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

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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?

The majority of the photos in the review have very little pp. Some are labelled as having none other a standard RAW conversion. A few shots have been posted, and they will typically stand out as being either stylized or having a bit more pop. For a point of comparison, I would recommend you look at the series of photos that I took during the section that compares magnification. The Tamron is presented next to the 70-300L and the 135L, two lenses noted for having nice color rendering. The 135L tends to be a bit cooler than many Canons. All of those photos have no post processing and were taken in identical lighting conditions. I don't see hardly any color variation at all.

 

[ilang]

Thanks for your review Dustin,

I bought this lens this week but have only taken a few test shots and very impressed so far , most of my testing has been at f2.8. Sharpness and Bokeh is amazing.

I have rented the Canon 70-300L before and was impressed with the lens how does the Tamron with a teleconverter compare on a practical basis , I do know you loose 20mm ? Do you know if Canon teleconverters will work on the Tamron?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for your review Dustin,

I bought this lens this week but have only taken a few test shots and very impressed so far , most of my testing has been at f2.8. Sharpness and Bokeh is amazing.

I have rented the Canon 70-300L before and was impressed with the lens how does the Tamron with a teleconverter compare on a practical basis , I do know you loose 20mm ? Do you know if Canon teleconverters will work on the Tamron?

You'll have to give us your own feedback after you have a little more time with it. It's hard to compare the 70-300L; they really serve two very difference purposes. If you want to travel, the 70-300L is a much better choice as it is far more compact (particularly when fully retracted). It is an awesome lens, very sharp, great color, and surprisingly good bokeh for a variable aperture zoom. The Tamron, for me, serves a very different purpose. It is a perfect event tool and obviously serves the purpose of narrow aperture work.

I didn't test it with the my Canon teleconverter because it worked so well with the Kenko, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. I should have put it on, but I was traveling a lot during the period I was testing and had multiple events to cover during that time. I would have liked to have had more opportunity to just shoot random stuff, but part of the reason that we chose that time to do the review was specifically because I had multiple professional events to cover.

 

[BoneDoc]

How's the sharpness on the 70-300L vs the Tamron? I have the non L 70-300 IS, and I can tell that it's quite soft at 300mm. In some ways, I'm sure I can get the same IQ with a 200mm lens that's sharper, and then crop it down.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

How's the sharpness on the 70-300L vs the Tamron? I have the non L 70-300 IS, and I can tell that it's quite soft at 300mm. In some ways, I'm sure I can get the same IQ with a 200mm lens that's sharper, and then crop it down.

That's a tough call. I have a really sharp copy of the 70-300L, but I didn't really compare IQ head to head much because the two lenses really don't compete in the same category. I only have two photos that compare the image quality from the two. Note that at 200mm the 70-300L is @ f/5, so that tells the story of the two different purposes of the lenses. That being said, I have included crops from the shots that I have. The Tamron is the first in both comparisons. My opinion is the 70-300L is sharper in the close focus shot; the second (at distance) is pretty much a wash.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Second Crops:

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

You can tell from these images that the microcontrast with the 70-300L is better (it is one of the best lenses I have used in this area).

P.S. The non-L 70-300 doesn't hold a candle to the L. It is an optical beast.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I should add that the closer focus picture above was taken to demonstrate maximum magnification, not critical sharpness. I didn't use Live View for focus, just an AF focus point and then a timer. Said AF point may have been more accurate with one lens over another because the framing of the subject was different. There are certainly other examples I took similarly during the review process that show better sharpness.

My opinion is that sharpness would not be an issue with either of these lenses. They are both very sharp.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another narrow depth of field shot that helps show what the lens is capable of:


Flowers for Mama by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a Q @ A (somewhat) that I thought that I would share for others that might have the same question:

"Message Body:
Great review on what seens to be a nice alternative to a crowded and somewhat pricey market. I've personally been considering the Canon 70-200 f4.0 IS or 70-300 L but know would add this to the list. The question I'd have is if you'd recommend this or the 70-300 L (which you've also given a strong recommendation for)? I primarily use a Canon 6D and do mostly travel/landscape stuff for personal but have also recently started venturing into wedding/event stuff as a 2nd shooter."

---------(My Response)
Thanks for the nice feedback. Unfortunately your question is somewhat complicated by two divergent purposes. If your interest was only in the travel/landscape, I would definitely recommend the 70-300L. It is incredibly sharp and is fairly compact when not zoomed out.

If you are getting into doing some event work, however, the 70-200 VC becomes a more attractive option. The 70-300L will require 2-3 times more light, depending on focal length, although the 6D is very capable of providing that kind of light. What the 70-300L won't provide in the same way is the ability to blur out backgrounds and make your subject pop.

It's a tough call, and one that you will ultimately have to make for yourself. What will benefit you more - an event lens or a travel lens? What would get more use?

______________________________________________________________

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.

Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel. But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.

Thoughts?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Also, here is one more shot from the Tamron 70-200 - a little more artistic...

 

[BoneDoc]

Also, here is one more shot from the Tamron 70-200 - a little more artistic...

Lovely Dustin.

 

[Random Orbits]

What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.

Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel. But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.

Thoughts?

If I could only have 1, then I'd have to choose the 70-200 II and live with its size and weight. The 70-300L is a very capable lens, but the 70-200 II focuses more accurately (especially on lower contrast targets) and tracks moving targets better and I find I like its colors better and requires less post-processing than the 70-300L. The larger aperture max aperture helps to diffuse the background an the vignetting wide open only helps to make the subject pop more. If sports and portraiture are your thing, then the 70-200 II is tough to beat. It also does better getting to 400mm with the 2x.

The 70-300L does well by achieving IQ close to the 70-200 II in a compact, lighter and less expensive package. It wins at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x but loses a stop, but its biggest advantages are size and weight. It's a great travel lens. For those that are more concerned about weight and size of a 70-200 II, the 70-300L is an attractive option. I'd opt for a 70-300L over a 70-200 f/4 variant. The 70-300L is still a little shorter and more packable (fits bags vertically) than the slimmer but longer 70-200 f/4s and it has a longer native focal length range while losing a fraction of a stop.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.

Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel. But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.

Thoughts?

If I could only have 1, then I'd have to choose the 70-200 II and live with its size and weight. The 70-300L is a very capable lens, but the 70-200 II focuses more accurately (especially on lower contrast targets) and tracks moving targets better and I find I like its colors better and requires less post-processing than the 70-300L. The larger aperture max aperture helps to diffuse the background an the vignetting wide open only helps to make the subject pop more. If sports and portraiture are your thing, then the 70-200 II is tough to beat. It also does better getting to 400mm with the 2x.

The 70-300L does well by achieving IQ close to the 70-200 II in a compact, lighter and less expensive package. It wins at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x but loses a stop, but its biggest advantages are size and weight. It's a great travel lens. For those that are more concerned about weight and size of a 70-200 II, the 70-300L is an attractive option. I'd opt for a 70-300L over a 70-200 f/4 variant. The 70-300L is still a little shorter and more packable (fits bags vertically) than the slimmer but longer 70-200 f/4s and it has a longer native focal length range while losing a fraction of a stop.

That's a pretty fair summation that I think I pretty much agree with all around. Having owned the f/4 variants of the 70-200, I would choose the 70-300L over them every day. But the 70-200 f/2.8 is a different animal (either the Canon or the Tamron), and it is a more complicated decision.

My current solution is to use both the 70-300L and primes for my event work. I use my 135L quite a bit and am very pleased with the 135L + 1.4x combination. Great IQ and still very compact.

 

[BoneDoc]

One review I read said that it's softer at 200mm. Did you notice this as well?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

One review I read said that it's softer at 200mm. Did you notice this as well?

I thought I saw that at first on a few shots (more like a soft haze at 100% that shows more of a lack of contrast), but after I dialed it in on AFMA I actually thought the sharpness was fine on the long end, even with an extender.

 

[BoneDoc]

Looking at his sample, a haze is probably more like it. I've got one on order (along with a nearly new Canon Mk II for comparison ). Should be here in several days.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Looking at his sample, a haze is probably more like it. I've got one on order (along with a nearly new Canon Mk II for comparison ). Should be here in several days.

I'll be interested to read your head to head thoughts. I didn't have the opportunity to compare them head to head. I have been following a video series from "That Nikon Guy" and he is comparing those two + the Nikon right now. Three videos are up and are interesting and informative. Here is the first:

70-200 Showdown pt1 - Tamron vs Canon vs Nikon

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here is the second in that series:

Stabilisation & Autofocus - 70-200 Showdown pt2 - Tamron vs Canon vs Nikon