Tamron 70-200 2.8

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
Anyone have any hands on experience with the Tamron 70-200 2.8. On the Digital picture the sharpness and contrast look good against the Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS, but there seem to be a lot of complaints about the auto focus. I use the quick focus on the 60d between camera takes to lock in a point then leave it while shooting. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC works very well for this and I don't plan to be doing any action sports photography with it.
So my choices are the Tamron 2.8 for $699 or the Canon for twice the price.


"The Digital Picture"
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

"Photozone"
The Tamron lens relies on a conventional micro-motor for focus - a primary point of criticism by users. Used in conventional (phase-detection) AF mode it is reasonably fast and also accurate but we wouldn't really classify as suitable for action photography. Live-View (contrast-) AF is quite dismal and our test cameras were consistently unable to lock on even on our high contrast test targets - probably a first here in the lab but nothing to be proud of. That said it is probably not really a lens used in Live-View mode anyway. Accurate manual focusing is very difficult due to the very short focus path.

The main weakness of the lens is its conventional AF. It is not all that bad when using phase-detection AF but it is far from being a speed demon. Contrast AF is downright miserable and manual focusing is cumbersome.

Here is a forum discussing the issue.
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/tamron-70200-f28_topic81256.html
 
Last edited:
What about the sigma 70-200 2.8? I was in a similar situation and opted for the sigma over the Tamron, and have been very happy with it thus far. FWIW I do mostly wedding videography / promo stuff with short films on the side.
 
thetvirus513 said:
What about the sigma 70-200 2.8? I was in a similar situation and opted for the sigma over the Tamron, and have been very happy with it thus far. FWIW I do mostly wedding videography / promo stuff with short films on the side.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Sigma is on the same level with the Tamron, but the sharpness tests are a little softer at the long end. I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 which has been very sharp with good contrast. The Sigma is also more expensive the non vc is $850 and the VC is $1,400. That's getting close the the Canon 70-200 L lenses.
I will probably pick up a tamron used on ebay for about $500 plus and try it out. If I had the extra cash I would go for the canon 70-200 2.8 II IS, so maybe after a year i will sell the Tamron back and pick up the canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I saw this clip on u_tube and can see why your Sigma would get less attention at weddings than the Tamron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqbnWI9Pvrw&noredirect=1
 
Last edited:
NormanBates said:
for full-frame, I'd go for the canon 70-200 f/4L IS - on APS-C, that tamron looks pretty sharp, and bokeh is pretty decent too, probably better than on the canon f/2.8L non-IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/579-tamron70200f28ff?start=1 - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/576-tamron70200f28apsc?start=1 - http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/669-canon70200f28ff?start=1
Click to expand...

The Canon 70-200 f4 IS has been at the top of my list for a long time. It's one of the sharpest zoom out there, light weight and compact, but the speed may change it for me.
I had an indoor shoot Saturday and there was no additional lighting. At 2.8 I was shooting at ISO 1250 which is already past the borderline on a aps-c camera.
With an f4 lens I will find myself running out of acquitted exposure when it really counts.
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is the first Tamron lens I've owned and in spite of it's low price tag the results have been impressive. Bases on that track record I suspect the Tamron 70-200 2.8 may also be an equally good value. At $699 new there isn't that much risk.
 
Last edited:
very positive review indeed, definitely an interesting lens

did you ask Steve Oakley? (I'd be interested in reading what he has to say about this lens too - I've seen no comments in his blog post) (he does spend some time commenting in blogs and forums: he has a couple of posts here at dvxuser, and he very politely trashed my Flaat picture styles at nofilmschool, grrrr)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top