Any one use this lens

[Pixeldust Fairy]

I am looking into buying a new lens for my Canon 40D. I was at the camera shop looking at the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8. Does anyone have or use this lens. It is half the cost of the canon of the same range. I dont have any experience with other lenses except canon.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[ChrisinNJ]

No, but it is on my list of lenses that I want. I just got the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 & love it! I wouldn't hesitate in the least to buy the 70-200 from them.

Christine

 

[Pixeldust Fairy]

The guy at the shop said the focus mechanism was much slower than that of the canon. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with it, and if it made any difference. The price tag on it makes it sure appealing, but if it turns into a burden to use, I dont know if it is worth it.

 

[BeautyLLM]

Hi,

It is interesting to me that he commented that the focusing is slow. I have the Canon 40D with a couple of Canon L lenses. I took a Tamron photo seminar a couple of weeks ago and had the chance to use their SP AF 200-500 f5.6-6.3 Di lens. We were outdoors, mid-morning. I was using a tripod. Every shot I took was blurred..EVERY single one! Really no keepers for the whole day. So, even though I learned alot at the seminar, I was pretty disappointed with my images.

This is my only experience with Tamron, and I realize that I might have been using a bad copy of the lens, but given all of that, my advice would be to tread carefully. I would ask the salesman at the shop if you can try the lens on your camera to make sure the results are within your expectations before you spend the money on it. Even though it is less expensive than a comparable Canon lens, it is still alot of money to spend if you are ultimately not happy with the results it produces.

 

[Pixeldust Fairy]

Hi,

It is interesting to me that he commented that the focusing is slow. I have the Canon 40D with a couple of Canon L lenses. I took a Tamron photo seminar a couple of weeks ago and had the chance to use their SP AF 200-500 f5.6-6.3 Di lens. We were outdoors, mid-morning. I was using a tripod. Every shot I took was blurred..EVERY single one! Really no keepers for the whole day. So, even though I learned alot at the seminar, I was pretty disappointed with my images.

This is my only experience with Tamron, and I realize that I might have been using a bad copy of the lens, but given all of that, my advice would be to tread carefully. I would ask the salesman at the shop if you can try the lens on your camera to make sure the results are within your expectations before you spend the money on it. Even though it is less expensive than a comparable Canon lens, it is still alot of money to spend if you are ultimately not happy with the results it produces.

This is true, that is why I lean towards sticking with the canon. I have found one on the web for 1100. as opposed to the 1400. the camera shop is selling it for. I would rather spend the extra money, knowing that I was getting what I was paying for. I would kick myself if I spent that much money and was unhappy, always regretting spending the 400.00 extra for the canon.

 

[El Nebuloso]

Have you considered the Sigma? It uses the HSM focusing motor thereby eliminating the focus speed issue. This may make a difference for you if you plan to shoot moving scenes (action/sports... energetic kids).

I have the Nikon equivalent and I chose to bite the bullet and spend the extra money because I really wanted the VR (image stabilization). At the long end this comes in very handy.

However one area in which the Sigma and Tamron beat out both the Canon and Nikon offerings is the minimum focusing distance (~1 meter as opposed to ~1.5 meters).

Hope this helps,

 

[YesDear]

I also made the same decision recently with the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I decided if I were going to spend that kind of money I wanted the best I could get. It is no slight to Sigma or Tamron, but the VR was important so I could get as much out of the lense as possible.

That was my choice in that decision.

 

[Code]

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 reviews are excellent in terms of optics, even on-par with the Canon. If you're comparing it to the non-IS Canon 70-200, then the big difference is focus speed (USM vs traditional motor)

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

If you have the cash to pick it up I would go for the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I have owned 3 canon 70-200 lens including the 2.8 version, and the f4 IS is hands down the sharpest of the lot. Yeah its not 2.8, but the IS makes up a bunch with non motion objects. I have seen decent reviews on the Tamron, as code mentioned the focus speed is gonna be a bit slower.

 

[Anewman]

I have a few buddies that tried it for sports, focus speed could not keep up at the high school level.

Sigma is acceptable, canon is obviously above that but not really noticeable... just talking focus speed when shooting sports.

I would use caution if you find a price that is too low.

 

[Pixeldust Fairy]

If you have the cash to pick it up I would go for the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I have owned 3 canon 70-200 lens including the 2.8 version, and the f4 IS is hands down the sharpest of the lot. Yeah its not 2.8, but the IS makes up a bunch with non motion objects. I have seen decent reviews on the Tamron, as code mentioned the focus speed is gonna be a bit slower.

See, Im looking to use it on low light situations in the gym sports photos, school assemblies, school dances etc. We go to a small private school and I volunteer helping with the year book. We use the gym alot and it is not primo for the lighting situation. That is why I was thinking of the 2.8. The zoom was a draw, as I dont want to be running back and forth to catch the action. I would like to find a spot and stay there only panning the camera back and forth. I would love to hear your take on it, maybe you could recommend an alternate option.

 

[Groucho]

I would also consider the Tokina 50-135mm and Sigma 50-150mm lenses. They will be much lighter and easier to handle than a 70-200mm and the ability to go as wide as 50mm makes them IMHO easier to use in a variety of situations than a 70-200. They're also cheaper.

Just something to consider...

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

See, Im looking to use it on low light situations in the gym sports photos, school assemblies, school dances etc. We go to a small private school and I volunteer helping with the year book. We use the gym alot and it is not primo for the lighting situation. That is why I was thinking of the 2.8. The zoom was a draw, as I dont want to be running back and forth to catch the action. I would like to find a spot and stay there only panning the camera back and forth. I would love to hear your take on it, maybe you could recommend an alternate option.

Yeah so you will probably need the 2.8 for the moving subjects. Just be careful at the 200mm end it will still be a bit tough to get a clear shot of a moving object indoors. I shoot a few low light events indoor with the Canon 85mm 1.8 and it worked out well, but I did not have to move from my spot. As far as comparing the 70-200 2.8 lens check out Dpreviews lens reviews here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
The tamron looks like it has good optics, but the focus speed might be a con...

 

[mabas9395]

I have never tried the Tamron, but I've never once regretted shelling out the extra bucks for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. It only hurts once, then you have a lifetime with a great lens.