Quick review of Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 from Scott Kelby

[Dao]

Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More Blog Archive My First Shoot with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8

It seems that the optical quality of this lens is not bad at all.


Quoted from the site:

"The shot you see above was taken with that Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, and during the shoot I switched back and forth between it and my usual Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and just looking at the images in Lightroom, at a 1:1 view, neither Brad nor I could see a visible difference between the two"

Of course, I believe the AF speed of the Tamron lens is slower than the other manufacturer. But it is much cheaper.

 

[Tappout]

I would love to hear peoples comments about this lens in regards to lack of VR/IS. I am looking for a zoom in this range to shoot youth baseball. The majority of the games are at night under lights and I am really feeling the limits of my 3.5-5.6 zoom.

I don't expect this lens to focus as fast as the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, nor have tack sharp image quality, but for the price this is possibly my best option.

Also considering the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APOMacro HSM II

 

[Dao]

I do not believe you need VR/IS or VC in Tamron for sports shooting. You need wider aperture. You can always use a monopod or tripod.

I do not shoot sports, so I do not know too much about if the AF speed of this lens is fast enough. However, from I learned that the Tamron is quite sharp and it is better than the Sigma version. However, the AF speed of the Sigma is much faster (HSM)

 

[KmH]

+1 on not needing image stabilization (VR, IS, DG, VC, etc) to shoot sports and generally anything at 200 mm and less focal length.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More Blog Archive My First Shoot with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8

It seems that the optical quality of this lens is not bad at all.


Quoted from the site:

"The shot you see above was taken with that Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, and during the shoot I switched back and forth between it and my usual Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and just looking at the images in Lightroom, at a 1:1 view, neither Brad nor I could see a visible difference between the two"

Of course, I believe the AF speed of the Tamron lens is slower than the other manufacturer. But it is much cheaper.

You noticed the big, multiple Tamron ads everywhere, right? And the sign that says "Photoshop Insider brought to you by Tamron," right?"

 

[eric-holmes]

Does anyone know if the zoom lens is reversed of that from Nikon?

 

[Eco]

Iron Flatline, lol at those ads....maybe next week Sigma will pay for the ads and maybe a review.

 

[Dao]

Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More Blog Archive My First Shoot with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8

It seems that the optical quality of this lens is not bad at all.


Quoted from the site:

"The shot you see above was taken with that Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, and during the shoot I switched back and forth between it and my usual Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and just looking at the images in Lightroom, at a 1:1 view, neither Brad nor I could see a visible difference between the two"

Of course, I believe the AF speed of the Tamron lens is slower than the other manufacturer. But it is much cheaper.

You noticed the big, multiple Tamron ads everywhere, right? And the sign that says "Photoshop Insider brought to you by Tamron," right?"

Actually, I did not see any ads ... LOL my firefox must be blocking all the ads on his site. Well, it block all the ads in TPF as well automatically.

 

[dillonmetty]

I had this goal for several weeks and it was not for my D300. It is high net 2.8 and 5.6. In fact, 5.6 least I can not tell my Sigma 150 macro. It blends well with my Sigma 1.4 TC if the EXIF data is a diaphragm faster than reality. The macro mode is very good and the CT is 1.4 excellent.