Just noticed that lensrentals.com is selling their entire inventory of tamron 70-200's for $430.00. If I didn't already have the 70-300vr I would be seriously tempted by that price point.
The image quality is excellent on the lens but the autofocus is horrific. If you shoot perfectly stationary subjects in good light it's great. Low light and non stationary subjects it is terrible.
I must say the emphasis on this lens being so poor is like treating it like the bastard child. Frankly having owned one along with a 70-200vr, about the ONLY thing it didn't do better than the Nikkor was focus lock speed. The copy I had was excellent to balance as it weighed less, it had nice sharp corners without having to stop down past f3.5. It had easily equal contrast to the Nikkor with no vignetting either. In good light on my D700 it didn't hesitate much at all to lock focus, and it was accurate to focus to boot. Indeed in lower light it took longer and would not lend itself to doing sports in less than ideal light. There are no free lunches. It does what it does exceedingly well, but alas it can't do it ALL. Low light focus speed is just it's one Achilles heel I'm afraid. Still if non fast moving subjects are your thing you'd be hard pressed to equal or better this lens. The copy I had was even sharp wide open.
Agree with traveler 100%; amazing optics. I find AF to be very accurate (D200/D300) but it is slow. I'm fortunate to have other lenses for my AF needs. I use this one for landscapes and closeup work (often with a Sigma 1.4x tc, which works better than the Kenko Pro...go figure) and I am consistently amazed with the contrast and resolution at wide aps. If the Sigma Macro was even close (wider than 5.6) or the Nikkor's had the close-up capability I'd prefer them because they are faster focusing, but...I'm happy.
Another user who must agree with Traveler. I bought his lens for an attractive price. After owning the Tamron 70-200, Nikon 80-200 AF-D and 70-300VR, the Tamron wins hands down in the sharpness dept.
As everyone already knows, focus speed is it's only drawback. If not for the ridiculous deal I got on the Nikon 70-200VR, the Tamron would still be in my bag.
For the price it has my interest, how would focus speed compare to the 70-300 ed af-d or 55-200vr on a D80.
I use my 55-200vr mostly for my dogs running around and it does alright but I would like to have 2.8 in that length, but if it's horrifically slow like the 70-300 it won't do.
When I got the lens, I reviewed it and said optically it was best of the lot, but had crazy weird focusing. That was on the Canon, and I also thought it could be a one off lens problem. When the Nikon version arrived later, it proved to be similar, but probably a bit better.
Either way, after seeing copy after copy, I can say Tamron tweaked something, and it's better than it was. It's still not as fast as the Sigma.
I would buy it for that price. Understand, that these lenses are used, AND abused. Check for a good copy. You don't have to test everyone, just if you find one you like, take it.
This is a stupid good price for a sharp f/2.8 telephoto zoom lens.
If you're not shooting fast action sports, the Tamron is a very capable lens. For under $500, non-action shooters should seriously consider this lens. It's sharper corner-to-corner than my former Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but significantly slower focusing. In good light, it is sufficiently fast at auto focus.
I had one. Image quality was excellent as was the lenses ability to close-focus. Build quality was good and I never had any problems out of mine. I thought for the money it was a very good choice. When it came to focusing speed and hunting in low light it wasn't the fastest, but again, it may come down to what you like to photograph as to whether it would work out. The absolute worse lenses as far focusing speed, hunting and image quality that I have ever experienced was the Nikon 80-400vr, the Tamron was by far better.
I know that Sigma's HSM is quite good, but their non-HSM lenses AF seems to be far worse than Nikon's non-AFS lenses for the most part. Same with Tamron.
Have rented this lens before and I can say that optically, it was great. Nothing wrong with it. In good light, it focuses very fast.
In low light however, it can struggle to lock focus. For the price difference, this lens is a great one for most people who dont need the VR and the AF speed of the Nikon
I had a copy for awhile and image quality was excellent - sharp, colorful, with nice contrast. It also seemed much lighter than any of the Nikon counterparts. Auto-focus was too slow for action/sports shooting, so I sold it off. I think DPReview's review of this lens was pretty much dead-on.
