REVIEW: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO
Posted under: UPDATE 2: Please check out my recent model shoot with the 70-200.
here is a peek:
UPDATE: After using this lens for half a year now, mine seems to have started getting miss-focus problems. I used the Tamron 70-200 for my beauty portraits and I have now consistently noticed that I’m missing a fair number of my shots from back focusing. This isn’t a problem due to my D2x as I have no problem with my prime lenses. I will have to investigate this further.
I purchased the Tamron back in October and have you been using the lens quite extensively since then. This is going to be a simple review of the lens. From the reviews I’ve read, most of them were the Canon version. Mine is of course the Nikon version which I use on my D2x and D50.
Again, the disclamer is that I’m not a professional or semi professional equipment tester, just a consumer with my reflections on the lens. Hopefully, this will help people with their shopping decisions.
This review will be split up in the following sections:
-Introduction
-Image Quality (IQ)
-Build Quality
-Focusing System
-Miscellaneous
-Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
There are quite a few options for Nikon users out there for including the top of the line Nikkor 70-200 VR, Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-S (used), Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF-D, Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM and the Tamron. I have not used all the lenses, so I cannot give you a comparative review, so instead I’ll post just my impressions of the Tamron.
The Tamron is one of the cheaper lenses in the group. I purchased it from Penn Camera for $700. The Sigma costs just a bit more and same with the AF-D 80-200. The 80-200 2.8 AF-S and 70-200 VR both cost quite a bit more.
IQ
Most of the reviews have found the Tamron to be a sharp lens. Through my uses, I found the Tamron to be a sharp lens wide open up to 140-150mm range. At 200mm the lens tends to be rather soft wide open. When the lens is stopped down to f/3.5, it is nearly as sharp as my 17-55 Nikkor. At f/5.6, the lens is on par with the Nikon (although 200mm still trails a bit). Overall, I’m rather impressed with the image quality.
I’ve done a rough IQ comparison between all my lenses at those apertures and at varying zoom distances. These were taken on the D2x, raw, processed in LR with no sharpening.
IQ Comparison
Bokeh
I haven’t taken any specific bokeh shot for comparison. However, over the past 3 months of usage, I haven’t noticed any shots with glaringly bad bokeh. Here is a simple shot with some pleasant looking bokeh:
BUILD QUALITY
This is a ‘PRO’ level lens, it is well built and the controls are well damped. But this lens cannot compare with the Nikon equivalents. It seems that most of the outside of the lens is made from tough plastic, but nevertheless plastic. The base of the lens is metal and so is the tripod collar. The section of the lens between the zoom ring and the focus ring resonates a rather hollow sound when tapped (not reassuring).
The outside has black coating, which is quite pleasant to the eye, but I don’t know how durable it is. A tiny bit of the coating on mine has already chipped off at the joint of the tripod collar as shown in pic.
Also, good for Nikon users, the zoom ring turns the same way as on Nikons. The zoom ring travels 1/4 turn from 70-200 as seen below:
Overall, in terms of build quality it is a simple case of you get what you pay for. It is a solidly built lens, but I’m not going to throw this lens around as freely as I do with my 17-55.
FOCUSING SYSTEM
The focus system is unfortunately the Achilles’ Heel of this lens. On a bright day with contrasty scene, the AF system is slow but it will snap onto the subject. When it gets a bit darker the AF system becomes slow and ponderous. In lighting where iso640+ is required and with minimal contrasty scene, the lens will hunt and hunt. Oftentimes I find myself switch to MF just because I was tired of it hunting. This problem is the same case on both the D2x and D50. I haven’t tried this lens under sports tracking conditions or using AF-C, but I can’t imagine it will be a great performer, i won’t hold my hopes up.
There are a couple brighter sides of the focusing system. This lens will AF to ~3ft or 1m, much closer than the nikkors. This means you can do pseudo macro shots with the lens, and it becomes especially useful for portraiture close ups such as the image below:
Tamron uses a clutch manual focus system instead of an instant MF override system like the M/A on the Nikkors. I personally prefer the clutch system over the M/A. The clutch system is easy to operate, simply pull back the broad focus ring. However the actual focus ring turning range is not very broad, thus precise MF is not very easy to achieve.
In case you need to see, below are photos of the clutch AF/MF system engaged in each position:
-lens in AF
-lens in MF
And if anyone cared, the AF is noiser than Nikon’s AF-S system, but not really loud.
MISCELLANEOUS
Hood
-Tamron comes with a nice sculpted hood which rotates and snaps on similar to the Nikkor 18-70.
Tripod Collar/Foot
-Tamron’s tripod collar is built out of metal, it is well built and marked. With a little turn of the knob, you can rotate the lens to portrait position. My one main issue with the tripod collar is the foot distance. I would prefer the collar to be a bit further away from the body of the camera so that it will give me more space to hold the camera.
Caps
-Lens Cap: Tamron’s got this one right. Pinch cap just like the Nikons. Good job
-End Cap: Absolute S$%T!!! The Tamron end cap does not twist/lock onto any of my other lenses. This has always been a pain with the Sigma end caps. The Tamron is the same. When I’m on photoshoots, I’m not going to be matching the end caps to each of their corresponding lenses…this is just a stupid design flaw. Tamron and Sigma: if you can reverse engineer Nikon’s AF system, why can’t you reverse engineer the end caps?!?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONCLUSION
I think with this lens, you really have to figure out your photography priorities. If you plan to photograph sports and AF speed is key, by all means get something else. However if like me, you shoot fashion/still life where AF is not essential, but IQ is, then get the Tamron. It is the best bang for the buck at the moment for sharpness. Simple as that in my opinion. PS. fix the stupid end caps.
For More in studio samples check out the recent photoshoot with Gemmy from MAJOR in my Photo Breakdowns.
Also be aware that Tamron’s end caps have a “feature” that you can put them on so they can’t be taken off. I’ve asked them to fix this, but doubt they have. Had to send my 70-300 back to the factory because it was stuck
Interesting review, except that your findings seem to be completely opposed to what I’ve read from most reputable reviewers (DPReview.com for example). They found that the Tamron is actually sharper than the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR and the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS. In addition, they found the lens to be very sharp at f/2.8 and 200mm, definitely sharper than either the Nikon or the Canon. Shame about the slow AF though. I find the biggest flaw with many people who review lenses is that all the test images are taken at close focus within the confines of their living room. Most lenses perform differently at close distances than at “normal” distances, especially wide-open.
Hi Jay,
thanks for the comment.
My review about the image IQ is not “completely opposed” to that of dpreviews or others (I didn’t even compare the IQ to the nikon or the canon!) The IQ for the lens has its sweet points across the range and it is especially sharp when stopped down. If you shoot it wide open at certain ranges it will not give crisp images (this can be solved stopping down).
My copy of the lens performs quite well up to 140 or 150, then it became quite soft. I would suggest going back to dpreview and look at the MTF sharpness chart for the Tamron compared to Canon 70-200 2.8. You will find that the Canon is sharper wide open at 100 and 135mm range. And when compared to the Nikon 70-200 2.8, the Tamron lags behind wide open throughout most of the range.
Thanks.
-bo
Thanks so much with the reviews. I’m seriously thinking of purchasing this lens along with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens for wedding shoots. Can anyone tell me if they have used these two lenses for a wedding shoot? You can email your response to mji72@hotmail.com thanks.
[...] about everything else, 3/4, headshots and closeups. now if I want to do a bit closer up I use my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 macro. This lens is a slow focusing lens, but the copy I have is ridiculously sharp. My comfort zone [...]
Very helpful review. Thank you.
[...] quick closeup to show off Siccola’s fabulous work. This was taken with the Tamron 70-200 which proves the macro capability really comes in handy and also how damn sharp this lens really [...]
[...] for Tokina!!! Instead of opting to save money and put in a lousy AF motor into the lens (read my Tamron blog), Tokina decided to stick with Nikon’s tried and true screw drive system. ie, the AF in the [...]
I can recommend.
Thanks a lot for your Review. Think i will buy this lens next few weeks as a combination for my Tamron 17-50 2,8.
[...] of confusion of the longer focal length, I get more blur (BONUS! :p). <you can read my review of the Tamron 70-200 here). Here are the lights taken at [...]