, no one can surpass Canon's very own 70-200 f/4 IS in specifications...

    Assuming that the quoted weight includes the hood, that’s only 29 grams more than the Canon (or about an ounce, if you’re that way inclined) so I doubt you’d notice the difference, though it’s obviously no improvement. Whether it’s worthy of consideration will depend on its optical and AF performance.

    I’ve only ever used one copy of the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS and only for about a week before I returned it as defective (soft bottom right corner that didn’t improve with stopping down -never got another copy because the retailer was out of stock and then the special offer ended). To be honest (and with the caveat that at least one corner of my copy was defective), I wasn’t overly impressed: I found it about as sharp as the original 70-200 f/2.8L, slightly sharper at some focal lengths, slightly less sharp at others, but not much in it. It was certainly not quite up to the standard of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and we know that the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E FL ED VR is slightly better still (quite a bit better at 135mm), so there is certainly room for improvement. If the new Tamron is about the same weight, focuses quickly and accurately, is sharper and cheaper, would that sway your decision?
    Upvote 0


    Canon R5
    CR Pro
    Feb 16, 2017
    Vancouver, BC
    traveller said:
    If the new Tamron is about the same weight, focuses quickly and accurately, is sharper and cheaper, would that sway your decision?

    Not that I'm in the market for an f/4 (as I own an f/2.8 IS II), but:

    For me to buy a third party lens, what I'm looking for is:

    - Optical performance needs to be close to Canon
    - AF speed and consistency are important
    - Build quality is a consideration
    - Weight isn't a huge factor, but it should be close to Canon
    - Price needs to be 2/3 the Canon's MIR price

    Specifically for f/4 zooms:

    - Price should be about half of the f/2.8 zooms (this applies to Canon f/4's too)

    So, for me to consider Tamron/Sigma, the price needs to be around $700 or less compared to Canon ($1050), or about $650 compared to f/2.8 third party's ($1300).

    But practically speaking, $800 is just too close to $1050. I'd just spend the extra $250 and get the Canon. Generally speaking (not specific to these lenses), this is why:

    - Future body compatibility is guaranteed, with built-in lens profiles
    - Canon's service has been very good to me
    - Canon's L lenses' build quality has been exceptional for me in terms of ruggedness/reliability
    - I like a lot of small, non-top-line aspects of Canon L lenses like MF ring, switches, lens collars, etc.
    - On SOME third party lenses, I've really hated some minor aspects, like the cruel joke that is the Sigma 150-600 MF ring
    - Resale value on Canon gear is consitently much, much higher
    - I guess, some CPS qualifying points could be a factor

    That's not to say I wouldn't buy third party. I have about a half dozen third party lenses, and I'm moderately happy with most of them; but to get me there, the price is a big deal -- mostly it incentivizes me to buy a lens I wouldn't otherwise buy.
    Upvote 0