Tamron 70-200f2.8

desantnik said:
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....
Click to expand...

I have the 17-50 and I've found it to be quite fast to focus, although it is a bit buzzy. If the 70-200 focuses as fast as my 17-50 I might just abuse the credit card and get one. Wish there was a way I could try one out before I buy :|
 
CSB - its definitely not "fast" - "fast" is the Nikon 70-200 VR or the Canon 70-200 (any of the family).

It does depend on your usage though... I'd not try and use it for motorsport, but for static (or slow) subjects you will get some lovely results.
 
Even with motorsport, I guess it depends if panning or head-on shots, and what subject and lighting levels etc etc etc. It appears to be happy with aircraft at 75mph?
 
Hi first post.

Im in need of a fast telephoto lens so im considering the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8, reason being, i can't really afford the Nikon 70-200mm VR.

So what people's opinion on this lens.
Also any sample pictures would be great.
 
DM, have you managed to get any more shots with it or is the plane the only example? Also do you know if it is any good with a 1.4X ?

I am thinking of replacing the 18-200 with one of these and a better 18-85mm ISH lens or using the 18-200 with my second body. I am not in a hurry as I have about 3 things I need to pay for this month yet!! (macbook, big wad of paper and some ND filters :))
 
Hi wilky I have this lens and although there are some mixed comments about it I love it
Its superb for fast action even though the A/F is a bit slower than the sigma but not enough to make any real difference but where it is superb is in the sharpness its just so sharp so if you can find one in the 450ish price range .....buy it you wont be dissapointed:thumbs:
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Hi wilky I have this lens and although there are some mixed comments about it I love it
Its superb for fast action even though the A/F is a bit slower than the sigma but not enough to make any real difference but where it is superb is in the sharpness its just so sharp so if you can find one in the 450ish price range .....buy it you wont be dissapointed:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Is there any comparison in AF speed between the Tamron 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200?

Also the images you posted in the other thread using this lens - are they out of camera of have they been PPed and sharpened etc?
 
The 80-200 AF D (after the push-pull, but before the more expensive AF-S) is only a little slower than the AF-S version, so no problem for motorsport even and very sharp, you may struggle with the Tamron but it depends on your use for it of course.
 
alex_m90 said:
Is there any comparison in AF speed between the Tamron 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200?

Also the images you posted in the other thread using this lens - are they out of camera of have they been PPed and sharpened etc?
Click to expand...


Here is one I took with this lens the first day I got it - Canon 40D, f2.8, 1/800, ISO 400, @135mm. No PP - straight conversion - shot in RAW, converted to JPEG with sharpness set to +3 (DPP default - I always sharpen further with USM in CS3). Focus was on the bottom of the yellow centre of the main flower head.

491923752_ac8rq-L.jpg


PP'd version can be seen: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=119178

Hope that helps
 
V8burble said:
The 80-200 AF D (after the push-pull, but before the more expensive AF-S) is only a little slower than the AF-S version, so no problem for motorsport even and very sharp, you may struggle with the Tamron but it depends on your use for it of course.
Click to expand...

I tried the Tamron and Sigma 70-200 and personally found the Tamron to be very slow at AF and also a lot of hunting to get focus too. Others here love theirs though so I would recommend trying one out to see what you personally think and whether you can put up with the potentially slow AF?

I actually ended up buying the 80-200 mentioned above and love it, yes it is a few years old now but it is a genuine Nikon lens, very well built and I picked up a totally mint copy for less than the price of the Sigma/Tamron 70-200, it has very fast AF although as mentioned above not as quick as the AF-S version, I got the 2 ring version though rather than the older push/pull but can definetly recommend it if you can get hold of one to try it might be another lens to add into the list for consideration?
 
alex_m90 said:
Is there any comparison in AF speed between the Tamron 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200?

Also the images you posted in the other thread using this lens - are they out of camera of have they been PPed and sharpened etc?
Click to expand...


All my shots are straight out of the camera apart from a resize for on here no pp at all:thumbs:
 
I have had onef or about 3 weeks now and as my first 2.8 I'm very impressed, but its certainly not without flaw, but I think the price outweighs this. It's not overly fast (especially for motorsport,which is what i shoot) but every now and then it captures a cracker. This was one of my best from today,

DSC_5499.jpg
 
Another super weekend out with this lens. Only my third actual time out and I think its starting to show how good the glass is. When you get 'the right shot' it really is pin sharp but as said before it's not that quick and it did hunt some more this weekend but here are 2 results from Saturday. My internet at home is playing up since last night but I'll add a 100% crop of these shortly.

Clubmans21-3-0913.jpg


Clubmans21-3-0942.jpg
 
Those look lovely and sharp. Whats your average "keeper" rate when shooting motorsport?
 
Shoot to keep is not something I've ever worked out but I have over 200 pics left after taking about 700 shots. I could probably narrow that down again to less but people are just happy to see pictures of themselves and not care about how much detail is in the shot or if there was poor light or some camera shake etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top