New Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC USD

[Dao]

The last version is quite good optically, now this one has VC and USD for $1499 (list price)


Tamron SP70-200mm F/2.8 VC USD

Edit: Link from .jp
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a009/index.html

 

[MLeeK]

THe press release is pretty lame. Doesn't even have any sample images in it! I'll be interested to see how it reviews out. The tamron that I have is incredibly sharp for a $500 (or whatever it costs new) lens. If this one focuses with the speed it needs? It might just be pretty awesome!

 

[Dao]

The first Gen of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS used are around $1300+ , so this one is quite attractive in price (if optical performance is as good as the old one and USD is as fast as other Tamron)


As for the sample image in the press release, you are not the only one complain. Here is what Tamron said

"We will change this week. It's on old pic from an enews that was automatically brought into the header files."

 

[Derrel]

The Tamron 70-200/2.8, as well as their same line's 180mm macro have both earned a reputation of fine optics, but absolutely dismal focusing...many,many owners who I have read on the web have bought the Tamron 70-200/2.8 and been sorely disappointed by various focus issues...slow focusing...inaccurate focusing...back-focusing...and so on...in all fairness, Tamron and Sigma had NOT BEEN MAKING high-speed, large, 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 zoom lenses anywhere near as long as Nikon or Canon have, and their earliest offerings were priced VERY low compared to the Canon and Nikon models...but NOW...Tamron, and Sigma have both run through a few years' worth of failures and issues and hopefully, have learned what is TRULY REQUIRED to make a lens of this type that will actually WORK RIGHT...now that these companies have moved wayyyyyy higher than the old $795 price point, and into the $1299 to the $1,500 range, the expectation of quality and performance goes wayyy up...

Can it deliver???

The way I see it, a 70-200/2.8 that will not focus FAST, accurately, and reliably is...a very seriously flawed piece of kit...not saying this lens is flawed...but I wanna hear from some tough reviewers who can tell me, based on Canon and Nikon comparisons, just how good this lens is...is it worth the price??? I can buy a used 70-200/2.8 Canon zoom for less than this new...and a Nikkor VR-1 or 80-200/2.8 AF-S (YES, SIC, the eighty-to 200mm AF-S, not the AF-D!) for as little as $975...

 

[MLeeK]

I think the problem is going to fall with the price. We can all pick up a version 1 of our respective lenses and they are going to have to seriously impress in order to combat that.
I'd have made a different decision altogether on the Sigma I own if I had been able to pick up the version 1 Canon brand used when I purchased. If I bought today? I'd go Canon.
The tamron will have to be on par with the new version and really blow people out of the water to compel them to purchase at this price.

 

[Derrel]

I agree MLeeK...that is why I asked ,"Can it deliver???" Sigma, and Tamron as well, are both pricing themselves higher and higher and higher...and I think in some categories, pricing themselves RIGHT OUT OF THE MARKET!!!!

Also, Sigma has started selling much,much closer to suggested retail than they used to! MSRP and MAP (Minimum Advertised Price, a different thing) are now MUCH more in-line with one another. MAP is the lowerst price that a dealer is allowed to advertise a product for and still receive cooperative advertising dollars from the manufacturer...so...if say Niukon says the Minimum Advertised Price on a particular lens is $1,099, and the MSRP is $1,249, then dealers can NOT advertise the lens for LESS THAN $1,099...or they lose the co-op advertising money from Nikon....which is worth a TON of sales!!!

I dunno...the way the resale value on 3rd party lenses goes down so far,so fast...and with Nikon just announcing a new 70-200 f/4 "affordable" pro-grade travel zoom at basically the same price point....and Nikon VR-1 and Canon's TWO "old" f/2.8 models, the IS and the non-IS, and Canon's TWO f/4 models, yeesh...I think Tamron is wayyyyyy late to the party with a $1499 product...why drop $1499 on a Tamron that's be worth $900 in 18 months--when an already-depreciated Nikon VR 1 or a Canon 70-200 Mark I IS USM can be had for the same price--and both will HOLD THEIR VALUE for a long,long time???

BUT, and this is a biggie--it *is* possible that Tamron can hit another home-run, like they did qwith the 28-75 f/2.8, or even make a BETTER lens than that, and one that is REALLY, truly excellent, and worth the cash...and if so, that could be bad news for Nikon and Canon's sales on their "new" mark II models!

 

[willis_927]

Bringing back the some what dead by replying to this thread... But anyways, I just got my Tamron 70-200 VC yesterday and used it last night at a session. I took around 300 shots with the tamron 70-200 VC mounted on my canon 5D Mark III. All I can say is that I am EXTREMELY impressed. Tack sharp wide open, very fast auto focus, VC works great.

Its still early, but my first impression was very positive. If anyone is "thinking" about picking this up to save the extra cost of the Canon 70-200 II, I say go for it! I payed $1552.00 after tax, and I don't regret that one bit.

 

[EDL]

I looked it over as well and had actually decided on it, but the only spot where I think the Canon nabs it (as far as IQ is concerned) is at the end of the zoom and fast aperture. It's just not as sharp as the Canon (according to the reviews I've read and the test shots show) and that's where I initially intend to use it. After further consideration, I've decided to wait and pick up the Canon IS II USM later this year...and most importantly, I have the wife's blessing to do so.

All the reviews rate the auto focus on par with the Canon and at less than the high end of the zoom they rate the IQ as rivaling the Canon too, so it's definitely a good lens by the reviews. If they had priced it nearer the $1100-$1200 mark I think I would pop for it, but over $1500 by time you pay tax/shipping, eh. It's close enough to that point where I'd probably be second guessing myself and wishing I'd have just waited and saved the extra for the Canon.