I've been waiting for a review like this. The lens looks good and seems very sharp.
The resolution charts are also very impressive. I'm going to get it....
Here is the review link: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Price: £1,649.99.

Wow, for that price I will go directly for the Nikon 2.8 or even for the new F4 at $1,400.

And you know that the Nikon already proved many times over how good its.

Regards

Eltano

Gregg B. wrote:
. I'm going to get it....


I have to ask, are you crazy? Why not just get the Nikon version which is cheaper and better?

eltano wrote:
Price: £1,649.99.

Wow, for that price I will go directly for the Nikon 2.8 or even for the new F4 at $1,400.

And you know that the Nikon already proved many times over how good its.

Regards

Eltano


This is the SUGGESTED retail price, not the actual price. The F4 looks overpriced compared to the Tamron (1399 vs 1499 at B&H).

BenV wrote:
Gregg B. wrote:
. I'm going to get it....


I have to ask, are you crazy? Why not just get the Nikon version which is cheaper and better?

What exactly is better about it (assuming you are talking about the f4, not the f2.8 VR II) other than 100 dollar price difference and reduction in size and weight.

m_appeal wrote:
BenV wrote:
Gregg B. wrote:
. I'm going to get it....


I have to ask, are you crazy? Why not just get the Nikon version which is cheaper and better?

What exactly is better about it (assuming you are talking about the f4, not the f2.8 VR II) other than 100 dollar price difference and reduction in size and weight.

I was comparing both the 2.8 versions.

From the article At release, the suggested retail price for this lens will be £1649.99, which is currently about typical for a lens of this specification. Of the camera manufacturer's equivalent lenses, Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II is the only one that is more expensive, being available for around £1790. Nikon's AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is actually cheaper, being available for around £1565,

I see zero reason to buy a 3rd party lens in this situation. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I just don't see any reason (unless I'm REALLY missing something) to go 3rd party.

Why look at suggested retail price? The actual price:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892849-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html

m_appeal wrote:
Why look at suggested retail price? The actual price:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892849-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html





Someone actually did their homework before spouting off and calling people crazy.. Looks like a nice (heavy) lens.
Kim

m_appeal wrote:
Why look at suggested retail price? The actual price:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892849-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897230-REG/Nikon_2202_NIKKOR_AF_S_70_200mm_f_4_0G.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html





The OP never posted the actual price. I looked at the article they posted. According to that, the price was higher.

I just can't see why one would grab this over the (excellent) sigma, the nikon 2.8 vr1, or the new F/4 nikkor. You know the AF on the nikkor will be superb, and limiter is good... tamron and sigma have no limiter.

But why pay 250 more for the Tamron (unless maybe it is much better optically, guess we'll need to see comparisons). I trust that the Sigma can take some abuse though, Tamron kinda scares me after seeing that 24-70mm VC stuff with the element falling off it's glue point. Also you know the Sigma's rendering and bokeh are fantastic.

Plus, with the Sigma, you already know that it performs very very well with the Sigma 1.4x. The Nikkor f4, well, you can bank on it being rocking with the Nikkor 1.4x, hell, at f/8 I bet it's better than the 2.8 sigma with their 1.4x tc at f/8 (maybe not but wouldn't surprise me given how great the new Nikkors have been). How good will this thing be with the tamron 1.4x...unknown. Maybe great? I hope so.

Don't get me wrong I like Tamron, gf had their 70-300mm VC and it was very good. But I think this lens needs to REALLY prove itself reliability wise, AF wise, and optically.

I just think this lens shoulda been smack dab priced at $1249, with a temporary $100 mail in rebate like Tamron loves to do. That way it'd get some appeal over the Sigma.

The Canon side of things is probably even worse, because their 70-200mm F4L IS can be had even cheaper, and found for under a grand used any day on craigslist, and can be found as a refurb much of the time as well. I remember Sigma coming out with their 70-200mm OS and charging too much for it and then manning up and saying "yeah we screwed up" and dropping the price. My hunch is Tamron will correct the price with rebates. The saving grace would be if it is optically amazing, up there with 70-200L IS version 2.

The macro lens, we'll see. It's creeped up into near Nikkor and Canon territory. Sigma can get away with pricing the 105 and 150 (and new 180) lenses fairly high because they are arguably some of the finest auto focus macro lenses ever made and the 150 and 180 are almost a true APO design...The 105mm isn't, but still has much less long.CA than the Canon 100L. What you lose out on is that hybrid IS from the Canon side, and the L branding/resale value/confidence.

I guess the Tamron has weather sealing. Nonetheless, I was expecting about a $100 less price point for the 90mm VC.

They could get away with it for the 24-70mm VC. It offers something no one else does. And the Sigma product in that segment isn't in the pack of the new "wow, they really stepped up their game" products, it was released before that. The Nikkor is pricey but amazing and the new Canon is INSANELY pricey but amazing.

Might I also throw in the resale factor. Tamron doesn't hold its value like Nikon. In 5 years, you will be lucky to 6 to 700 for the Tammy, while the Nikon will probably bring around 2K. Never liked the build quality of Tamron, so I might be a little bias.

woos wrote:
I just can't see why one would grab this over the (excellent) sigma, the nikon 2.8 vr1,

Which Sigma? The Tamron is a newer optical design (to be seen how good it is, but from samples it actually looks really good) and has current generation VC (but no limiter) compared to older VR I

or the new F/4 nikkor. You know the AF on the nikkor will be superb, and limiter is good... tamron and sigma have no limiter.

You are paying pretty much the same amount of money for F4. Personally, 2.8 is worth a lot more to me than the limiter. Assuming AF speed is on par, I don't see why I would want to spend the same amount of money on the F4 unless I care about size/weight reduction. But yes, AF speed will have to be good..

Doubt the AF will be on par with the Nikon's...especially in low/challenging light.
If you never shoot in said conditions, then this might be worth considering for getting f2.8 at this price-point.

trenchmonkey wrote:
Doubt the AF will be on par with the Nikon's...especially in low/challenging light.
If you never shoot in said conditions, then this might be worth considering for getting f2.8 at this price-point.

I like the lens because it comes with a collar.
NO, but seriously, from the samples it looks good. It's cheaper but I think that is because is mostly plastic instead of magnesium allow. If you want/need that go for the Nikon f/2.8 lens, that costs a $1000 more.
The price in the review is from England and this is what Brits will have to pay for it. They have additional taxes that make this lens so much more expensive. A 1650 pounds is actually close to $2000 so, yes, as someone mentioned, it makes more sense to get the Nikon lens. But Nikon lens in England is even more expensive, so....
Here this lens is hardly $1500 (when I go to Europe I have customers that wants to buy my used gear for the price of brand new in US, because it's still so much cheaper for them. This lens, for example, would be around $500 saving to them.)
Anyway, I will wait for a couple of more reviews or simply buy one and review it myself. If I don't like something about it, I'll return it. I had once the older Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (still available) and glass was just beautiful, horrible slow and noisy motor though. If the motor is improved, and I don't need as fast as Nikon's, I'll be happy.
Let just wait a little longer...

I've got the original Tamron 70-200. AF is slooow....but I knew that going in. It is really a great lens besides that, so if the AF has been improved substantially, Tamron will have a winner.

m_appeal wrote:
Assuming AF speed is on par


That's making a very very big assumption =p

woos wrote:
m_appeal wrote:
Assuming AF speed is on par


That's making a very very big assumption =p

If the AF improvement in the new tamron 24-70 VC is an indication, I don't see why it's a big assumption. As most reviews indicated, the 24-70 VC is not as fast the Nikkor 24-70 but not far away...

I think that the price is fair when you compare it to the Nikon equivalent. I dont understand why some people gets so defensive with other brands. If it is good and well priced then let the potential buyers make the decision. If it is not good and it is bad priced then let the potential buyers make the decision also. No need to be calling people names

Not everyone uses these lenses for fast action. Plenty of people use them for portraiture. The AF on my old Tamron 70-200 was fine for that.

This lens doesn't have to out AF the Nikkors to sell. I'm sure it will be panned by many forum experts, but photographers will make great images with them.

The UK price seems wildly out of line from the US price on this lens.