Tamaron lens 70-200 2.8
Jun 13, 2014 07:29:43 #
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
Jun 13, 2014 07:43:42 #
wurtz wrote:
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
It is large and heavy because it's also F/2.8.
Matt Granger has a multi-part comparison of 70-200mm lenses, and he liked the Tamron.
http://www.mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
Jun 13, 2014 08:02:55 #
wurtz wrote:
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
All 70-200 f/2.8 zoom are big and heavy. The Tamron gets great reviews.
Jun 13, 2014 17:48:07 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
wurtz wrote:
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
Get a decent monopod and it will be very manageable for both landscapes and sports.
Jun 13, 2014 18:33:26 #
greg vescuso
Loc: Ozark,Mo.
wurtz wrote:
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
I have the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC
And it is a little heavy but to me I can hand hold it for about 1 hour easy before it become bothersome, but in all fairness I would shoot freehand with my Sigma 150-500 and not have much problem. To answer your question for a good tele this is one of the smallest and easier to handle since the zoom is all internal. For sports you will be very happy with this lens and the portraits you shoot with this lens will be great. I have done some landscape and if you can't get to where you want to shoot from you will have some benefit from the 70mm and up. I have had mine a little over a year and have tried shoot everything with it, there isn't one thing I don't like about this lens. I don't see how a different 70-200 would make me happier.
Jun 13, 2014 18:45:15 #
I have the older, non VC version of this lens and the optics are truly stunning, up there with the best of them. The older version is a bit slow on focus, so it wouldn't be as good for fast action as the newer VC version. If you are shooting subjects that aren't moving as fast, the older version works well and is a fair amount less $$. The variables are the image stabilzation (which is nice to have) and the faster focus (also nice) vs $400+ price difference.
Jun 14, 2014 05:28:07 #
I use the lens on both FF and crop frame Canon. Very easy to use. Pictures are great. Not a daily walk about but not that bad in weight either. I highly recommend it.
Jun 14, 2014 08:54:19 #
wurtz wrote:
Hi Hoggers, anyone give me your personal opinion on the Tamoran 70-200 2.8 lens. I'm shooting Sony a99 and was wondering if the lens is too large and heavy for q good tele. I will be shooting landscape and some sports.
Here's two images I made for a test... one full frame and the other cropped. Both taken while I ease leaning/braced against a door frame. ISO 500 at 200mm with the Tamron 70-200mm on a Canon 6D.
Jun 14, 2014 09:27:28 #
I love my Tamron 70-200 2.8 OS on Nikon D600. I use it with a 1.4 teleconverter. And, I set my camera for DX. The sharpness of the photos allows huge cropping for birding. Awesome landscapes without teleconverter and set at FX. For me the stableizer (OS) was a must.
Jun 14, 2014 09:35:33 #
I have had this lens for about a year on D7100. Primarily shooting youth soccer games, great results. The only problem I have with it is the results are so good it has rendered my other lenses useless! ;) Now I am looking to get the 24-70 2.8 next for the closer shots.
Jun 14, 2014 10:12:42 #
Thanks for all the comments and images. Looks like a good choice and the IQ is really sharp Cheineck. I agree Rhankins7, that must be an awesome lens also. May have to look at that one also.
Jun 14, 2014 11:30:32 #
I have the comparable Sigma and think it is a terrific lens. You might want to consider that one too. Different reviews rate the Canon, Sigma and Tamron differently but they are all close.
Jun 14, 2014 11:33:43 #
abc1234 wrote:
I have the comparable Sigma and think it is a terrific lens. You might want to consider that one too. Different reviews rate the Canon, Sigma and Tamron differently but they are all close.
Agree. And if one is slightly less sharp than the other, just a small touch of sharpening levels the field!
Jun 14, 2014 11:55:29 #
cheineck wrote:
Agree. And if one is slightly less sharp than the other, just a small touch of sharpening levels the field!
The difference in sharpness between f/2.8 and f/5.6 for one brand is probably greater than among brands. For what I shoot, increasing the clarity slightly sharpens more than the sharpness tools. However, when it works, the camera movement tool in PS does a great job.
Jun 14, 2014 12:30:38 #
I have the 70-300, and love it. My choice was either this lens or the Canon 70-300. IQ on the Tamron was much better and I tested both at the camera store.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.