Tamron to Announce 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD

Refurb7

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2016
255
49
But why put the zoom ring on the outside, further from the camera body? This is the opposite of what Canon does on its 70-200. And it seems less practical to have it out there.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
646
405
39
Philadelphia
Sharlin said:
I’m fairly sure Tamron knows roughly inifinity times better what sort of lenses are better business-wise than Random CR Commenter #85549 ::)

> smaller
> better in low light

Also, physics called. They’d have a word.
yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.
 

RayValdez360

Soon to be the greatest.
Jun 6, 2012
646
405
39
Philadelphia
Don Haines said:
RayValdez360 said:
what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.

You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....

Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,365
1,267
Turku, Finland
Refurb7 said:
But why put the zoom ring on the outside, further from the camera body? This is the opposite of what Canon does on its 70-200. And it seems less practical to have it out there.

Due to optical design most likely. They have to be mechanically coupled to the corresponding lens groups...
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,365
1,267
Turku, Finland
RayValdez360 said:
yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.

Random consumers usually know what they want. Unfortunately, often they think they're a representative sample of the general target audience even if they aren't. They're generalizing from a single data point (themselves). Large companies have many many more data points, both by having already sold a shitload of goods and by spending money on market studies. It's not that every product by every company is always a success, of course. But a priori they certainly know what they're doing better than random internet commentariat.

The EF 70-200 f/4 USM is a very popular lens and commonly thought to be one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses Canon sells. The 70-200mm f/4 IS USM is also very well regarded and popular among the crowd who want a high quality tele without the huge extra bulk of an f/2.8 version. F/4 is plenty enough for even many professional purposes.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,082
362
Vancouver, BC
RayValdez360 said:
Don Haines said:
RayValdez360 said:
what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.

You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....

Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.

"better" in low light can mean different things to different people. One thing that often gets overlooked when comparing 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 is that when using OVF, f/2.8 always has superior autofocus, and the viewfinder will always be brighter, than f/4.

For a lot of people, 70-200 is a portrait lens, and if you're using it indoors with flash, 2.8 AF just performs better that way. Unlike 24-70 and 16-35, you don't need to choose between image stabilization and aperture, so the only downside of the 2.8 is size/weight. I think that this just isn't an issue for a lot of photoghraphers because they've gotten used to body + 1.5kg.



Sharlin said:
RayValdez360 said:
yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.

Random consumers usually know what they want. Unfortunately, often they think they're a representative sample of the general target audience even if they aren't. They're generalizing from a single data point (themselves). Large companies have many many more data points, both by having already sold a shitload of goods and by spending money on market studies. It's not that every product by every company is always a success, of course. But a priori they certainly know what they're doing better than random internet commentariat.

The EF 70-200 f/4 USM is a very popular lens and commonly thought to be one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses Canon sells. The 70-200mm f/4 IS USM is also very well regarded and popular among the crowd who want a high quality tele without the huge extra bulk of an f/2.8 version. F/4 is plenty enough for even many professional purposes.

Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,365
1,267
Turku, Finland
Talys said:
Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?

My educated guess is: same price bracket as the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. My bet is between $600 and $700. $500 is too low; $800 too high.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
299
94
If the price can come down to around that for the non-IS Canon f/4, that's a really solid move. The f/4 with IS is already close enough to newer lenses that I doubt Tamron could really better it enough to compete at the same price point, but undercutting the IS f/4 and completely overshadowing the non-IS f/4 would be a great move.
 

SkynetTX

EOS 90D
Jul 29, 2016
158
12
44
Budapest, Hungary
I'd like to buy a telephoto zoom this summer (mostly for landscapes of distant subjects) and if this one will be better in any aspect (more sharpness, less CA, less focus breathing) than the 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 I will probably buy this. At this focal range even f/4 is fast enough for most purposes and provides great background blur. I don't really care about the extra 10 mm of this one but would probably be interested in a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens or something similarly small, lightweight and relatively fast.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
RayValdez360 said:
Don Haines said:
RayValdez360 said:
what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.

You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....

Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.

With this one, it probably is 210mm..... not quite sure where I read it, but I think the 70-200F4 is really 185 or 190mm....
 
Feb 3, 2012
8
4
NC, USA
Sharlin said:
Talys said:
Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?

My educated guess is: same price bracket as the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. My bet is between $600 and $700. $500 is too low; $800 too high.

I was thinking $799 but I noticed in the leaked photos that it only has 1 VC mode and no focus limiter (or so it appears), so they probably are targeting more like $600-700.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,862
1,001
UK
www.flickr.com
RayValdez360 said:
Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.

Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes [sic] comment like this[?]

Maybe they think this is an area they can MAKE MONEY? Maybe the extra 10mm made the lens easier to design? Maybe you ought to stop trying to think about things, it's clearly too hard for you.
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,495
2,773
If it's priced anywhere near the OG 70-200L and gets the usual thumbs up from say Bryan and our man Dustin, I'm in.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
732
365
70-210 reminds me of the original Vivitar 70-210 Series One lens of 1973 or so. This was the first lens that claimed to be computer designed to allow superior performance than the zooms of the time.

As for the actual FL at the long end, it seems that most lenses are quite casual as to the accuracy of the rating.
 
Feb 20, 2018
2
0
United States
This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.

If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!
 

slclick

Unsolicited & Always Free
Dec 17, 2013
4,495
2,773
diness said:
This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.

If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!

Welcome to the CR Forum!
 
Feb 20, 2018
2
0
United States
slclick said:
diness said:
This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.

If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!

Welcome to the CR Forum!

Thanks! I have watched CR for quite awhile, just never commented on anything! :)
 

wsmith96

Advancing Amateur
Aug 17, 2012
942
32
Texas
RayValdez360 said:
Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.

It’s their version of going to 11.
 

mistaspeedy

EOS RP
Apr 5, 2015
236
6
B&H lists the following prices:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens: $599
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens: $1,149
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens: $1,299
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens: $1,949

So the way I see it. It will sit below the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM in price for sure.
If we do the math... the Tamron F2.8 offers the same features as the Canon whilst being one third cheaper.
One third cheaper than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens is about $759... we'll see what happens.