Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
end

MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

Anyone here used a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens on a Nikon? I am looking for some feedback on it. I'm sure it doesn't compare to the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, but it is a lot less in price. I got a chance to use the Nikon 70-200 the other night. I definitely need to change lenses. I didn't know if the Tamron was a good option or not. Any feedback is appreciated.

Aug 13, 2012 at 05:26 PM

DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

I have one and I like it well enough. Pretty good in the sharpness department, just slow to focus and it can hunt quite a bit. I've used it at weddings where ISO 5000-8000 and 1/200th were needed at f2.8 and it did pretty well all things considered. For the price it is hard to beat, IMO.

I use it on a D700 primarily.

Aug 13, 2012 at 07:22 PM

MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

Hunting seems to be an issue on some of the Tamron. I did have the 28-300, it wasn't too bad. Considering I do action shots, slow focus and hunting wouldn't work for me.

Aug 13, 2012 at 07:27 PM

DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

Nope, I don't imagine it would.

The Sigma is supposed to be much quicker, but at the time I was purchasing, the choice for me was between the Tamron and the Siggy without OOS. According to the reviews i read the Tammy was the sharper lens, and AF speed wasn't my main priority, plus it was a couple hundred cheaper so I went that route.

You might look at the Nikkor 80-200's as well. Priced right and the AF should be pretty quick.

Aug 13, 2012 at 07:33 PM

buckeyeguy1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

DTOB wrote:
You might look at the Nikkor 80-200's as well. Priced right and the AF should be pretty quick.

I have the 80-200mm f/2.8 that DTOB is speaking of. The focus speed is decent. After having mine for a few months, I took the Nikon 70-200 VRII for a spin and it's focus is quite a bit faster than the 80-200. However, couldn't justify the price difference for my needs. If you are doing sports and are NOT using a TC, you might be able to get away with it. I do a lot of child portraits and it can struggle to keep up with the more active ones. It is a very good piece of glass for the price though.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread at all.

Aug 13, 2012 at 08:47 PM

MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

No problem. All feedback is appreciated. The 80-200 may not be wide enough for me.

Aug 13, 2012 at 08:57 PM

ecidi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

MRM4 wrote:
Hunting seems to be an issue on some of the Tamron. I did have the 28-300, it wasn't too bad. Considering I do action shots, slow focus and hunting wouldn't work for me.

I have many Tamron lens and they all hunt! Sharp, but they hunt!

Aug 13, 2012 at 09:30 PM

edl415
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

ecidi wrote:

I have many Tamron lens and they all hunt! Sharp, but they hunt!

That was my experience with the Tamron 70-200 on a D700. Very nice IQ. Good build quality. Decent AF speed but nowhere near an AF-S lens in speed to lock or consistency.

Aug 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM

MRM4
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

DTOB wrote:
Nope, I don't imagine it would.

The Sigma is supposed to be much quicker, but at the time I was purchasing, the choice for me was between the Tamron and the Siggy without OOS. According to the reviews i read the Tammy was the sharper lens, and AF speed wasn't my main priority, plus it was a couple hundred cheaper so I went that route.

You might look at the Nikkor 80-200's as well. Priced right and the AF should be pretty quick.

I would give the Sigma a try, but they turn the opposite to get them to zoom in and out than most the Nikon lenses. I had one of those a few years ago on my D200 and I never could get used to it.

Aug 14, 2012 at 12:49 AM

trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

You get what you pay for with the 70-200's.

A hobbyist can save some $$ with a 3rd party 70-200's
However, If you need consistently fast AND accurate AF speed in any light...there's VR and there's VR II.

Aug 14, 2012 at 12:57 AM

HVACman
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

Perhaps this might be helpful...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt_VsEH_T8o

Aug 14, 2012 at 03:32 AM

NathanHamler
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - Good, bad, just okay?

MRM4 wrote:
No problem. All feedback is appreciated. The 80-200 may not be wide enough for me.

There are 3 degrees difference between 70mm and 80mm on a D700...25* vs 28* .....neither is exactly "wide"....

Aug 14, 2012 at 04:23 AM

end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell end