Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a thorough review of Tamron's new fast telephoto zoom for those of you that are interested. Once again I have tried to share an objective real world review of the lens and its features.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/07/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

Thanks to all of you who have viewed and supported my reviews in the past.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's one of the shots taken during the review process:

 

[TonyMM]

Dustin: thanks for a once-again excellent, informative review - your reviews give me a much better feel for the real-life performance of equipment than the "by-the-numbers" reviews. I'm impressed by your willingness to sit down and compile your experiences with equipment - I know it takes effort and desire to share with us and I appreciate it. However, now I'm scratching my head as to whether I should sell my Canon 70-200 f4 for one of these .....

Tony M

 

[Drizzt321]

Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin: thanks for a once-again excellent, informative review - your reviews give me a much better feel for the real-life performance of equipment than the "by-the-numbers" reviews. I'm impressed by your willingness to sit down and compile your experiences with equipment - I know it takes effort and desire to share with us and I appreciate it. However, now I'm scratching my head as to whether I should sell my Canon 70-200 f4 for one of these .....

Tony M

Tony, I think that really boils down to a weight issue. Length is very comparable. I think that I would choose this lens over either of the 70-200 f/4 variants for my type of work (I have owned multiple copies of each). You do have more weight, but image quality is great as is the VC on the new lens. If you catch a sale on the new Tamron it really represents a great value and isn't the optical compromise that the Sigma OS currently is.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...

At least old film cameras are usually cheap...it's just what you do with them that gets expensive!

 

[Snook]

Thanks Dustin! I found your 24-70 review very informative. This one just as good! Coincidentally, I started looking into this Tamron 70-200mm a few days ago.

Also, for those looking for more info, TNG is in the middle of doing a four part series comparing the f/2.8 70-200's from Tamron, Canon, and Nikon. I know whenever I'm about to make a purchase I feel like I read and watch every single review on the internet. Just fyi.

 

[Plainsman]

Good review - thanks.

Now Tamron could we please have a 400/5.6 VC because it appears that neither Canon or Nikon are interested and you would have the market to yourself.

 

[BoneDoc]

Now that you've tested one, do you see yourself buying one of these in the future? I notice the only lens on your stable is the 70-300L, which is a different category altogether.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks Dustin! I found your 24-70 review very informative. This one just as good! Coincidentally, I started looking into this Tamron 70-200mm a few days ago.

Also, for those looking for more info, TNG is in the middle of doing a four part series comparing the f/2.8 70-200's from Tamron, Canon, and Nikon. I know whenever I'm about to make a purchase I feel like I read and watch every single review on the internet. Just fyi.

I watched the first part the other day, too. I enjoy his review series. Thanks for the thumbs up, by the way

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Good review - thanks.

Now Tamron could we please have a 400/5.6 VC because it appears that neither Canon or Nikon are interested and you would have the market to yourself.

That could be an interesting lens, particularly if it was reasonably compact and would work with at least a 1.4x extender reasonably well (they all seem to work with varying degrees of success with the Kenko extenders).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Now that you've tested one, do you see yourself buying one of these in the future? I notice the only lens on your stable is the 70-300L, which is a different category altogether.

Aden Camera here in Canada actually had one on sale @ $1299 a few weeks ago, which I would have jumped on if not for the fact that I was buying a new car that week and poured all of my available assets into it. I do think that I will grab one at some point, particularly if I can get it at that price point, which makes it a major bargain.

 

[BoneDoc]

Thanks for the reply Suatin. It's great to have a man of God doing reviews as I know that we are accountable to a higher authority. My dad is a pastor as well for a non denominational church in California.

Right now the lens cost 1499 with a 100 dollar rebate, so just 100 off your target price. You can get it from eBay for 1299, but then I wouldn't have as much option for return or exchange if I get a softer copy or one w a back focussing issue.

Believe it or not, one of the big consideration for me is the fact that this lens is black instead of white. I'm stationed in England now, and visiting some of the European countries like Italy, Spain or Greece would make me nervous with a white "steal me" lens . Also we'll be visiting Indonesia for my relative's wedding, so again, a more discrete lens might be preferable.

If money were not an issue (within reason), would you choose this or the Mk II Canon, and why?


Thanks again,

Josh

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for the reply Suatin. It's great to have a man of God doing reviews as I know that we are accountable to a higher authority. My dad is a pastor as well for a non denominational church in California.

Right now the lens cost 1499 with a 100 dollar rebate, so just 100 off your target price. You can get it from eBay for 1299, but then I wouldn't have as much option for return or exchange if I get a softer copy or one w a back focussing issue.

Believe it or not, one of the big consideration for me is the fact that this lens is black instead of white. I'm stationed in England now, and visiting some of the European countries like Italy, Spain or Greece would make me nervous with a white "steal me" lens . Also we'll be visiting Indonesia for my relative's wedding, so again, a more discrete lens might be preferable.

If money were not an issue (within reason), would you choose this or the Mk II Canon, and why?


Thanks again,

Josh

I think that if cost was no object I would go for the Canon. It is a proven, capable performer. But cost is rarely no object for me. I try to be financially conservative, and I don't think that the Canon would be worth an additional $1000. It is similar to my rationale with the 24-70, and I have not at all regretted going with the Tamron over the Canon 24-70II at all.

 

[Drizzt321]

Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...

At least old film cameras are usually cheap...it's just what you do with them that gets expensive!

Cheap is relative. I've become a bit obsessed with 120 film cameras, and it doesn't help when I have a Marina RB67 and want to find a lens or accessories for it. Even though they're a lot cheaper than they were, it still is $75 here, $200 there. It all adds up! Plus of course my Polaroid Automatics and SX-70. And film and development costs. Yea... I've gone a bit off the deep end. It's so much fun =D

 

[sdsr]

Thanks, Dustin, for a useful (and attractive!) review. I'm especially grateful for your bokeh samples - very impressive performance by the lens. (Having bought a couple of Canon MkIIs and returned them because of decentering problems, I'm rather tempted to try one of these instead.)

 

[Badger]

Thanks Dustin,
As a prosumer who doesn't make a dime off of photography, and who was thinking about the MKII for Christmas, this might make more sense especially the part about taking the extra $1,000 and spending it on other lenses.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...

At least old film cameras are usually cheap...it's just what you do with them that gets expensive!

I've got another buddy who seems to have the same disease you do


Cheap is relative. I've become a bit obsessed with 120 film cameras, and it doesn't help when I have a Marina RB67 and want to find a lens or accessories for it. Even though they're a lot cheaper than they were, it still is $75 here, $200 there. It all adds up! Plus of course my Polaroid Automatics and SX-70. And film and development costs. Yea... I've gone a bit off the deep end. It's so much fun =D

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks, Dustin, for a useful (and attractive!) review. I'm especially grateful for your bokeh samples - very impressive performance by the lens. (Having bought a couple of Canon MkIIs and returned them because of decentering problems, I'm rather tempted to try one of these instead.)

If you have the opportunity to buy from a decent retailer, you could probably give it a spin for yourself and return if it wasn't up to snuff. Thanks for the kudos.

Thanks Dustin,
As a prosumer who doesn't make a dime off of photography, and who was thinking about the MKII for Christmas, this might make more sense especially the part about taking the extra $1,000 and spending it on other lenses.

For a prosumer I would call it an excellent choice, as it optically competes with the Canon MKII at a much lower price point.

 

[drjlo]

A very helpful review for those who don't want to pay for that white f/2.8 II.

"One thing I noticed over the trial is that while Tamron lenses typically tend towards warmer color rendering, this is not the case with this particular lens. It is more neutral, even slightly tending towards cooler rendering. Colors are very vivid and rich, though, while skin tones are very naturally produced. I have rarely seen better color rendering."

Interesting that not too many people talk about color differences among lens brands. Even when I had a third-party lens that was "better" than Canon in certain respects (certain Sigma sharper, Certain Zeiss bolder colors, etc), I preferred to keep my lens stable with that Canon color character so that I can keep my post-processing workflow constant, without having to do extra steps to adjust colors to where I wanted.

For the photo's in your review, how much and what kind of post-processing was involved, especially for the colors?