Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
May 24, 2016 10:59:05 #
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-
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-
I have the sony version of this lens for my sony a mount fullframe camera. I am very pleased with it... It's my favorite lens and happy about the price point as compared to the sony equivalent of this lens..
May 24, 2016 11:09:39 #
Absolutely love my Tamron, I paired it up with a 24 to 70 L lens from Canon and a 14 millimeter manual Rokinon with a Canon xti 10 megapixel, and a Canon 6D 20 megapixel no regrets
May 24, 2016 11:17:50 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
The 24-70mm and the 70-200mm are two respectable lenses that virtually have no complaints on this forum.
May 24, 2016 12:49:38 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I shoot Canon and don't know exactly how it compares on Nikon....
I've been a fan of Tamron lenses since the 1980s. Currently have their SP 60mm f2.0 Macro/Portrait (APS-C/DX) in my Canon kit and really like it.
The current (and more expensive) Tamron VC version also has USD focus drive, which I'd choose over the micro motor of the earlier version. But I shoot sports a lot and need lenses that focus fast and are good at tracking moving subjects.
And, one of the key reasons I opted for Canon when I switched systems in 2001 was image stabilization. At that time, Canon was the only manufacturer offering IS.... It's a serious game changer and I've only bought telephotos with it ever since, even if it sometimes meant spending a bit more. The fact that every other camera manufacturer has implemented some form of stabilization (either in their lenses or in-camera) suggests that many other buyers think the same as me.
Can you "get the shot" without stabilization? Maybe... it depends. Heck I managed for 25 years without it. But it sure has made possible some shots I'd never have gotten without it. Stabilization makes me a lot more mobile, able to handhold shots where I'd have to use a tripod, or at least a monopod before. Higher ISO capable cameras are in a sense and to some degree off-setting the need for image stabilization... Or, another way of looking at it, are complementing stabilization to make even more extreme shots possible.
So, I know what I'd do. Not that it's necessarily what you should do.
I've been a fan of Tamron lenses since the 1980s. Currently have their SP 60mm f2.0 Macro/Portrait (APS-C/DX) in my Canon kit and really like it.
The current (and more expensive) Tamron VC version also has USD focus drive, which I'd choose over the micro motor of the earlier version. But I shoot sports a lot and need lenses that focus fast and are good at tracking moving subjects.
And, one of the key reasons I opted for Canon when I switched systems in 2001 was image stabilization. At that time, Canon was the only manufacturer offering IS.... It's a serious game changer and I've only bought telephotos with it ever since, even if it sometimes meant spending a bit more. The fact that every other camera manufacturer has implemented some form of stabilization (either in their lenses or in-camera) suggests that many other buyers think the same as me.
Can you "get the shot" without stabilization? Maybe... it depends. Heck I managed for 25 years without it. But it sure has made possible some shots I'd never have gotten without it. Stabilization makes me a lot more mobile, able to handhold shots where I'd have to use a tripod, or at least a monopod before. Higher ISO capable cameras are in a sense and to some degree off-setting the need for image stabilization... Or, another way of looking at it, are complementing stabilization to make even more extreme shots possible.
So, I know what I'd do. Not that it's necessarily what you should do.
May 24, 2016 14:17:12 #
Does anyone know if this lens is adequate for shooting indoor basketball and night football games, shooting with a Canon T3i? Trying to save about $900-$1000! Thanks for any replies!
May 24, 2016 14:20:34 #
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-
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-
Remember Erik it is not the same as the Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 Di VC USD (A009)
I'm betting that's the actual Lens you're thinking of???
If money is your real concern then the (A001) is for you.
Craig
May 24, 2016 14:45:29 #
May 24, 2016 14:53:11 #
Grnway wrote:
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!
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!
Yes the focusing is quicker on the Canon and there is less hunting under low light conditions.
May 24, 2016 18:20:34 #
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-
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
-Erik-
For what it's worth. I bought a couple of weeks ago from B & H Camera used a 70-200 2.8. I use it on a Nikon D-7100. Price was $1300.00 approx. Here are a few pics I shot of my grandson's prom the other day. Good luck with your decision.
May 24, 2016 18:28:50 #
Thank you all for your comments, experiences and advice. (and the demo shot Jules, very nice!) I'm not decided on whether of not to get the VR model or not, The non-VR is much more affordable and of the 13 or 14 lenses I currently own, only one has VR, so it's not like I'd be really missing it. I'm going to do a little more research and then make my decision. Thanks again for all the info!
May 24, 2016 20:06:11 #
Erik_H wrote:
Thank you all for your comments, experiences and advice. (and the demo shot Jules, very nice!) I'm not decided on whether of not to get the VR model or not, The non-VR is much more affordable and of the 13 or 14 lenses I currently own, only one has VR, so it's not like I'd be really missing it. I'm going to do a little more research and then make my decision. Thanks again for all the info!
Take a good look at the two lenses, I am pretty certain that the non VC lens is not the current optical formula and is not as highly regarded as the current VC version. If you see a distinct difference in the appearance of the two lenses I am pretty certain that you would be purchasing an older manufacture of that lens and it is not the same. I only say this because I was looking at the Tamron before finding the Canon that I now own, and for Canon the newer lens reviewed very close to the Canon L equivalent the older version did not. Do some research, you may find out that I am wrong, but then again you may find out that I am right.
May 24, 2016 21:16:08 #
Well, I went ahead and bought the non-VR version, I did some soul searching and found that I just couldn't justify paying over $400.00 for a couple of stops hand held.
I should have it by the end of the week and I'll let everyone know what I think.
Thanks to all for your replies and information!
I should have it by the end of the week and I'll let everyone know what I think.
Thanks to all for your replies and information!
May 24, 2016 22:15:33 #
Rockyguzman wrote:
Does anyone know if this lens is adequate for shooting indoor basketball and night football games, shooting with a Canon T3i? Trying to save about $900-$1000! Thanks for any replies!
I would think it would be OK. I used mine in an indoor arena, iffy lighting, for cowboy mounted shooting. A tripod probably would have helped, but I just used it hand held.
May 24, 2016 22:27:16 #
I have this lens and use it on my D610. The lens is very sharp. The motor may be a bit slower than a similar Nikon lens but I like it a lot and it will be in my camera bag for quite a long time.
May 24, 2016 22:45:39 #
I own the A009 version of this lens and it is tack sharp and built like a tank. It is the main lens that I use on a daily basis. It will not disappoint. Best to you.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.