Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC

Just got back from some vendor training with my company, and heard some interesting remarks from our Tamron guy. I normally blow off much I hear from people saying they've heard this or that from vendors' reps about future product because, mostly, they don't know. However, many of the reps that are assigned to our company have been assigned for a while, and are candid enough to say they don't know what's going on and that they hear much of the rumors from the same places as everyone else (CanonRumors, NikonRumors, etc.). When that inevitable question is asked at these trainings, all the reps seem to sigh, slump a little, and just respond with some canned answer about how they really don't know.

Yesterday was a bit different. It was my first training with the Store Managers group, so people know not to ask, as, again, the reps don't really know. Our Tamron rep didn't have to be asked about a new 70-200 f/2.8. He was going on and on about how good the new 24-70 VC tested optically, and just threw out there that "another lens we've all been waiting for" (as he held up Tamron's current 70-200) is on the way. He was mum on any further details, and wouldn't even look at the one or two people who tried to ask.

Just some food for thought!

If it's cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 mark II L, i'd consider it!

$1300 haha

Talley wrote in post #14639584
$1300 haha

....for a Tamron.

$1299 just like their 24-70mm 2.8 VC.

still kinda pricey... atleast for me

If the quality is there like the new 24-70, 1299 for a 70-200 VC seems like a good deal...
I think tamron is stepping up there quality of lenses they are releasing....

Cesium wrote in post #14640883
....for a Tamron.

....that performs better than the $1600 Canon it is competing against

No, it doesnt.
Canon is sharper and has bettere colour, but Tamron is also very nice. Just Tamron has Image Stabilization, and Canon hasnt.

Lackie wrote in post #14642907
No, it doesnt.
Canon is sharper and has bettere colour, but Tamron is also very nice. Just Tamron has Image Stabilization, and Canon hasnt.

http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=1
http://www.photozone.d​e …amron2470f28eos​ff?start=1

Sirrith wrote in post #14642789
....that performs better than the $1600 Canon it is competing against

You know about the performance of a lens that is not released yet?

I haven't seen anything amazing shot with the 24-70VC either, if that's what you are talking about.

Cesium wrote in post #14643837
You know about the performance of a lens that is not released yet?

I haven't seen anything amazing shot with the 24-70VC either, if that's what you are talking about.

I'm talking about the 24-70.

And I've seen plenty of less-than-amazing shots with the canon version. Amazing shots aren't down to the lens.

People were used to seeing $400-800 Tamrons and Sigmas but that was when Canons were $800-1500. Tamron and Sigma are still like half of what the equivalent Canons are, it's just that the reference point has changed.

tkbslc wrote in post #14647041
People were used to seeing $400-800 Tamrons and Sigmas but that was when Canons were $800-1500. Tamron and Sigma are still like half of what the equivalent Canons are, it's just that the reference point has changed.

And, mainly due to diminishing returns, the Tamrons and Sigmas have pulled a lot closer in performance to the Canon lenses, even maintaining their "1/2" price-point.

I've decided to weigh on the Tamron, Sigma, and Canon debate regarding the 70-200. I would consider myself a serious hobbyist with my camera (XTI) but unfortunately my budget doesn't reflect my ability. Meaning that I want to be able to afford the Canon glass L lenses and better body (7D), but wound up going with Tamron or Sigma glass. Currently I have an XTI, 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 VC, Tamron 18-270 PZD VC, Canon 18-55, Canon 430 EX. I've looked at Canon glass with awe and dismay at the quality of the builds but prohibitive expense for that build quality. I'm not going to get into Tamron or Sigma's build is better or worse, I'm just focusing on expense.

I'm in the market to replace my 18-270 as I came to realize that a superzoom can't do everything I want but was a good option at the time I bought as a walk around lens and now that I know better my tastes have change. I would rather carry around 2 different lenses 17-50 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 to have better image quality in all light situations. Now my dilemma. I want to purchase a 70-200 with IS, OS or VC but currently only Sigma has a 70-200 OS that's below $1500. I've read and viewed many reviews with the Sigma and I've also held it and took several test shots with it, I was impressed but I still felt that Tamron's 70-200 non VC was a better lens and gave me better image quality.

What do you guys and gals think?

how2075 wrote in post #14673402
I've decided to weigh on the Tamron, Sigma, and Canon debate regarding the 70-200. I would consider myself a serious hobbyist with my camera (XTI) but unfortunately my budget doesn't reflect my ability. Meaning that I want to be able to afford the Canon glass L lenses and better body (7D), but wound up going with Tamron or Sigma glass. Currently I have an XTI, 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 VC, Tamron 18-270 PZD VC, Canon 18-55, Canon 430 EX. I've looked at Canon glass with awe and dismay at the quality of the builds but prohibitive expense for that build quality. I'm not going to get into Tamron or Sigma's build is better or worse, I'm just focusing on expense.

I'm in the market to replace my 18-270 as I came to realize that a superzoom can't do everything I want but was a good option at the time I bought as a walk around lens and now that I know better my tastes have change. I would rather carry around 2 different lenses 17-50 2.8 & 70-200 2.8 to have better image quality in all light situations. Now my dilemma. I want to purchase a 70-200 with IS, OS or VC but currently only Sigma has a 70-200 OS that's below $1500. I've read and viewed many reviews with the Sigma and I've also held it and took several test shots with it, I was impressed but I still felt that Tamron's 70-200 non VC was a better lens and gave me better image quality.

What do you guys and gals think?

From my first hand experience, Tamron's current 70-200 is one hell of a lens, possibly the best I've ever seen as far as cost/performance; this includes experience with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I will add the caveat that I will defend this lens against any other in terms of IQ alone. There is a fair amount you give up in terms of AF and amenities (FTM focus, image stabilizer, etc... or the lack thereof).

I took the opportunity to put it up directly against the 70-200 f/4 IS, and basically couldn't tell the difference. If there was a difference, it was in favor of the Canon, though, again, it wasn't by much, if anything.

If you can wait what will probably be around a year, and if Tamron keeps that same IQ while adding the VC, the 70-200 VC will be the lens to beat for the enthusiast/prosumer.