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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out
  
 
m_appeal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Looks nice.



Nov 28, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Vole
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


It does...

But ouch! Is it just me or are lens prices utterly out of control?

£1650 GBP for a (admittedly excellent) third party lens? I dunno...



Nov 28, 2012 at 04:13 PM
m_appeal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


It's just the suggested retail price. It's actually 1499 usd over at b&h


Nov 28, 2012 at 04:59 PM
ct8282
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


Unless the price gets down to the £1000 mark I cant see why someone would choose this over the Nikon, Canon or Sony version.


Nov 28, 2012 at 05:52 PM
m_appeal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


ct8282 wrote:
Unless the price gets down to the £1000 mark I cant see why someone would choose this over the Nikon, Canon or Sony version.


The price at B&H is £ 933 (converted from $ 1499 USD). Actual price in the UK won't be known until someone stocks it



Nov 28, 2012 at 07:35 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


ct8282 wrote:
Unless the price gets down to the £1000 mark I cant see why someone would choose this over the Nikon, Canon or Sony version.


In US Nikon version costs around $2400 and Canon version costs around the same as well. So at $1500 the tamron is only about 62% of the Canikon price. It is unrealistic to expect third party manufacturers to approach OEM quality and still sell it for say 30% of the OEM prices. Building high quality glass costs money, they don't have any magic to take that cost away I don't know how do they even manage current prices given that they won't even have the sales volume that Canon and Nikon have for their 70-200 lenses.



Nov 28, 2012 at 07:58 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


curious80 wrote:
In US Nikon version costs around $2400 and Canon version costs around the same as well. So at $1500 the tamron is only about 62% of the Canikon price. It is unrealistic to expect third party manufacturers to approach OEM quality and still sell it for say 30% of the OEM prices. Building high quality glass costs money, they don't have any magic to take that cost away I don't know how do they even manage current prices given that they won't even have the sales volume that Canon and Nikon have for their 70-200 lenses.


It's true that good glass cost money but the margins for professional glass are very high, which is why a Tamron or Sigma can sell equal or better quality glass for much less. The recent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a good example.



Nov 28, 2012 at 08:08 PM
mikejl29
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


A few thoughts and sample images.

http://www.photonews.ca/?p=5849

Great image quality and nice to finally have VC and USD over the previous version... the $2099 MSRP is scary though. Don't know if it will come in far enough under the Nikon/Canon versions.



Nov 28, 2012 at 08:08 PM
m_appeal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


mikejl29 wrote:
A few thoughts and sample images.

http://www.photonews.ca/?p=5849

Great image quality and nice to finally have VC and USD over the previous version... the $2099 MSRP is scary though. Don't know if it will come in far enough under the Nikon/Canon versions.


It won't be 2099... probably more than US, but not 2099 ( If B&H already is taking preorders for 1499)



Nov 28, 2012 at 08:16 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


snapsy wrote:
It's true that good glass cost money but the margins for professional glass are very high, which is why a Tamron or Sigma can sell equal or better quality glass for much less. The recent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a good example.



Right but at $900 / 40% below the OEM it is already much less. Also when you cut the margins you expect to balance it with higher volume - but I don't think the Tamron 70-200 2.8 would have anywhere near the same sales volume as say the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.

In case of Sigma 50mm 1.4, the sigma actually costs more than the Canikon versions. And Sigma 70-200 2.8 also started at around $1400 or more if I remember correctly. As third party manufacturers go up in quality they have to increase prices as well.



Nov 28, 2012 at 09:06 PM
jofoto photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


No real mention of focusing in review, bad sign. The first version was pretty useless in that department (based on personal experience) optically a match for the Nikkor. But focus was just about fast enough to track a tortoise and accurate enough on 747 or larger subjects, in other words you couldn't give me one
edit: just read other review, No focus limiter, raking through full range hmm



Nov 28, 2012 at 09:19 PM
dsr1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


jofoto photo wrote:
No real mention of focusing in review, bad sign. The first version was pretty useless in that department (based on personal experience) optically a match for the Nikkor. But focus was just about fast enough to track a tortoise and accurate enough on 747 or larger subjects, in other words you couldn't give me one
edit: just read other review, No focus limiter, raking through full range hmm



You're correct about no focus limiter but they state that AF is improved to match Canon, Nikon

Autofocus Speed
This was the number one complaint of the older Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di lens. Acquiring focus and tracking birds in flight was just painful. Tamron have really stepped it up with this version of the lens and it is on-par with the Nikon and Canon equivalents that we’ve tested. All of the images shot in this review were straight out of the box without any micro-adjustment.

If this test out as good as Tamron 70-300 VC it will be a real winner.



Dec 11, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Danner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


I looked through the ephotozine reviews, and it seems they never reviewed a lens they didn't love



Dec 11, 2012 at 03:21 PM
James R
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


Danner wrote:

I looked through the ephotozine reviews, and it seems they never reviewed a lens they didn't love
http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_confused.gif


+1 The 5 star rating seems a bit much for a Tammy. PhotoZone rarely gives 5 stars. The Nikon 70-200 G VRII optics ony received 4 stars from PZ and I think the lens' optics are stellar.



Dec 11, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Peter Burian
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


ct8282 wrote:
Unless the price gets down to the £1000 mark I cant see why someone would choose this over the Nikon, Canon or Sony version.


Agreed. OR the Sigma version which is selling for US $1250 at B&H.



Dec 11, 2012 at 07:01 PM
CanonGolfGuy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


I see onions on the fountain shot.

EDIT:






Dec 11, 2012 at 07:15 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


CanonGolfGuy wrote:
I see onions on the fountain shot.


Wow, this lens sucks. Next.

:rollseyes:



Dec 11, 2012 at 07:17 PM
CanonGolfGuy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC first review out


DTOB wrote:
Wow, this lens sucks. Next.

:rollseyes:


I never said it sucks. It actually looks pretty good. I was just pointing it out as some people tend to make a big deal about it.



Dec 11, 2012 at 07:20 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password