There have been some threads in the past but I'm wondering if there are any new users of this lens?
I'm seriously looking into that lens, I want a nice portrait zoom and the 70-200VR is far too expensive. The Sigma 70-200 doesn't seem to impress me either and I've generally been very impressed by Tamron's 90mm macro. So, shaprness any good? The general feeling is that it is very sharp...? Hopefully across the zoom range, I'm more interested towards the 200mm end of things.
Any other issues? I've read that AF is slow or occasionally locks up but I'm ok with slow AF, I don't really shoot action and I'm happy to manual focus anyway, which I seem to do that nowadays most of the time. How is the focusing ring though? Nice and smooth?
I'll be using it on a D2H and D2X so if anyone has any nice samples to share with these cameras and can also share the AF experience in good light I'd be much obliged. I'm not too bothered for low light AF as when the light drops I either bring the tripod and take my time, fire the flashguns or just use the 105/1.8. Or all 3.
Finally, is it a screw-drive lens or does it have a motor? The problem is that none of the shops around here stock it so I cannot try one myself!
Back at the very end of July, when I ordered a D700, I sold off a 70-200 f2.8VR and a 14-24 f2.8 I had with a D300 to finance the move. For me I really wanted to make the transition over to FF as well as lower the system noise in general, along with getting that sweet viewfinder. I went out and replaced it with the 70-200 f2.8 XR LD and a 28-300VC for walk around use. BOTH have turned out to be amazing pieces of glass as compared to my expectations. Others report less top flight results. I can only speak for the copy I have. The 70-200 f2.8 is just plain Sweet.... It is sharp enough wide open, but at f3.5 you can do surgery with it. Contrast and corner sharpness are superb as well, where the Nikkor falls down a bit wide open especially. I rather like the build. It is solid polycarbonate so it's a tad lighter than the NIkkor but is tight as a drum I can assure you. The manual focus ring is butter smooth and accurate. The nice tripod bracket is solid as well. Frankly I feel the bokeh is as good if not better than the NIkkor as well. It has turned out to be a real surprise.
Now I will say this. If you are a sports shooter trying to get an option to the NIkkor with that kind of focus lock speed and accuracy...take a pass. It is primarily for static to moderately slow moving subjects in decent light. Low light is NOT this lenses forte. But everything else it will either compete with or spank the Nikkor. It has a built in motor which is most certainly NOT a AF-S, but it gets it there and accurately on mine at least. In good light there is frankly no real hesitation to speak of, and I barely hear the focus motor so it is anything but noisy. All in all I can't see anyone other than a sports shooter being thrilled with the optical results. It is a amazing deal for the $700 USD range for sure. I also love that little walk around 28-300vc. It sure does a nice job. I must have gotten a good copy as it is sharp even wide open in the center, and stopped down the corners come around nicely. Good color and contrast as well. All in all I think Tamron has done a fine job here.
Here are a few grab shots I took one with the mantis was handheld with the built in D700 flash at dusk about 6 feet from the subject, and the mountain shot was also taken handheld just prior to a storm coming in wide open too. This lens does NOT lack sharpness nor contrast that's for sure.
I tried it along side a Sigma 70-200. The Tamron was definitely sharper but that built in motor was terrible. With just the light in the store, it would miss the focus then cycle all the way through the range at least 40% of the time. I chose the Sigma since I would rather have the fast AF speed. Since AF is not a big deal, the Tamron would be the better choice.
Dont do the Tamron. I had it, and sold it in 2 months. The autofocus it absolutely terrible....I have never used a lens that focused slower and more inaccurate. I am a canon shooter, but I am pretty sure it is nearly the same for both systems (Same AF type) On a crop it was decent in IQ, but the switch to FF for me really ended it for me. Almost 4 stops vignetting on FF corners and no sharpness there at all!!!!! I sent back the first copy I recieved due to terrible IQ. Second copy was a little better...but not much. I went with the L version and it was a a night and day difference! I would suggest getting the nikon 80-200 or 70-200 VR. Dont do the tamron, it is a terrible piece of glass.
After my experience with the Tammy I look at a response such as Drew Bowser and just have to shake my head. Either he got burned or I got lucky or somewhere in the middle. It is ANYTHING but terrible glass and frankly I'll put up the optical results against his L glass ANYDAY. No problem. I had more than my share of that stuff in my Canon days and sample variation was abominable. Indeed the focus system on the Nikon in general is far less problematic than the Canon....get a grip.......
traveler wrote:
After my experience with the Tammy I look at a response such as Drew Bowser and just have to shake my head. Either he got burned or I got lucky or somewhere in the middle. It is ANYTHING but terrible glass and frankly I'll put up the optical results against his L glass ANYDAY. No problem. I had more than my share of that stuff in my Canon days and sample variation was abominable. Indeed the focus system on the Nikon in general is far less problematic than the Canon....get a grip.......
I think most people will agree. The tamron has sharp glass but slow inconsistent autofocus. I have Canon and Nikon. Tamron is about the same on both. ....get a grip
scorpio1 wrote:
Does is absolutely have to be the Tamron? Have you given any thought to the Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200?
The appeal of the Tamron is the price, which in the UK is about £430. The problem with the 80-200 is that there are very few around going for almost twice the price of the Tamron and new ones are about £1000.
The Sigma I know about but it is £200 more expensive. Not that much of a problem but there is something about the colour and image rendition in all the shots I've seen that doesn't make me thing wow. And I'm paying for fast AF which I'm not that fussed about.
search out earlier versions of the sigma. If their anything like the versions for canon the non DG and the 1st DG (non macro) are the best and the price will be good to.
Unless you always MF then a very bad AF lens is going to make you hate it no matter what the IQ is like when it hits the spot
