Previous page Next page

Studio Tests - APS-C format

The Tamron 70-200mm Macro performs well on the APS-C format, benefiting as usual from the 'sweet spot' benefits of low distortion and minimal vignetting. Resolution is also impressive, matching or exceeding the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM at all settings except wide open at 135mm; and 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).

Resolution A generally impressive performance, let down only by some softness wide open in the middle of the zoom range (particularly at 135mm). Optimum apertures tend to be around F5.6-F8, with diffraction impacting negatively on sharpness at smaller apertures, and F32 best avoided altogether.
Chromatic Aberration The non-zero values in the central regions of the frame at F2.8 indicate a degree of axial chromatic aberration, however this disappears completely on stopping down to F4. Lateral chromatic aberration is well controlled, with just a little red/cyan fringing visible at the extremes of the zoom range. Overall this is about as expected for this class of lens and is little to worry about.
Falloff We consider falloff to become perceptible when the corner illumination falls to more than 1 stop less than the centre. As usual for a full-frame lens used on APS-C, vignetting is simply a non-issue here.
Distortion Distortion is very low, from 0.71% barrel at 70mm, through neutral at 100mm, to -0.49% pincushion at 200mm. It's very unlikely that this will ever have any negative impact on real-world photos.

Macro Focus

The 'Macro' label in the Tamron's name may not appeal to purists who demand it only be used for lenses with 1:1 magnification, but it does advertise the fact that this lens has a significantly better close-up performance than the camera manufacturers' own equivalent lenses. Maximum magnification is a highly respectable 0.34x, achieved at a measured close focus of 93.5cm and a working distance of 69 cm from the front of the lens to the subject.

Optical performance is also very good; the centre is soft wide open, but sharpens up rapidly on stopping down to about F5.6, with the corners following closely behind. There's a little red/cyan chromatic aberration, but distortion is low.
Macro - 67 x 44 mm coverage
Distortion: very slight pincushion
Corner softness: Low
Focal length: 200mm

Colour Balance

Third party lenses have something of a reputation for less-than-neutral colour balance, so in this new test we measure any colour cast introduced by the lens in comparison to the camera manufacturer's 50mm lens (generally considered a good standard for neutrality).

In this test, the camera is pointed towards an evenly illuminated white wall, and light entering the lens completely diffused using an 'Expodisc' white balance filter. A custom white balance is taken using the 50mm lens (in this case the Canon 50mm F1.4 USM), then exposures made using the 50mm lens and the lens under test (in this specific comparison we've also included the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM). The RGB values from the centre of the frame are reported (measured as an 11x11 average).

Canon 50mm F1.4 USM
(188, 188, 188)
Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS
(184, 187, 191)
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8
(182, 182, 183)

Here we can see that the Tamron has an effectively neutral colour balance when compared to the Canon 50mm F1.4 USM, and indeed that the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM introduces a very slight cyan cast (although this is extremely unlikely ever to be a significant issue in real-world use, and if necesssary can be corrected using a custom white balance).

Specific image quality issues

As always, our studio tests are backed up by taking hundreds of photographs with the lens across a range of subjects, and examining them in detail. This allows us to confirm our studio observations, and identify any other issues which don't show up in the tests.

Softness wide open

About the only obvious issue revealed by our studio tests is softness wide open in the middle of the zoom range, and this does show up to a certain extent in real-world shots. Below are a couple of 100% crops showing the kind of results you can expect to get from out-of-camera JPEGs; as with the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, detail is still being resolved, just at low contrast, and can be extracted by judicious use of the unsharp mask tool (although at the expense of some increase in image noise).

93mm F2.8, EOS 40D 100% crop, centre of frame
128mm F2.8, EOS 40D 100% crop, centre of frame
Previous page Next page
191
I own it
33
I want it
22
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 4
RolliPoli
By RolliPoli (7 months ago)

I own the Pentax mount version and have shot with it on a K20D body and a K5IIs I'm pleased with the results at all focal lengths, thought best IQ is from f4.0 and smaller. The build quality is fine. To find something to complain about, focus can't be maintained when using the push-pull MF-AF focus ring. Also, the MF focus throw is far too short for a telephoto lens. But the price was excellent. It's a worthy substitute for any OEM lens of similar focal length.

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bldhndzgng
By bldhndzgng (8 months ago)

I bought this lens and sold it for a slight loss literally 2 days later. The lens is very sharp within its sweet spot. However this lens should not be called a 70-200, more like a 70-170. Anything above 170 is unacceptably soft. The autofocus on this lens is acceptablly slow when focusing on a subject that is not moving, however if your subject is moving, forget it. This lens simply cannot keep up. Even though this is an entry level 2.8 70-200, it's just not worth $700-800 or so. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC however is pretty amazing and I have a hard time telling differences between it and the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII.

0 upvotes
vinragz
By vinragz (9 months ago)

The review says "About the only flaws are the slightly high distortion on full frame"

So what is a 'slightly high' distortion? term seems contradictory and confusing.

0 upvotes
cknapp61
By cknapp61 (10 months ago)

I have been a Nikon user since the 1970's.

I have had this Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 lens about four years. I bought in Raleigh when I upgraded, purchasing a Nikon D700 to use as a primary camera along with my Nikon D300. At the time the Nikon 28-70mm 2.8 was scarce, even online.

The salesperson recommended the Tamron 28-75m F2.8 and this 80-200mm F2.8 as they were both in stock, both could be had for less than the price of the Nikkor 80-200mm F2.8. He showed me samples of photos taken in and around the shop with the Tamrons and the Nikons. I made a few test shots, inside and outside the shop, we examined them on their 20 inch monitor, the shots were good. He asked me a thought provoking question...."if the Tamrons being half the price of the Nikkors, produced images half as sharp, would Tamron be able to sell ANY lenses?". This made me think, perhaps a 5-10 percent difference would be about all the real sharpness difference between brands.

I have been happy with both Tamron's

0 upvotes
Total comments: 4