Lensrentals: Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2&#39;s resolution is excellent

That was not DPRs fault, they take way better product pictures than we do.

4 months agopermalink

CaPi

Thanks for the review, Roger :)

4 months agopermalink

cosinaphile

mr cicala..... tear this lens down!

[ ronald reagan executive voice ,with slightly pompous tone ]

4 months agopermalink

As you wish - but give me a few weeks :-)

4 months agopermalink

cosinaphile

i was kidding but that would be great

and a personal thank you for lens rentals enjoyable tear downs of lenses
its one one most fun things i do online , a 2 part-er has me waiting like a soap opera addict for the next installment , great explanations good photos and
lots of insights and humor .... i stop by frequently to see whats happening

thanks for all that

paul in nyc

4 months ago*permalink

NikonD800Es

Give me just 5 seconds and sledgehammer, will be done as you wish. :)

4 months agopermalink

cosinaphile

that what ronald reagan had in mind im sure

4 months agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

In all seriousness, I wish people would do some tear downs and torture testing on lenses.... my biggest concern is how "durable" the AF motors and VC motors are in these lenses.... if they can get close to the same lifespan as the NIkon ones, I think we (the photography industry) may have a good alternative. We've seen how they do optically, now I'd like to see how well they do mechanically over a reasonable amount of time (3-5 years).

4 months ago*permalink

Photoman

Does people know that Tamron have built some of Nikon's lenses...

4 months agopermalink

lbuclk=

error? on s/h for the $400.00 ad says ; $5,000

4 months agopermalink

lambert4

This is enticing to me. New Nikon owner building my lens assortment. Have 16-80 2.8-4, Tokina 50-135/2.8, AF-p 70-300 variable. 70-200 seems the sweetspot and this seems the best option when looking at cost to performance inbtjis focal range. I came from m4/3 and the third party offering was always a compromise, either AF, focal range, weight etc. i am watchingbthe experience and teviews on this lens since optically it appears to be stellar.

4 months agopermalink

Sarah Terra

The Nikon 70-200 is just too expensive

4 months agopermalink

JonathanFV

I have one and I use it on a Sony A7R II. I took it for a first big shoot today, and it performed great, and there was no lack of detail in the photos. I'm really happy about it. Autofocus was surprisingly good for an adapted lens. I heard AF is very good on NIkon bodies, so I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger if I were you. It's also a very nicely built lens.

4 months agopermalink

So the optics are good, but in the past I wasn't convinced by the mechanics and electronics of Tamron lenses. It's 1000 EUR less than the Nikon, but only 80 EUR less than the Canon. So it seems like a good idea to wait for prices to come down a bit anyway.

4 months agopermalink

davev8

which canon 70-200 F2.8 lens are you comparing the tamron to? in the UK the canon 70-200F2.8 MK2 is around £2000GBP and the G2 tamron is £1300 ...a £700 saving

4 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

@ Timur: Be careful. Canon offers each lensing the "holy trinity" (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200) as F 4 and F 2.8 version. Furthermore there are versions of the 70-200 with and without IS.

4 months agopermalink

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM
54 Angebote: 1.639,99 € - 2.748,00 €

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED VR
33 Angebote: 2.595,01 € - 3.179,00 €

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II
30 Angebote: 2.079,00 € - 2.866,94 €

Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD G2
54 Angebote: 1.569,00 € - 1.999,00 €

Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD
82 Angebote: 889,99 € - 1.999,00 €

4 months ago*permalink

tbcass

The build quality of these Tamron lenses is top notch.

4 months agopermalink

Toni Salmonelli

@ Timur: Wow, 1.639,99 € is a Good deal for that lens. I thought it is around 2.000.

4 months agopermalink

Unfortunately I am a Nikon user. ;)

4 months agopermalink

Amazon Germany is selling the Canon L for EUR 1.718,00. It's out of stock, though.

4 months ago*permalink

Ethereal Light

i show one in a camera store in Dresden for around 1800 €

4 months agopermalink

TBLF

IIRC, Roger at LensRental had chose not to rent the old version Tamron 70-200 2.8 for it being "too fragile". Makes me wonder how he feels about renting this one? I didn't see mention. I can attest to the old version fragility, having had mine go through the Tamron repair dept blame me for stiff focusing, which they said was from "cracked cam barrel and you must have banged it because there is no other way for it to crack". This was with my 7yr extended warranty too... didn't matter. So, while I love the output of my Tamron, I am not in love with their service dept. FYI, my Tamron looks like it just came out of the box, not a scuff or mar on it anywhere, I don't have kids to smash things about, and it always stays in it's padded case when not in use. Yes, I'd buy another one, but only with the accidental damage policy, so I don't have to put up with this finger pointing baloney on an obviously mint lens with a factory defect of such a fragile part. There... I feel better now. LOL!

4 months agopermalink

Too soon for me to tell, of course. I will say Tamron repair in the US is good and other recent lenses from them have been pretty solid, so I'm optimistic.

4 months agopermalink

princecody

Roger doesn't have to rent lenses-he's the owner ☺️

4 months ago*permalink

tbcass

Which Tamron 70-200 f2.8 did you find fragile? I've had the G1 USD version for about 3 years and it's built like a tank. The previous non USD version apparently was not as rugged.

4 months agopermalink

Mister Joseph

What's a better value than a used D610 body + Tamron 24-70 + Tamron 70-200 ?

4 months agopermalink

John C Tharp

A used D750 or 6D, if you intend to land focus on anything in the dark ;).

4 months agopermalink

pkcpga

Second the used d750, it's a great camera.

4 months agopermalink

Mister Joseph

A used D750 is still around 50-60% more expensive though. Could probably pick an extra Nikon 85/1.8 for that

4 months agopermalink

Brev00

I don't know how many people require a camera to find focus in the dark so, if that is the key difference between a D610 and a D750, I guess a D610 would be fine for many people. It is fine for me.

4 months agopermalink

pkcpga

There's more to it than just the better autofocus, which is a big one for tracking and less light situations. There's also a better ISO range, faster longer buffer, tilting screen and better carbon fiber/ magnesium build. If you care about video, the d750 has full HD at 60fps verse d610 only at 30fps.

4 months agopermalink

Brev00

I agree that the D750 has specific innovations and advantages but most are on the periphery of image quality making the D610 an excellent value which was the point of the poster above.

4 months agopermalink

DPPMetro

...and of course, another lens that won't be offered for Pentax.

4 months agopermalink

NemanRa

And a-mount too...

4 months agopermalink

zakaria

Who needs this if there is the dfa* 70-200 .

4 months agopermalink

Sunshine7913

Pentax is a very small company. Both Sigma and Tamron dont wanna invest money for such a minor camera brand instead of Canon or Nikon.

4 months agopermalink

rtogog

Pentax ? They should re-badge this lens and "ignore" Pentax dfa* 70-200 as other lenses as a system also coming from Tamron (15-30,24-70).

4 months agopermalink

Henrik Melander

Is the tamron the same as the pentax?

4 months agopermalink

Alex Sarbu

No; they're different lenses.

4 months agopermalink

Old Cameras

On the subject of sample variation, I'm wondering how performance might shift over time and with normal (or rough) handling. Tolerances are designed in, the worst performing lens is an indication of the design and manufacturing tolerances. Take a good lens and test it once a year to see how it changes with regular use.

4 months agopermalink

AiryDiscus

We've done that accidentally with Olaf for a handful of lenses. We did a zeiss 15/2.8 after 18 months and the MTF was indistinguishable (<2% difference). We also did a 100-400 mk II, there was a small drop (~5%) but more or less then same. I don't remember the other lenses it happened with, but that is usually the case unless it got dropped.

4 months agopermalink

In general, when we see a significant MTF change, something has happened: the lens has been dropped, something inside has come loose, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but as a rental house we consider that 'it just got really soft all of a sudden' probably means 'I dropped it but there's no marks on the barrel' :-)

4 months agopermalink

Old Cameras

I imagine that the worst sample you test was considered by the manufacturer to be adequate. It was within their spec, passed their QC, and was boxed and shipped. Now I'm wondering about the image quality difference between the best and the worst sample. A manufacturer should be proud of the worst lens they are willing to ship. Quality shouldn't be a crap shoot.

4 months agopermalink

To me, "Tamron" is still like "Sigma" was few years ago. I never have owned a single Tamron lens, haven't experienced any of their lenses (branded as "Tamron") but I did with Sigma.
For a decade I was in total believe that only Canon L lenses were good and worth to own and use. Then Sigma came out with their "Art" lenses and things has turned around that I respect Sigma even more than Canon, that is like "good stable working products" manufacturer.
Nikon is to me always somewhat "unique special lenses" but not really so much better than Canon.

Zeiss has always been to me "overpriced barrels of glass"
Now Sony with their G-master lenses has gone past Zeiss for me, even when I have never even handled single GM lens. Zeiss is just like "Leica" that has the own user group that has strong faith.
Then came Olympus, knew something about their OM lenses from back of the days, never used a one. And was the reason why Canon dropped their value in my tests.

But Tamron is hopefully rising

4 months agopermalink

WildSammy

for me Tamron was always superior to Sigma and still it is.. Tamron AF and optics are better than Sigma. I've owned in the past some Sigma prime lenses and Tamron zoom and with Sigma I have troubles from start and Tamron was working flawless few years. So I would tell from my own experience that Tamron lenses are better than any Sigma lens.

4 months agopermalink

tbcass

For quality Tamron=Sigma.

4 months agopermalink

RayVagh

For me Tamron is better than Sigma.

4 months agopermalink

And how many modern lens is bad?

15-20 years old lenses are like solid 60-110kph drivers. You will get some problems when needed to go now and then to past 110kph.

Modern lenses (like 5 years old) are like solid 130-180kph ones. You will not get problems with them almost ever, but sure you do like to compete with everyone else who can go fastest, even when everyone nicely drive that 120kph at max and it doesn't matter how fast you can go past that for few seconds.

Example: If someone would release a full line-up of lenses (zooms, primes, all from 120 degree field of view to 1.5 degree) that are every way optically perfect and can resolve more than a 500Mpix sensor yadda yadda yadda.... And it would cost like a 800€ each of them.

It wouldn't stop the arguments about lens A being better than B or format A to be better than B, even if those lenses would be available for everyone and for everything etc.

Or would the fights stop about optical performance?

4 months agopermalink

Sirandar

LOL .... I visited a used camera store to check out M4/3 adapters and the non-modern lenses that Noah is championing.

I spent over 2 hours in the store shooting. Lucky the store was pretty much empty.

Guess what .... I couldn't find a single lens that shot as well as my cheap Kit Oly 40-150 lens. They were all seriously lacking in their colour rendition, contrast and sometimes sharpness. All of these are almost impossible to put in PP but very easy to take out.

Sorry modern lenses are a joy, and with the exception of Bokeh it is very easy to PP the raw files to look just like those old lenses.

4 months agopermalink

The old lenses joy is that you don't need to have a vision to post process photos from modern lenses to something that has more character. You just pick the old lens that style you like and you are happy.

The old lenses has their own character. The color rendition, the contrast the sharpness etc. But they are what they are. A analogies to instragram filters. (Really, the instagram filters were digital versions from the old lenses).

That was the instagram key when it was released years back, you got these cool fancy photos instead boring modern clinical clean sharp photos with noise (smartphone photos).

Like look those old slides and dias people scan on the other forum for threads about scanning. The colors are off, sharpness is gone, white balance is like never heard (you basically had always just two WB choices :D) etc.

And that makes the old films so enjoyment.

Why we have huge collection of softwares to process digital images to "film pack" style.

I take 40-150mm any day

4 months agopermalink

The Name is Bond

Old lenses where fine in the days of film. But with high rez sensors, there's too much CA, and then there's the often poor bokeh and soft wide-open. All things addressed by modern lens design.

4 months agopermalink

davev8

Some old lenses are VERY sharp....the fun is finding out which lenses are good ..it gets me out taking photos finding out... some of my best photos have happened this way ...i have 2 Minolta zooms that out resolve a 16MP APS-c sensor ...
here is my minolta 35-70 F2.8 macro out resolving a 16MP sony NEX ....the last photo is around 500% and the very fine diagonal spiders web can be seen zigzagging between pixels http://forum.mflenses.com/is-the-rokkor-35-70-f3-5-out-resolving-16mp-t68956.html

4 months agopermalink

Satyaa

While the performance of the good ones is excellent, the sample variation is concerning.

I can imagine lot of posts on third party lens forum asking, "Is my copy sharp or should I return it?"

4 months agopermalink

Scorehound_ca

I've been following a few photography sites and all of them must have good copies because there isn't a negative review to be had among them... so that's a good thing.

4 months agopermalink

xiao_xiang

The article is pretty clear on sample variation. It's there like all zooms - do tell me what your concern is?

The Canon equiv. looks significantly worse on sample variation, so, if anything, sample variation should be less of a concern that if cross buying the Canon (at least)

As a prospective buyer, it seems that I should focus on doing a 70mm test for sharpness and possibly comparing go the mid zoom if I don't have two or three copies to compare.

4 months agopermalink

maljo@inreach.com

Why did Roger have to say that about the Nikon? I've been trying not to upgrade.

4 months agopermalink

beavertown

The $2796 Nikon version is for professionals, but this $1299 Tammy is for everybody.

While the upcoming Sigma and Canon are for the future.

4 months ago*permalink

Scorehound_ca

No offense, but I'm getting tired of people referring to ridiculously expensive photo gear as "for professionals".

The newest Nikon 70-200 is a stupidly overpriced piece of glass. A "professional" will buy whatever gear gives him/her the results they want. Testing done on this new Tamron have been compared to the $2800 Nikon and the results were almost identical.

What matters is the images, not the gear used to create them. I've seen lots of Amateur photographers buy the most expensive gear because they think it makes them a professional. If you don't know how to use it, you've just wasted your money.

4 months ago*permalink

HFLM

@Scorehound: I don't see the Nikon overpriced. It is the reference right now. Lensrentals test shows a clear performance advantage for the Nikon, too, not almost identical. Then we have other variables like flare, AF speed and reliability etc. Most third party glass I used so far struggled in dim and artificial light at weddings, but was fine in good light. So I am very careful with Tamron or Sigma lenses when using them professionally.

4 months agopermalink

pkcpga

The Nikon lens is clearly shown to be significantly better, it's truely a great zoom lens and worth it's price. The Nikon also doesn't show the quality control or variation issue that this tamron has as well. The tamron is better than most outdated 70-200 and similar to the canon so it should produce very pleasing results for the price but by no means is it equal to the Nikon and extra performance always comes at a price just decide if that's worth it for you.

4 months agopermalink

beavertown

From Jared Polin's recent review of:
"Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 Real World Review vs Nikon 70-200 f2.8E: Is the Tamron Better for $1500 Less?"
doesn't show the significance at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pb37PGa2E

4 months ago*permalink

beavertown

@HFLM May I ask if the 3rd party lenses you have used so far are Sigma Art and Tamron New SP series?

4 months agopermalink

HFLM

I used the Sigma Arts (24,35,50. Sold the 35 as the Canon 35/1.4ii is amazing), the Tamron 70-200VC, 24-70VC, 90mm macro. Both Tamron zooms were disappointing. They caused backfocus in dim light within a church, the 70-200 more so than the 24-70. However, I cannot rule out having had an underperformer. AF accuracy was good in good light, deteriorated on the dim dance floor in a mix of artificial colored light. I don't have similar problems with native lenses (70-200,35,50,85,135). With the 5div LV is so good, that I now can use the Art lenses in every situation. However, after testing the new 85Art I think this one to be different regarding focus accuracy. Another lens I found to perform well is the Tamron 15-30. I am deciding between this and the Canon 16-35/f right now.

4 months agopermalink

Scorehound_ca

The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 has been tested by many "pros", and the majority of them recommend the Tamron over the new Nikon 70-200, because the performance is so similar they don't see the use in spending $1500 more for the Nikon.

For some, buying camera gear is like buying jeans: It isn't about performance, it's about the "brand". For some reason many photographers seem to think that people won't take them seriously unless they're sporting brand name glass.

Nowadays, with Tamron and Sigma making lenses that perform as good or better than their brand name counterparts, it makes it harder and harder to justify spending so much more for a brand name lens when you can buy two lenses for the price of one "brand" lens.

Think of it. B&H is selling the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 FL ED VR for $2800. The Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1300. With the $1500 in savings you could by one of the following:

- Tamron 15-30 f/2.8
- Nikon 200-500 f/5.6
- Sigma 135 f/1.8
- Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC G2
- Sigma 85 f/1.4

4 months ago*permalink

HFLM

It is still amazing to see that the Canon, quite a few years old now, is still optically excellent. In Germany the price differential isn't huge, too (1600Euros vs. 1718 (Amazon, via idealo.de)).

4 months ago*permalink

OlyPent

The next iteration of lenses like this may rely as much on in-camera correction as optical correction so you may see variations in how well that is done from camera brand to brand. Imagine that.

4 months agopermalink

andre033

I rented this lens from Roger last month... and I was extremely happy I did. Though the lens was very good, the service from LensRentals was excellent...just like it was the first time (2010).

...he even reads my notes that I send with the returned items.

4 months agopermalink

OlyPent

Remember when Olympus used to measure their Super High Grade lenses at 60lp/mm? Now they've got 10lp/mm on measurement charts?

4 months agopermalink

julianhzg

It is reasonable to use higher values for sensors that don't cover the full 35mm frame. On a sensor with half the height and width, as is roughly the case for MFT, the 60 lp/mm value will have the effect on the image that the 30 lp/mm measurement will have on a full frame sensor.

Also, they all provide useful information. Better contrast in fine detail does not necessarily correlate with better contrast on a larger scale. The 10 lp/mm measurement is more a measure of what some would call clarity or contrast than pixel sharpness.

4 months agopermalink

teh herp3r

No I don't.

4 months agopermalink

thx1138

You do know that the 10lp/mm measurements are for contrast, the 30lp/mm and higher are for sharpness. A lens with lower sharpness and higher contrast can look better than a lens with low contrast and higher sharpness.

4 months agopermalink

K25

MTF charts from Olympus for all their MFT lenses show 20lp/mm and 60lp/mm lines.

4 months agopermalink