Preliminary assessment of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC

Varuas · May 4, 2013

I received this lens yesterday, so had chance to shoot mostly test shots. My previous experience with the lens in this class was Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS. Assessment so far:

Pros:

Great sharpness wide open across large area -- larger area than the Sigma
AF is fast and spot on -- similar to the Sigma
VC is fantastic and just works -- better than the Sigma
Build quality is great and feels sturdy -- better than the Sigma
Apparently is weather resistant -- better than the Sigma

Cons:

Like any lens in this class, it is heavy and tiring (so I bought a side strap)
Like any lens in this class, there is focus breathing
Price is higher, so value conscious people could get the Sigma
Not as sharp as the Sigma in the center at 200mm f/2.8

Overall, I think this is the lens for me because it has more consistent performance wide open -- even at 200mm f/2.8, it is sharp. Combine with better built than the Sigma and cheaper than the Nikon, this is my lens.

Here is a test shot at 200mm f/2.8, just look at the street plate in 100% loup mode:

Varuas · May 15, 2013

Member said:
Brian Todd Photography wrote:

I will have this lens in my possession tomorrow when FedEx delivers it, along with a D600. Can't wait. Like someone else said in this post, I was torn between this and the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 (same price range). I did also consider 80-200 f/2.8 and used 70-200 f/2.8 VR I. At the end of the day, if I could only afford one 70-200 lens, I wanted the all that 2.8 has to offer. I would not have done if I didn't believe the Tamron made a great product. I spent weeks comparing reviews (pro and amateur), reading chart test, and looking at sample photos on flickr.com. At the end of the day, I couldn't believe what great pictures this thing took and generally great reviews for $1,000 less than the Nikon version (VR II). It also helped me in deciding to get the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 VC. Let's hope I made the right decision.

Good luck and post your shots/comparison/thoughts. I also have D600 with this copy and the images I get are sharper than my primes (50mm and 35mm). This is the first pro lens I have.

SushiEater · May 15, 2013

These are taken with 7d. But honestly I don't care about corners unless I am shooting landscapes but if i am shooting landscapes I would stop down anyway.For people shooting corner sharpness is not that important. and I don't shoot flat walls.:-D

Yes, I have tried Tamron but it was one of the first samples long time ago at the one of the shows I went where Tamron was present. It did not impress me at all.

Right now I am using this lens on 5D3 but did not take that many at F2.8.

Here is one at 1600 ISO.

Molly Quinn.

SushiEater · May 15, 2013

This shot was with 120-300mm at F2.8 1600 ISO not 70-200mm F2.8

I need to dig deeper in to archives to find 70-200mm on 5D3. I mainly use D800 for people shots and 5D3 for backup now.

SushiEater · May 15, 2013

sandeepmanu · May 16, 2013

Currently I am using this lens with canon 550d.

My experience with Tamron is pretty good ,I loved the bokeh of this lens ,focusing speed is nice and accurate.

Lens is very sharp at wide open from 70-170 mm ,but bit soft at 200mm f2.8.

You can see example

--
Sandeep singh

SushiEater · May 16, 2013

If you did not add sharpening in the camera or in post your lens is not soft at all. It is actually too sharp.

Varuas · May 16, 2013

Member said:
SushiEater wrote:

If you did not add sharpening in the camera or in post your lens is not soft at all. It is actually too sharp.

Sharpness might be subjective, but but which image did you find to be too sharp?

I think this lens (from all the images posted in this thread) does show slight softness at wide open 200mm and can be improved by further stopping down.

Varuas · May 16, 2013

Member said:
SushiEater wrote:

Nice expression and overall nice natural image, so don't get me wrong, but technically the image is kind of soft and lacks contrast -- similar to the Sigma I tried. Did you post without any PP or straight flat image from RAW? If this is your Sigma 200mm f/2.8 then I would not call that copy sharper than the Tamron I have.

The Sigma I rented was similarly soft outside of the center and lacked contrast wide open.

Varuas · May 16, 2013

sandeepmanu, the background just melts away! Did you do extra blur in PP? This is crazy!

May be I need to try just the head/shoulder shots at 200mm f/2.8. At 200mm, I always want to back out far enough for environmental portraits.

sandeepmanu · May 16, 2013

Varuas said:
Varuas wrote:

sandeepmanu, the background just melts away! Did you do extra blur in PP? This is crazy!

May be I need to try just the head/shoulder shots at 200mm f/2.8. At 200mm, I always want to back out far enough for environmental portraits.

No , I have n't done any extra blur in PP.Lens is not that bad at 200mm f2.8.Check some pictures of Joruiz from this below link.Don't shoot pictures to find out the fault in lens .

None of the lens is perfect

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1250686&page=14

SushiEater · May 16, 2013

I would like to see your completely unprocessed image.

SushiEater · May 16, 2013

Next time you shoot someone of age (without PP) you will find out why lens is too sharp.

I don't see any softness in image #3 for example.

Do you have comparison between F2.8, F4, F5.6 of the same subject?

Varuas · May 16, 2013

Member said:
SushiEater wrote:

I would like to see your completely unprocessed image.

Sure. By unprocessed do you mean straight up JPG from the camera? Here is one full resolution jpg at 200mm f/2.8. The focus is on the guy speaking, but you can make out the letters from the bottle beside the lady sitting on the speaker's left side.

200mm f/2.8 1/125s, focus is on the speaker

200mm f/2.8 1/125s, focus is on the guy's face

Here is another... the focus is obviously on the guy in the middle.

Varuas · May 16, 2013

Member said:
SushiEater wrote:

Next time you shoot someone of age (without PP) you will find out why lens is too sharp.

I don't see any softness in image #3 for example.

Do you have comparison between F2.8, F4, F5.6 of the same subject?

I agree that without PP a sharp lens on faces can be harsh, but you can always soften up an image in PP... with soft images you are stuck with (low resolution) softness. That said, I agree the sentiment that a portrait lens need not be razor sharp. Heck, none of the lens sharpness matters if the content is good. Pulitzer prize winning pictures are there for their content.

Here is the Tamron VC 100% crops at f/2.8 and f/7.1... HUGE difference, although f/2.8 is not too bad: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51408377

William DIllard · May 16, 2013

sandeepmanu said:
sandeepmanu wrote:

sandeepmanu said:

Varuas wrote:

sandeepmanu, the background just melts away! Did you do extra blur in PP? This is crazy!

May be I need to try just the head/shoulder shots at 200mm f/2.8. At 200mm, I always want to back out far enough for environmental portraits.

Click to expand...

No , I have n't done any extra blur in PP.Lens is not that bad at 200mm f2.8.Check some pictures of Joruiz from this below link.Don't shoot pictures to find out the fault in lens .

None of the lens is perfect

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1250686&page=14

Varuas · May 17, 2013

William DIllard said:
William DIllard wrote:

William DIllard said:

sandeepmanu wrote:

William DIllard said:

Varuas wrote:

sandeepmanu, the background just melts away! Did you do extra blur in PP? This is crazy!

May be I need to try just the head/shoulder shots at 200mm f/2.8. At 200mm, I always want to back out far enough for environmental portraits.

Click to expand...

No , I have n't done any extra blur in PP.Lens is not that bad at 200mm f2.8.Check some pictures of Joruiz from this below link.Don't shoot pictures to find out the fault in lens .

None of the lens is perfect

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1250686&page=14

Click to expand...

SushiEater · May 18, 2013

No, by unprocessed I meant taken in RAW and processed with all sliders set to Zero.

Everyone knows that Canon does in camera processing to JPGs regardless of the settings.

Just compare raw to the same shot in JPG and you will see the difference.

What we need to compare is something you have and something I have that is the same.

Like A $1 bill for example. Even so it would be kind of difficult to compare because of the lens magnification, aka focus breathing. When I have a time I will setup 2 shots so you can match it.

Varuas · May 19, 2013

Member said:
No, by unprocessed I meant taken in RAW and processed with all sliders set to Zero.

Everyone knows that Canon does in camera processing to JPGs regardless of the settings.

Just compare raw to the same shot in JPG and you will see the difference.

What we need to compare is something you have and something I have that is the same.

Like A $1 bill for example. Even so it would be kind of difficult to compare because of the lens magnification, aka focus breathing. When I have a time I will setup 2 shots so you can match it.

Sure... you could PM me and we could do a Sigma vs Tamron shootoff... this is a gear forum after all!

I shoot Nikon d600 so hopefully our comparison isn't too off.

SushiEater · May 19, 2013

Actually, I was browsing one of the magazines and this lens was featured but description says that it has 1:8 magnification just like Sigma. So no special test needed. Just get a crisp $1 tape it on the wall and take a picture of it. I will do the same as soon as I go to bank. The only difference will be is that my Sigma is on 5D3 22mp so 2mp should not make much difference. Still deciding if I should get Sigma 2.8 or Nikon F4 for my D800e.

yndesai · May 20, 2013

Member said:
SushiEater wrote:

Next time you shoot someone of age (without PP) you will find out why lens is too sharp.

I don't see any softness in image #3 for example.

Do you have comparison between F2.8, F4, F5.6 of the same subject?

I checked on DXOmark site

DXOMARK

www.dxomark.com

and it shows that this lens is at its best at f/4 or f/5.6. But nobody has clicked at f/4. Hope someone might post to compare.

Preliminary assessment of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC

Leading Member

Leading Member

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

Well-known member

Attachments

SushiEater

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

SushiEater

Guest

SushiEater

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

SushiEater

Guest

Leading Member

SushiEater

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts