Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di

Tamron jumps into the 70-200 2.8 market.

http://www.tamron.co.j​p …lease_2008/0128​_a001.html

Would plastic turn you off? Are you sold on "L" quality?

David, what turns me off on this one is its lacks of ring AF for the "70-200" class of lenses. They really need ring AF to "compete" with Canon and Sigma in this field, especially for sports and the like. But I am sure it will be a nice optic, no doubt.

It's going to depend on the price. If it's got the optics of the typical top-grade Tamron (17-50 f/2.8, 90 macro, etc.), it'll be a great option if it's in the $700 range. Above that, and I'd probably go Sigma. Of course, I won't have this problem unless my 80-200L dies, but...it should be a good lens.

LightRules, even you thought the Sigma 24-70 was a great lens. I'm thinking this is the same. Not as fast as the competition, but if less expensive, it will be a great lens for beginners/intermediate​s that don't need the Ring Focus.

$700 is way too steep for a Canon user. I'd rather buy the 200 prime and start walking backwards.

Tamron had a 70-200 or 70-210 a couple years back.

Complete and utter poop.

Let's see how this one works, but no USM is a turnoff.

shutterfiend wrote in post #4801995
$700 is way too steep for a Canon user. I'd rather buy the 200 prime and start walking backwards.

I'd get the 135L and walk both ways, more options

Likewise, the lack of USM/HSM is a real down side to this lens.

$700 would be too expensive for a constant f/2.8 70-200 zoom? Ummm...Ok. The next cheapest alternative for that is the Sigma, which is $889 for the old model and $979 for the new model. Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 is $1,140.

Jman13 wrote in post #4802176
$700 would be too expensive for a constant f/2.8 70-200 zoom? Ummm...Ok. The next cheapest alternative for that is the Sigma, which is $889 for the old model and $979 for the new model. Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 is $1,140.

If I needed something in that range, I'd rather spend the extra $400+ on the Canon for the build quality and USM assuming IQ is just as good.

kevin_c wrote in post #4802043
... and walk both ways, ...

Too racy taken out of context.

I, for one, am looking very seriously at this one. I have three Tamron lenses and all of them have been excellent.

I think the savings of $300-400 over the Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) and $800+ over the IS version is worth it.

This lens has only been a year in development. Near as I can determine from my research it was first announced in March of 2007 and now we have to wait another three months for it.

shutterfiend wrote in post #4802332
If I needed something in that range, I'd rather spend the extra $400+ on the Canon for the build quality and USM assuming IQ is just as good.

oh hell yes. the canon 70-200Ls are the best zooms made in this range. period !

ed rader

as far as canon having the best 70-200 have you ever used a nikkor 70-200 f/2.8VR? amazing glass.
Yes I converted from nikon, but there glass is every bit as good as canon in that range.
Don't get me wrong I love my canon 70-200L and won't give it up.

mrcpix wrote in post #4819226
as far as canon having the best 70-200 have you ever used a nikkor 70-200 f/2.8VR? amazing glass.
Yes I converted from nikon, but there glass is every bit as good as canon in that range.
Don't get me wrong I love my canon 70-200L and won't give it up.

as good or better ?

ed rader