Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 24 Nov 2012 (Saturday) 15:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD

 
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,680 posts
Gallery: 535 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 8777
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Sep 24, 2014 06:35 |  #841

Talley wrote in post #17173411 (external link)
Yup. It is a true 200mm. All lenses are tested for their MM field of view when focused at infinity. When at infinity the Tamron was equal to the Canon MK2 version.

When at MFD or focused very close to the lens the canon was substantially closer than the Tamron.

Real world to me never really mattered. It was 95% of the MK2 lens at half the cost.

Seems like this could be a real problem for portraiture or even shooting a high school basketball game. :(


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2787
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 24, 2014 06:41 |  #842

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17174708 (external link)
Seems like this could be a real problem for portraiture or even shooting a high school basketball game. :(

Not really. The difference at 40 feet wasn't bad. AT 10 feet it was somewhat noticable and at 3 feet is when you saw the big difference.

Are you gonna shoot at 200mm at 3 feet some basketball or portraits?.... nope.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2787
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 24, 2014 06:42 |  #843

moltengold wrote in post #17174552 (external link)
can i ask why ?
is it for the good price ?
Thanks

Because the Tamron performs amazing for the cost. I was able to have a Tamron 70-200 vc AND a 135 F2 for the same price as the MK2.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdripper
Member
104 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Jul 2013
     
Sep 24, 2014 06:48 |  #844

Basically this. I'm not a pro and if I can sell that lens and get something pretty darn close and have enough enough money to get some other amazing glass why not.

Talley wrote in post #17174716 (external link)
Because the Tamron performs amazing for the cost. I was able to have a Tamron 70-200 vc AND a 135 F2 for the same price as the MK2.


Sony A9 || Sony 28 f/2 || Sony 85 f/1.8 ||
XPLOR 600 || R2 Speedlights ||

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Sep 24, 2014 07:28 |  #845

Thanks a lot , Talley and mdripper


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,680 posts
Gallery: 535 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 8777
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Sep 24, 2014 08:28 |  #846

Talley wrote in post #17174713 (external link)
Not really. The difference at 40 feet wasn't bad. AT 10 feet it was somewhat noticable and at 3 feet is when you saw the big difference.

Are you gonna shoot at 200mm at 3 feet some basketball or portraits?.... nope.

40' "wasn't bad"? To me that IS bad for BBall. 10' for portraits is really bad depending on the size of the work space and the type of shot you want to get. Portraits at 3'? stranger things have been done.

All i'm saying is that it's a real shame that the Tamron is limiting in anyway.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,558 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6520
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 24, 2014 09:10 |  #847

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17174873 (external link)
40' "wasn't bad"? To me that IS bad for BBall. 10' for portraits is really bad depending on the size of the work space and the type of shot you want to get. Portraits at 3'? stranger things have been done.

All i'm saying is that it's a real shame that the Tamron is limiting in anyway.

40' it would be virtually imperceivable. I have a sample shot of 30', and even then, the difference is very hard to see. The real difference lies at very close distances, where you want a tight headshot with @200. That's the main factor right there.

in practice, you shouldnt see any difference. I shot with my brother's mk2 at the playground a few times, then the tamron a few times. If you're at a point where you're limited for reach like:

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/14303447769_fbb7d830c1_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nMWU​Gr  (external link) Captains orders on the Urban Submarine (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

shot at quite a distance away, there wont be any difference between the lenses.

however a close headshot:
IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5522/14308535030_a7b09644fc_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nNoY​XQ  (external link) Full Image (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

you'll get more magnification with the canon. From my understanding, the nikon VRII suffers from this problem as well, so it's a common issue.

Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdripper
Member
104 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Jul 2013
     
Sep 24, 2014 09:24 |  #848

I could be completely wrong but this issue seems like a little cropping would fix this?


Sony A9 || Sony 28 f/2 || Sony 85 f/1.8 ||
XPLOR 600 || R2 Speedlights ||

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,558 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6520
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 24, 2014 10:02 |  #849

mdripper wrote in post #17174959 (external link)
I could be completely wrong but this issue seems like a little cropping would fix this?

pretty much. Problem only occurs if you're looking to capture close details @200.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,680 posts
Gallery: 535 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 8777
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Sep 24, 2014 11:11 |  #850

Charlie wrote in post #17174935 (external link)
40' it would be virtually imperceivable. I have a sample shot of 30', and even then, the difference is very hard to see. The real difference lies at very close distances, where you want a tight headshot with @200. That's the main factor right there.

in practice, you shouldnt see any difference. I shot with my brother's mk2 at the playground a few times, then the tamron a few times. If you're at a point where you're limited for reach like:


you'll get more magnification with the canon. From my understanding, the nikon VRII suffers from this problem as well, so it's a common issue.

Thanks Charlie. So for sports not so much of a problem. But for tight portraits...it is.

Thank you.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
palad1n
Goldmember
Avatar
1,816 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2718
Joined Jun 2013
     
Sep 24, 2014 12:13 |  #851

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17175133 (external link)
Thanks Charlie. So for sports not so much of a problem. But for tight portraits...it is.

Thank you.



this focus breathing unfortunately affects background blur as well.


Website (online) : www.lukaskrasa.com (external link)
Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/​photos/105393908@N03/ (external link)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.c​om/lukaskrasaphoto/ (external link)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/​lukaskrasacom (external link)
Lukas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2787
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 24, 2014 21:03 |  #852

Here is two examples one Tamron and one Canon at around 75 feet I believe.

You can see virtually no difference at all and in many cases the Tamron had a larger image when near infinity compared to the Canon.

IMAGE: http://nitrousdepot.net/POTN/tamronVSmk2/TAMRON%2026%20SMALL.jpg

IMAGE: http://nitrousdepot.net/POTN/tamronVSmk2/CANON%2026%20SMALL.jpg

A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2787
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 24, 2014 21:08 |  #853

palad1n wrote in post #17175222 (external link)
this focus breathing unfortunately affects background blur as well.

There was many cases where the Tamron actually produced a better background then the Canon. It really depended on lighting and background subject.

I had the luxury of owning both lenses for a solid month and did many many testing back and forth. My conclusion is the Canon was only needed if you planned on using TC's a bunch as I never found a TC that reported properly with the Tamron. If you don't use TC then the Tamron was a very great value. Very great.

For example:

IMAGE: http://nitrousdepot.net/POTN/tamronVSmk2/CANON%2023%20SMALL.jpg

IMAGE: http://nitrousdepot.net/POTN/tamronVSmk2/TAMRON%2023%20SMALL.jpg

A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2787
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 24, 2014 21:11 |  #854

Guys...

Feel free to check out my Review of the Tamron VS Canon MK2.

I posted 26 samples side by side and you can click the images for the full size JPG and download them for your pleasure. TONS of pixel peeking madness:

https://photography-on-the.net …=1334130&highli​ght=Tamron


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,898 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 503
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Sep 28, 2014 21:49 |  #855

Ok, if a friend advised me a lens that is 70-200 but he can't afford that Canon mk2 for sports, then is this Tamron one good enough fast to track for him? say he may use it on 7D or 7D2 if not 1 series or 5 series camera.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

610,908 views & 185 likes for this thread
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Aliston1
938 guests, 256 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.