Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
May 23, 2016 17:46:20   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
Hey folks, I'm considering getting this lens (TAMRON 70-200MM F/2.8 DI LD IF SP MACRO (A001)), mainly to shoot my sons' orchestral performances with. I've read some good reviews, but I'd like to get some feedback from people here that have used it in the real world.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-

Reply
May 23, 2016 19:37:02   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
I bought mine about 5 years ago when they first hit the stores. As an alternative to the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L, it's well worth the money if you don't want or need to spend the extra $800 or so the Canon costs over the Tamron. I eventually acquired the Canon lens but I still use my faithful Tamron. It's IQ isn't as good as the Canon but frankly, on a scale of 1 to 10, the Canon being a 10, the Tamron is at least a 9.2 or better. The Canon has better AF but if your primary reason for this lens is shooting musicians in an orchestra, the Tamron is more than up to the task. The Canon has better weather sealing but, as I said, mine is 5 years old and what dust it has, has zero effect on the images it captures.

You didn't mention what camera or brand you will be using the lens on and I'm using Canon as a comparison because I have mostly Canon gear.

For my Canon bodies, I have only 3 lenses that aren't Canon, the Tamron SP is one of them and I don't regret buying it.

Reply
May 23, 2016 19:39:02   #
dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans
 
That was my 1st big purchase lens ... never regretted the decision.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2016 19:45:20   #
hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama
 
My most used lens love it

Reply
May 23, 2016 19:52:46   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I bought mine about 5 years ago when they first hit the stores. As an alternative to the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L, it's well worth the money if you don't want or need to spend the extra $800 or so the Canon costs over the Tamron. I eventually acquired the Canon lens but I still use my faithful Tamron. It's IQ isn't as good as the Canon but frankly, on a scale of 1 to 10, the Canon being a 10, the Tamron is at least a 9.2 or better. The Canon has better AF but if your primary reason for this lens is shooting musicians in an orchestra, the Tamron is more than up to the task. The Canon has better weather sealing but, as I said, mine is 5 years old and what dust it has, has zero effect on the images it captures.

You didn't mention what camera or brand you will be using the lens on and I'm using Canon as a comparison because I have mostly Canon gear.

For my Canon bodies, I have only 3 lenses that aren't Canon, the Tamron SP is one of them and I don't regret buying it.
I bought mine about 5 years ago when they first hi... (show quote)

Thanks for the honest review, I'll be using it mainly on a Nikon Df, occasionally on a D7000 if I want the little extra reach of the APS-C sensor.

Reply
May 23, 2016 19:53:10   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
dannac wrote:
That was my 1st big purchase lens ... never regretted the decision.

Thanks Dannac.

Reply
May 23, 2016 19:53:34   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
hangman45 wrote:
My most used lens love it

Thank you Hangman.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2016 20:11:04   #
jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach
 
It's one of my preferred lenses, and super fast on D7100, D7200 and D500.

Reply
May 23, 2016 20:32:33   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
Erik_H wrote:
Hey folks, I'm considering getting this lens (TAMRON 70-200MM F/2.8 DI LD IF SP MACRO (A001)), mainly to shoot my sons' orchestral performances with. I've read some good reviews, but I'd like to get some feedback from people here that have used it in the real world.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-


You are posting the older non-VC ($769) Tamron lens, most replies seem to be addressing the much newer VC model ($1399) which is not designated Macro.
Yours is a good lens at 1/3 the price of the Canon and is an excellent buy if VC is not needed.

Reply
May 23, 2016 20:55:43   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
MT Shooter wrote:
You are posting the older non-VC ($769) Tamron lens, most replies seem to be addressing the much newer VC model ($1399) which is not designated Macro.
Yours is a good lens at 1/3 the price of the Canon and is an excellent buy if VC is not needed.

True, the lens that I'm considering is the older non-VR, I will be using it on a tripod mostly when taking long shots so I'm not too worried about VR. (also, I can save a few $$)

Reply
May 24, 2016 06:57:42   #
Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH
 
Hi Erik,

I've had this for 2 years now and, like rmorrison116, have had nothing but good experiences. It is used very often and produces tack-sharp photos, as does the Tamron 28-70 that also gets used a ton. My only regret about not getting the Canon is the weather sealing. I also suspect that, like the 100-400 canon that I also own, that the focus is lightning fast.

A good choice for your application!

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2016 06:59:53   #
nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ
 
I'll echo the comments already posted. I think you're right using it on a tripod although a monopod would be more maneuverable and less bulky.

Reply
May 24, 2016 07:20:58   #
Papa j Loc: Cary NC
 
Erik_H wrote:
Hey folks, I'm considering getting this lens (TAMRON 70-200MM F/2.8 DI LD IF SP MACRO (A001)), mainly to shoot my sons' orchestral performances with. I've read some good reviews, but I'd like to get some feedback from people here that have used it in the real world.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-


There are 2 70-200 Tamrons the A001 and the A009 I believe the A009 is the superior lens

Joe

Reply
May 24, 2016 08:24:00   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
Erik_H wrote:
Hey folks, I'm considering getting this lens (TAMRON 70-200MM F/2.8 DI LD IF SP MACRO (A001)), mainly to shoot my sons' orchestral performances with. I've read some good reviews, but I'd like to get some feedback from people here that have used it in the real world.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-


Everything that I read about the lens is positive, I don't know what you shoot but was considering purchasing one but I ended up with the first generation Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and it is a wonderful lens, use it for portraits and it is absolutely wonderful, they can be purchased in the $1000 range.

Reply
May 24, 2016 08:25:09   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
Everything that I read about the lens is positive, I don't know what you shoot but was considering purchasing one but I ended up with the first generation Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and it is a wonderful lens, use it for portraits and it is absolutely wonderful, they can be purchased used in the $1000 range.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.