Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC

Started Dec 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Azzy Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC

greenmanphoto wrote:


If you go here:


you'll find a few football photos I've uploaded. The ones with the earlier number were taken with the Tamron 70-300, and I've included some set at various lengths equal to and above 200mm. The ones with the later numbers were taken with the Tamron 70-200, again from about 150mm out to 200mm. The latter ones are SOOC JPEGs made from RAW files, with only a bit of sharpening and noise control added to one of them, due to the 800 ISO of the D300.

Maybe this will give you an idea of what to buy. At this point, I've been pretty happy with the Tammy 70-200, and the 70-300 does fairly well, IMHO, with the exception of distance shots taken at 300. If the subject is relatively close, then the shots seem to be sharper than those with the subject farther away at 300.


-- hide signature --

Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!


Sorry for the late reply, I actually decided to keep the 70-200 VC.

I bought the 70-300 off Craigslist for cheap to test it out myself and decided it's not even in the same league as the 70-200 for what I need (concert + beauty portrait).

I sold it again after using it for a week. It's light (but not that light compared to the old 70-300 tamron macro), reasonably sharp and has incredible VC for the price but for critical work I don't think I can use it.

The more I use the 70-200 VC in the studio the more I admire it, amazing sharpness and micro contrast.

Here's a couple from last week shoot

-- hide signature --

My website and portfolio: http://luwindo.com/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow