Updated: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Re: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

I should have jumped on the 55-250 STM last year but I keep holding out for something better in the same ballpark price range.
Canon's new 70-300 was a letdown, let's see if Tamron can't make something that works better at the long end.

is the new canom 70-300mm that bad? was thinking of getting 1 for hs football and or nfl camps in the summer for the 300mm

I'll be releasing a segment on Monday that may help you with that. The new Canon 70-300 is far better than what it has been given credit for so far (at least the copy I have).

 

[Chaitanya]

Re: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

More details on this 'Model A030' and a picture from NokiS___a Camera:

http://www.nokiS___a-camera.com/2017/02/sp-70-300mm-f4-56-di-vc-usd-model-a030.html

- same optical formula as the current A005 model
- fluorine coating on the front lens element
- some minor cosmetic changes
- improved AF speed and accuracy
- improved optical stabilisation
- Canon EF and Nikon F mounts
- available from February 23rd, 2017
- MRSP: ¥60,000 excl. tax (approx. $535)
- expected street price: ¥45,900 incl. tax (approx. $380).

Ouch, you are going to get banned. You shouldnt have done this, Canonrumours is an intolerant place.

 

[goldenhusky]

Re: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

I should have jumped on the 55-250 STM last year but I keep holding out for something better in the same ballpark price range.
Canon's new 70-300 was a letdown, let's see if Tamron can't make something that works better at the long end.

is the new canom 70-300mm that bad? was thinking of getting 1 for hs football and or nfl camps in the summer for the 300mm

I'll be releasing a segment on Monday that may help you with that. The new Canon 70-300 is far better than what it has been given credit for so far (at least the copy I have).

Thank you Dustin. Like many others here I wait for your reviews. Very meaningful and useful. Keep up the good work. Thanks again.

 

[goldenhusky]

Re: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

GOOD!
I don't like the A005 version which i have...and i'm having a hard time selling it...

My first Tamron was a 17-50 f/2.8 that I bought around $500 few years ago. I was disappointed with the build and the picture quality. I ended up returning that. Years later I tried the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD. I did not expect stellar quality from this lens but really was disappointed with the image quality. It was unacceptably soft in all FL. I bought it used thinking worst case scenario I should be able to sell it off without much loss. I was wrong, tried selling it for almost 6 months and there were no takers. I ended up trading it. In the end I did not loose much but ever since I have decided not to buy any more Tamrons. The 24-70 f/2.8VC really tempted me but choose to go with Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 ll. I guess not lot of people interested in used Tamron gear probably?

 

[Mistral75]

Announced in Japan.

 

[jd7]

Re: Tamron to Announce SP 70-300 mm F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD Shortly

I should have jumped on the 55-250 STM last year but I keep holding out for something better in the same ballpark price range.
Canon's new 70-300 was a letdown, let's see if Tamron can't make something that works better at the long end.

is the new canom 70-300mm that bad? was thinking of getting 1 for hs football and or nfl camps in the summer for the 300mm

I'll be releasing a segment on Monday that may help you with that. The new Canon 70-300 is far better than what it has been given credit for so far (at least the copy I have).

Sounds interesting Dustin. Will definitely be keeping an eye out for that one.

 

[AvTvM]

and yet another new/updated Tamron lens that still comes with "wrong turn" Zoom ring for EF mount.
Absolutely "no go" for me.

@Tamron: change that. Sigma did, so can you.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

 

[jd7]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

I actually think it is pretty good.

 

[jd7]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

I actually think it is pretty good.

Great to know! The next question is - do I want a 70-300 IS II or a 135L as a travel telephoto?!? I've often wanted to justify (to myself) buying a 135L (and a 135L would also serve as a great portrait lens and no doubt it's optically better), but I'm thinking a 70-300 IS II would probably be the more useful for my use really. Oh well, that's all getting even further OT.

Thanks again for the review Dustin.

 

[Zv]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

I actually think it is pretty good.

Great to know! The next question is - do I want a 70-300 IS II or a 135L as a travel telephoto?!? I've often wanted to justify (to myself) buying a 135L (and a 135L would also serve as a great portrait lens and no doubt it's optically better), but I'm thinking a 70-300 IS II would probably be the more useful for my use really. Oh well, that's all getting even further OT.

Thanks again for the review Dustin.

As someone who owns the 135L I can tell you that I have never once traveled with it. The 70-300 would be way more useful IMO. Unless you're going to be shooting wide open, thin dof type headshots on your travels I'd say the zoom is a better bet.

The IS alone is useful enough. I find the 135L limited when the light levels go down. Razor thin dof is not my thing mind so I guess some would argue the f/2 case. But even then you gotta really watch the shutter speed with this thing as I've found anything under 1/200s can cause blurring. Even the steadiest would be at 1/100 maybe.

With the IS lenses you can easily shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 and get reasonable results. Plus you might just get something in focus!

The 70-300 with the LCD even gives feedback about lens shake. Further improving your chances of a half decent shot.

135L comes into it's own for indoor sports or outdoor where the action is close like 3 on 3 basketball. At f/2.8 it's razor sharp. Wide open is OK but personally I avoid it and start at f/2.8, so for me having a 70-200 f/4 IS I find few opportunities to use my 135L. But when I do the results are impressive!

 

[jd7]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

I actually think it is pretty good.

Great to know! The next question is - do I want a 70-300 IS II or a 135L as a travel telephoto?!? I've often wanted to justify (to myself) buying a 135L (and a 135L would also serve as a great portrait lens and no doubt it's optically better), but I'm thinking a 70-300 IS II would probably be the more useful for my use really. Oh well, that's all getting even further OT.

Thanks again for the review Dustin.

As someone who owns the 135L I can tell you that I have never once traveled with it. The 70-300 would be way more useful IMO. Unless you're going to be shooting wide open, thin dof type headshots on your travels I'd say the zoom is a better bet.

The IS alone is useful enough. I find the 135L limited when the light levels go down. Razor thin dof is not my thing mind so I guess some would argue the f/2 case. But even then you gotta really watch the shutter speed with this thing as I've found anything under 1/200s can cause blurring. Even the steadiest would be at 1/100 maybe.

With the IS lenses you can easily shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 and get reasonable results. Plus you might just get something in focus!

The 70-300 with the LCD even gives feedback about lens shake. Further improving your chances of a half decent shot.

135L comes into it's own for indoor sports or outdoor where the action is close like 3 on 3 basketball. At f/2.8 it's razor sharp. Wide open is OK but personally I avoid it and start at f/2.8, so for me having a 70-200 f/4 IS I find few opportunities to use my 135L. But when I do the results are impressive!

Thanks Zv. When I've asked around previously, I've found a pretty even split between those who like using their 135L as a small, light telephoto for travel and those who think a 135mm prime just isn't very useful as a travel lens. My heart says 135L (I really am a fan of a lot of the images I see taken with it), but my head says the 70-300 (or just carrying the 70-200 2.8L or going without a telephoto) is probably the way to go for my purposes.

I don't have any trips coming up soon, sadly, so I won't be making any decision immediately. Might see where the price of the 70-300 IS II settles later in the year.

 

[Zv]

Here's a link to my video segment on whether or not the new 70-300 IS II is sharp or not - http://bit.ly/70300Sharp

Very interesting! (Although I admit I haven't watched the whole thing - just watched bits and pieces.)

Am looking forward to hearing your final conclusions in due course Dustin, but sounds to me like the lens might turn out to be pretty good after all, especially once you factor in price and weight.

I actually think it is pretty good.

Great to know! The next question is - do I want a 70-300 IS II or a 135L as a travel telephoto?!? I've often wanted to justify (to myself) buying a 135L (and a 135L would also serve as a great portrait lens and no doubt it's optically better), but I'm thinking a 70-300 IS II would probably be the more useful for my use really. Oh well, that's all getting even further OT.

Thanks again for the review Dustin.

As someone who owns the 135L I can tell you that I have never once traveled with it. The 70-300 would be way more useful IMO. Unless you're going to be shooting wide open, thin dof type headshots on your travels I'd say the zoom is a better bet.

The IS alone is useful enough. I find the 135L limited when the light levels go down. Razor thin dof is not my thing mind so I guess some would argue the f/2 case. But even then you gotta really watch the shutter speed with this thing as I've found anything under 1/200s can cause blurring. Even the steadiest would be at 1/100 maybe.

With the IS lenses you can easily shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 and get reasonable results. Plus you might just get something in focus!

The 70-300 with the LCD even gives feedback about lens shake. Further improving your chances of a half decent shot.

135L comes into it's own for indoor sports or outdoor where the action is close like 3 on 3 basketball. At f/2.8 it's razor sharp. Wide open is OK but personally I avoid it and start at f/2.8, so for me having a 70-200 f/4 IS I find few opportunities to use my 135L. But when I do the results are impressive!

Thanks Zv. When I've asked around previously, I've found a pretty even split between those who like using their 135L as a small, light telephoto for travel and those who think a 135mm prime just isn't very useful as a travel lens. My heart says 135L (I really am a fan of a lot of the images I see taken with it), but my head says the 70-300 (or just carrying the 70-200 2.8L or going without a telephoto) is probably the way to go for my purposes.

I don't have any trips coming up soon, sadly, so I won't be making any decision immediately. Might see where the price of the 70-300 IS II settles later in the year.

I guess it depends on each persons individual style of shooting. When I travel abroad I like to take the least amount of gear possible so I end up taking just my wide angle zoom and general purpose (24-105L). 105mm is not long enough but I can live with that as most shots I take are landmarks, landscapes and street scenes. I've often wished I had a small and light image stabilized tele for some different viewpoints and details though.

The 135L is actually kinda hefty. It "feels" about as heavy as my 70-200 f/4L IS (I just looked it up and there's only 10g difference between them; 135L is 750g and 70-200 is 760g) There's that huge front element which weighs a fair bit. Plus the hood on the the 135L almost doubles the working length of the lens. However, take the hood off and you can use this lens out on the streets in a sort of "stealth mode" as it doesn't attract much attention, it just looks like an ordinary sized black lens.

The 70-300II is 710g in comparison. Not a whole lot different but when you're carrying it on your back all day it can add up.

If I didn't have the 70-200 I'd probably have bought this 70-300II right away. It seems like a great travel companion.