Tamron 70-200mm 2.8

[shaocaholica]

I have never owned a Tamron lens (had a 1.4 once - years ago). Still, I really really, very seriously doubt that it is optically better then the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR.

This based on what? Gut feeling? All the scientific tests point to that conclusion.

 

[Casket28]

I have a thread on this lens, that taa2d, you've seen.. It performs very very well, I am completely thrilled with the performance of this lens.

 

[Big Daddy]

This based on what? Gut feeling? All the scientific tests point to that conclusion.

May I ask what scientific tests? DPR's? DPR said that the Tamron is competitive optically, it didn't say it was better.

On DX:

... whilst we have to be careful about comparing test results directly across brands, it's clear that it even challenges the superb Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8G at the extremes of the zoom range (although not in the middle).

The caveat about being "careful" notes that the Tamron was tested on a Canon body and not a Nikon body. It's difficult to compare them because of different sensors and anti-alias filters.

On full-frame:

It's at least a match for the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM in resolution across the range, and indeed is noticeably sharper wide open at 70mm.

The Tamron doesn't exhibit some of the issues the Nikon does on FX -- though whether or not those issues matter depends largely on what you shoot.

On DX, the Nikon seems to be clearly better optically. According to the "scientific test." The tested Tamron had a noticeable softness in the middle of the focal range.

Now, the usual caveats apply. One should always take the "scientific" lens reviews with a grain of salt. And in the above I only referred to optical quality. There are other factors that make a good lens.

For my own shooting, if the Tamron's auto-focus isn't as good as the 70-200VR's, then I wouldn't buy it. For my own uses, a fast telephoto zoom with slower and/or inaccurate auto-focus is an oxymoron.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Randy]

May I ask what scientific tests? DPR's? DPR said that the Tamron is competitive optically, it didn't say it was better.

On DX:



The caveat about being "careful" notes that the Tamron was tested on a Canon body and not a Nikon body. It's difficult to compare them because of different sensors and anti-alias filters.

On full-frame:



The Tamron doesn't exhibit some of the issues the Nikon does on FX -- though whether or not those issues matter depends largely on what you shoot.

On DX, the Nikon seems to be clearly better optically. According to the "scientific test." The tested Tamron had a notcieably softness in the middle of the focal range.

Now, the usual caveats apply. One should always take the "scientific" lens reviews with a grain of salt. And in the above I only referred to optical quality. There are other factors that make a good lens.

For my own shooting, if the Tamron's auto-focus isn't as good as the 70-200VR's, then I wouldn't buy it. For my own uses, a fast telephoto zoom needs fast, accurate auto-focus. Your mileage may vary.

thx for the details Bill !
I was going on gut feeling for sure and the biased opinion that Nikon makes the best lenses on the planet....i gotta admit i never thought I would see someone saying there was a better 70-200 available unless it was a new 70-200vr version. The 70-200 was my 1st great lens and it still is a great lens on the D300 and on the D3

 

[Big Daddy]

... But... My Tamron is due here tomorrow. Hopefully I'll get to try it out for myself soon.... shooting sports. ...

I thought you already have a Sigma 70-200/2.8? Is this in addition to, or to replace it?

 

[Big Daddy]

...
I was going on gut feeling for sure and the biased opinion that Nikon makes the best lenses on the planet....

There are a number of Tamron or Sigma (and Tokina) lenses that I think compare very favorably to their Nikon counterparts. I'm certainly open, and have a couple of non-Nikon lenses as well.

My main caveat is that there's no free lunch. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 does look like a very good lens -- but "better" is a strong word and often dependent on what an individual owner values.

I have to admit I was really disappointed by the auto-focus performance, as measured on a Canon mount by DPR. (And, again, take all lens reviews with a grain of salt.)

Tamron's use of a conventional micro-motor and not a ring-type, ultrasonic motor is the root of the problem. Canon users have complained about it for years -- just not as fast or as quiet as true USM. They don't have Sigma's HSM (at least "true HSM").

Tamron optics are great, though.

 

[Randy]

There are a number of Tamron or Sigma (and Tokina) lenses that I think compare very favorably to their Nikon counterparts. I'm certainly open, and have a couple of non-Nikon lenses as well.

My main caveat is that there's no free lunch. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 does look like a very good lens -- but "better" is a strong word and often dependent on what an individual owner values.

I have to admit I was really disappointed by the auto-focus performance, as measured on a Canon mount by DPR. (And, again, take all lens reviews with a grain of salt.)

Tamron's use of a conventional micro-motor and not a ring-type, ultrasonic motor is the root of the problem. Canon users have complained about it for years -- just not as fast or as quiet as true USM. They don't have Sigma's HSM (at least "true HSM").

Tamron optics are great, though.

i still shoot a sigma 150 2.8 and think it is a gem of a lens, great IQ and the HSM is very fast. In fact all of the sigma lenses I have had had hsm and it worked very well.

for me great optics is only the beginning, which is why i snickered at posts in this thread that said the optical tests showed the lens to be better than the nikon.....and i have still only seen one pic (in another thread)...

I am a sports and BIF shooter and AFS/HSM is mandatory.
Nikon lenses auto focus so fast it is amazing...my 300 2.8 VR, even at 420mm is instantaneous, even in low light

 

[Big Daddy]

I also think that even if the AF is slow, the Tamron can be used for sports by buyers willing to use different techniques. ANY lens can be used for sports. After all, there were sport shooters back in the manual focus days. But that doesn't make us all want to use manual focus. Some sport shooters -- particularly those with Randy's interests and skill level -- would PREFER to shoot with fast AF-S/HSM/USM lenses.

A friend of mine is a Pentax shooter and is waiting to see how the Tamron does in a Pentax mount. Pentax owners have been pining for a good telephoto zoom (Sigma had stopped making their's in a Pentax mount a few years ago, though the HSM Macro II will be released in Pentax mount). It may be a blessing that Tamron is not releasing the Pentax or Sony mount with that micro-motor -- they will be screw-drive. The Pentax model he's using seems to have a pretty robust screw-drive so it's quite possible it'll focus faster on his K10D than, say, my D80. At least in bright light (he says his K10D struggles a bit in low light).

In his case, he has image stabilization with his body so he should get some benefits there for shooting non-moving subjects. Probably just a couple of stops, though.

 

[marcelotk]

Well.. this Tamron may be a better choise FOR ME... the Tamron may give me an IQ as good as the Nikon one + have better magnification, size and weight.

It may be better or not optically than the Nikkor but I do prints A3 size or smaller and the IQ is enough with both lenses IMO (Well... I'm just guessing about the Tamron's quality) and talking about AF speed... I don't need speed at all. 90% of my photos are portraits and social work.

 

[taat2d]

I thought you already have a Sigma 70-200/2.8? Is this in addition to, or to replace it?

I dropped my sigma last week. The filter got smashed and scratched the glass. When I walked into the house and told my wife she handed over the CC and told me to order a new lens. I ordered the Tamron because it was cheaper.

 

[wilvoeka]

IQ wise the Tamron is a stellar performer, Is it better than the Nikkor? I cant say, but I would say it is probably equal in the IQ department. The AF is on the slow side to get focus at the extremes, but once it gets focus IT IS FOCUSED.

For flowers and portraits I would say that the Tamron is a great choice, especially for its price.

IF AF performance is more important than absolute IQ and funds are a concern, then the Sigma would be the better choice.

IF you have the funds and you want the best IQ and the best AF, than the Nikkor is the only way to go.

I got the Tamron yesterday, and I am pleased with its IQ, but the AF performance may be just slow enough to force me to take it back and get a Nikkor.

 

[Randy]

I also think that even if the AF is slow, the Tamron can be used for sports by buyers willing to use different techniques. ANY lens can be used for sports. After all, there were sport shooters back in the manual focus days. But that doesn't make us all want to use manual focus. Some sport shooters -- particularly those with Randy's interests and skill level -- would PREFER to shoot with fast AF-S/HSM/USM lenses.

A friend of mine is a Pentax shooter and is waiting to see how the Tamron does in a Pentax mount. Pentax owners have been pining for a good telephoto zoom (Sigma had stopped making their's in a Pentax mount a few years ago, though the HSM Macro II will be released in Pentax mount). It may be a blessing that Tamron is not releasing the Pentax or Sony mount with that micro-motor -- they will be screw-drive. The Pentax model he's using seems to have a pretty robust screw-drive so it's quite possible it'll focus faster on his K10D than, say, my D80. At least in bright light (he says his K10D struggles a bit in low light).

In his case, he has image stabilization with his body so he should get some benefits there for shooting non-moving subjects. Probably just a couple of stops, though.

before electricity and color tv:smile:

 

[taat2d]

I have a thread on this lens, that taa2d, you've seen.. It performs very very well, I am completely thrilled with the performance of this lens.

The images you posted with this lens are great. But taking shots of RC cars coming straight at you really isn't sports.

 

[itsmike]

Racing is a Sport! Especially Nascar!

 

[Casket28]

The images you posted with this lens are great. But taking shots of RC cars coming straight at you really isn't sports.

I see what you're saying, I was more darting the point that the focus speed is useable, and it wont limit you.

 

[taat2d]

I see what you're saying, I was more darting the point that the focus speed is useable, and it wont limit you.

Don't get me wrong the shots you posted are great. I'm just concerned about the AF when I try shooting my son playing, and I'm trying to get focus as he's running around. Tonight he's got soccer practice so I should get a better idea about the lens.