Anyone try the new TAMRON 70-200

time2smile

Just wondering if anyone picked up the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8 HSM, and what you think about it.

Manfr3d

There are some threads on this forum about this lens. (search function)
It seems to be very very sharp, a bit noisy and very good value from
what I've read here.

Scott_Quier

I've got a friend with one. I mounted it on my 30D just to play with it. Didn't make any photos with it. The AF seems a little slow and very noisy. In all, I think, if the optics are there, this would be a good value lens; in keeping with the reputation made by the 28-75 and the newer 17-50.

Tee Why

I think I remember seeing reviews of it on dpreview.com and on PopPhoto.com.

Both state that the optics are great but the AF speed is a bit slow for fast action sports. I think dpreview found some inconsistencies in it's AF performance as well.

Shane422

I have had the Nikon Mount of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for a few months now and I am quite happy with it. It is very sharp. I also shot with the Nikon 80-200 over the weekend on a friends D700. I would say they were very comparable. The Nikon focuses just a tad faster, but the Tamron can focus much closer. Here are some samples for you from a range of conditions.

F2.8 150MM


f2.8 130MM


f4 86MM

dangin

i have tamron's new 70-200mm f/2.8, their much older 70-210mm f/2.8, and the nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. i've found the new tamron to be just as sharp as my nikon at all but wide open; even at f/2.8, the difference is barely noticeable.

tamron pros: lightweight, shorter MFD, far less expensive than the nikon
tamron cons: lack of VR, AF is not as good as AF-S

nikon pros: built like a tank, VR, AF-S, excellent AF tracking
nikon cons: price, heavy like a tank, does not fit in my smaller camera bags

if i'm shooting an outdoor event, outdoor wedding, or trying to travel light, i pack the new tamron and leave the nikon at home. if i'm shooting in dark interiors (i.e. most churches), you'll find the nikon mounted on my D3 most of the time; it's a phenomenal lens.

time2smile

Thanks for the info
Thanks everyone for your replies. I think I'll give it a try. Going to stop into B&H and check it out, also want to compare it to the Sigma, but what I read sofar the Sigma is not as sharp as the Tamron.

Tee Why

time2smile wrote:

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think I'll give it a try. Going to stop into B&H and check it out, also want to compare it to the Sigma, but what I read sofar the Sigma is not as sharp as the Tamron.

I've heard the same about the sigmas especially near 200mm, seems like when they made the thing focus closer for a shorter MFD, it may have come at the cost of optics at 200mm as I hear the older non Macro versions were better. Sigma introduced a version II of the 70-200mm f2.8Macro but I remember hearing that even that wasn't that much better (I think maybe dpreview's test).