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

[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.

 

[ddl]

That's the problem with this Canada PhotoNews magazine in general.

Most of the "reviews" are aditorials saying how good the product is and some could pass as ad writer copy.

I've read almost every issue over the past few years by grabbing the free copy at the camera stores here in Calgary and there are very few reviews that I would say accurately balance off good versus bad points.

I hope to see an accurate comparison test amongst all 70-200 2.8 stabilized lenses. I don't know what I'd do if the Tamron proves better than my currently owned Sigma 70-200 f/2.8OS which I'm quite happy with. I recently had a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC that I returned due to erratic focus behaviour (plus I'm scared over the Lens Rental article showing one of the internal elements in that lens to work loose) so I'm not certain that if I sold the Sigma that I wouldn't move directly to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much).

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a bit lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.

 

[sdsr]

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.

Right. I owned its predecessor for a while. Not only was it slow to focus (worse as the amount of light diminishes, unsurprisingly), but focusing was inconsistent - sometimes spot on (and when it was the results were excellent), but sometimes not, regardless of what the viewfinder and camera told me (this was on a Pentax K-5, though, which may have had something to do with that). So I would like to see a review by, say, Lenstip, which measures the proportion of "hits" to "misses". I would also like to learn more about magnification at close range and bokeh, two areas where reviews I've seen show the Sigma equivalent to be a safe distance behind the Canon 2.8 Mk II. Photos of the same subject (preferably something other than test charts) taken with different 70-200s for comparison would be nice too....

 

[raptor3x]

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much).

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a bit lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.

Comparing their review of the Tamron with their review of the Canon, it seems they're suggesting the Tamron is optically superior.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.

I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

From ePhotoZine's test:

From looking at their graphs, it would appear that resolution is higher wide open in the Tamron at the 70 and 135mm range, but the Canon is higher at 200mm.

The chromatic aberration is slightly lower in the Tamron, although both are negligible in field conditions.

Fall-off illumination numbers are lower on the Tamron than the Canon.
1.85 stops Tamron @70mm 2.09 stops @200mm
1.92 stops Canon @70mm 2.6 stops @200mm

Lower distortion on the Tamron too:

From the Canon review: "Distortion is minimal at 70mm with Imatast detecting 1.96% barrelling. At 200mm 1.12% pincushion distortion is present, which is a moderate level, but may be noticeable under certain circumstances. At both ends of the zoom the distortion pattern is uniform across the image area, which should make it simple to correct in image editing software afterwards. "

From the Tamron review: "Distortion is very well controlled throughout the zoom range. At 70mm only 0.645% barrel distortion is present, which is replaced with 0.42% pincushion distortion at 200mm. If straight lines are paramount, then you'll be pleased to learn that the distortion pattern is uniform across the frame, making it relatively easy to correct in image editing software afterwards, although this distortion is so mild, very few people will actually need to apply any corrections."

This looks like it is shaping up to be a pretty impressive lens.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

I hope all the glues will hold (not trying to be sarcastic).

A cheaper but almost as good as alternative to the Canon MK II is always very lucrative for photographically-non-earning enthusiasts like me...

 

[aznable]

It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.

I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.

infact the 24-70 vc from tamron costs half the price of the 24-70 ii from canon...and maybe is a better lens in various aspects

third partyies like canon and signa cannot compete with original manufacturers like canon and nikon because peoples prefer to buy "originals" insted of "copies" (tis is the popula belief...tragic)

 

[killswitch]

Some more 70-200 f2.8 VC hands on. Thoughts?

http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/sample-image-gallery-tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-vc-usd-telephoto-zoom-lens

 

[meli]

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?

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount.
Drawbacks: no manual override,
But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime
(not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)
Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass.
Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

 

[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?

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount.
Drawbacks: no manual override,
But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime
(not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)
Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass.
Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

No manual override? That conclusion differs from all the reports we have had so far. Lenses equipped with Tamron's USD motor all have full time manual override.

I'm more concerned about the early reports that the lens is significantly shorter than other 70-200mm zooms. I find that a big deal!

 

[meli]

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?

I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount.
Drawbacks: no manual override,
But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime
(not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)
Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass.
Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...

No manual override? That conclusion differs from all the reports we have had so far. Lenses equipped with Tamron's USD motor all have full time manual override.

I'm more concerned about the early reports that the lens is significantly shorter than other 70-200mm zooms. I find that a big deal!

a misunderstanding, i was talking about the sigma 17-50!