Tamron 70-200f2.8

i know were talking nikon but in terms of the opposition ;)

What would you say the pros and cons are against a 70-200 f4 USM?

If anyone can answer that...
 
The 70-200 f/4 is an excellent lens, and IMHO superior to Canon's f/2.8 ones.

I'll speculate that stopped down to f/4 the Tamron will be sharper than the Canon 70-200 f/4 wide open - FYI the Tamron is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 when both are wide open.

The Canon will have faster focusing.
 
i only really use the 70-200 for watersports and most other action sports so would the slower AF pass for that?

I mean the canon is nice and the focus is lightning fast but i like the look of the tamron and fancy a change...
 
My workaround for the slow focusing was to shoot AF-C mode, which is a good mode. You probably know it as AI-Servo.

I just don't shoot fast stuff so I wouldn't like to comment. However I shoot slow stuff, and felt the AF was too slow and hesitant. This is on my D700 which focuses everything very fast. My Nikkor 70-200 VR is honestly about 10 times faster to focus than the Tamron.
 
hmmm see this is were i have the problem i feel like the faster focus for fast action sport really helps...

But reading that its sharper stopped down to f4 than the canon wide open makes me want it a little :p
 
Dom_Cabarete said:
But reading that its sharper stopped down to f4 than the canon wide open makes me want it a little :p
Click to expand...

I'm just assuming here.. the Tamron is probably as sharp as the Nikkor 70-200 VR, which is sharper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 when both are wide open, so I think its a very reasonable assumption that stopped down 1 stop will match a 70-200 f/4 wide open.
 
decisions decisions :thinking:
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Sorry for starting this thread guys:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

This is terrible the only advantages i see of the canon is the fast AF... Can somebody say anything that would make me think the tamron is better for sport than the canon...

I mean eventually i will upgrade to canon f2.8 and a 300mm but for right now...What do you think?:help:
 
please put me out of my misery...:shake: i cant decide
 
Dom_Cabarete said:
please put me out of my misery...:shake: i cant decide
Click to expand...

I can't help with the Canon version, but I have the Nikon version. On this page & some of the pages after, are some photo's taken with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I like it very much, however since my new Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 ED-IF, the Tamron has taken a back seat.
 
just got mine today...


It has a lot of plastic which gives its weight saving and makes handling decent, but it does feel cheap and less robust.

on the D90 the AF motor doesn't feel any slower than any of my other non-motored lens. but it's as noisy as the non-motored, and it does hunt.

picture quality looks good, quite sharp and very very close focus distance, it says 0.9m but i think it's a bit closer than that, which is good for macro work suppose.

looking forward to play with this lens.
 
Had the Tamron out yesterday and was going to do a comparison between it and the 70-300VR, but I liked the Tamron that much that the VR didn't see the light of day. It was quite bright and sunny for a change and I must say that I was very impressed. Being my first 2.8 lens I was obviously impressed, and the lens comped quite well (IMO) It hunted once the whole day but once it locked onto a bike/rider it stayed there. I've had a look at the pictures from yesterday and there seems to be a lot more 'keepers' than there normally would have been. The biggest impression it had on me was the DoF at 2.8, I was well impressed. Here's just a few from a few mates and I'll get the track shots up later (after work)

(no C+C please as there were 3 people using the camera and its difficult to remember who took what pic, but I do know which ones are mine LOL)

DSC_4146.jpg


DSC_4129.jpg


DSC_4166.jpg


DSC_4318.jpg


DSC_4143.jpg
 
mine hasnt been off the camera since I got it and all the shots I have posted in the last two weeks are from it including the spitfire in macro:thumbs:
 
Meant to add that none of the images have been edited or Post Processed, they are how they came from the camera (because I'm really crap at CS3 and NX2)
 
Got my lens on Friday, and had a little play over the weekend. I am very pleased with it, it weighs less than I was expecting (I tried a 70-200 F2.8 L IS before and found that very heavy), and the AF is better than I was expecting too.

Took a few shots, but having problems trying to upload them onto my smugmug (keeps crashing firefox and IE for some reason :thinking:), but have managed to get two up, which I will share with you guys.


f2.8, 1/1250, ISO 400 @163mm, handheld grabbed shot - focus was between the two of them according to zoombrowser:

485219574_xsfUn-M.jpg


f5.6, 1/160, ISO 400 @151mm, handheld semi set up - focus on top of my dads head:

485219649_NGGiG-M.jpg


Not really trying to do much but get a feel for the lens, so mainly grabbed handheld shots, but very impressed - especially looking at the SS for the second shot - 1/160 on a 200mm lens handheld!
 
little red x gembobs....put em in photobucket first mate then copy the url to here :thumbs:
 
gembobs said:
Got my lens on Friday, and had a little play over the weekend. I am very pleased with it, it weighs less than I was expecting (I tried a 70-200 F2.8 L IS before and found that very heavy), and the AF is better than I was expecting too.

Took a few shots, but having problems trying to upload them onto my smugmug (keeps crashing firefox and IE for some reason :thinking:), but have managed to get two up, which I will share with you guys.


f2.8, 1/1250, ISO 400 @163mm, handheld grabbed shot - focus was between the two of them according to zoombrowser:

485219574_xsfUn-M.jpg


f5.6, 1/160, ISO 400 @151mm, handheld semi set up - focus on top of my dads head:

485219649_NGGiG-M.jpg


Not really trying to do much but get a feel for the lens, so mainly grabbed handheld shots, but very impressed - especially looking at the SS for the second shot - 1/160 on a 200mm lens handheld!
Click to expand...

No pics showing :thinking:
 
Sorry about that - I had this gallery in smugmug set to no external links (doh!), should be working now.

I did preview it, and they appeared, but it must have been as I was logged into smugmug at the time too, sorry!

PS: I am at work, I can see the images now (not logged into smugmug either), but I can't see those by Viper Biker - think work must be blocking certain images? I will double check when I get home tonight to see if they are working now!
 
I can see yours and mine gem. Nice captures there. I know that my work block all flickr images though.
 
Just checked camera box and my word one left lol they sold fast
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Just checked camera box and my word one left lol they sold fast
Click to expand...

Its because they are damn good value at that price.
I'm very close to selling mine as i have found a Canon 70-200 f4L and i need the faster af. I just hope i dont miss the f2.8, as i havent used it that low yet but it will be one of those things...you wont need it till its gone!
 
Thanks for the comments on the shots - I am pleased with them, especially as these were pretty much grabbed and we were on our way home from the pub!!

Just checked on WEX, they say they have canon fit in stock at £429, the nikon fit are £469 though.
 
Does anybody have an opinion on whether the AF on this lens would be fast enough on a D300 for football?

Just worried that it would spent ages hunting and miss getting shots of a player making a slide challenge or 2 players tugging on each others shirts down the line.

Can anyone make a comparison of AF speed against the 70-300 VR?

Just want to clear this up before actually going and buying one! :eek:

Thanks in advance!
 
alex_m90 said:
Does anybody have an opinion on whether the AF on this lens would be fast enough on a D300 for football?

Just worried that it would spent ages hunting and miss getting shots of a player making a slide challenge or 2 players tugging on each others shirts down the line.

Can anyone make a comparison of AF speed against the 70-300 VR?

Just want to clear this up before actually going and buying one! :eek:

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

All I will comment is that I tested this out instore and it was by far the worst 'hunting' out of this the Sigma and the Nikon, it barely held focus on a guy walking around the store let alone fast moving objects. Having said that I know a lot of others think it is plenty fast enough and doesn't seem to hunt for them so maybe I just tried a bad copy?
 
Well Dangermouse uses his out at Sandtoft on aircraft coming in and has no problems with the focusing it locks on and holds focus
 
Everything I have read on this lens is what others in this thread have already said - lovely glass, sharp enough to cut yourself on but really slow focusing.

I have a Tamron 17-50 here on eval and thats just the same... which is fine for that use because I only want it for static shots....

I don't think the 70-200 will be up to much for motorsport action unless you shoot to take into account AF speed problems.

The Nikon 70-300 would be a better bet for anyone wanting to try motorsport on the cheap.
 
Has anyone used this lens for portrait style shots? If so, how does it fare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top