Tamron 70-200 F2.8

Hi, i am thinking of getting this lens used for around 400 for my 7d. used primarily for portraits? Good buy or Not??? I can't afford the big dawg, so I am checking options....

Piercephotographer wrote in post #10795273
Hi, i am thinking of getting this lens used for around 400 for my 7d. used primarily for portraits? Good buy or Not??? I can't afford the big dawg, so I am checking options....

wow for 400, thats a great price. af is pretty slow, but optical quality is apparently very very good.

For 400 I'd give it a go, if only because you'll have no problems selling it and recovering everything (and possibly some more) after all the fees. If you don't like it, that is.

The IQ of that lens is pretty decent, good price at $400!

I read somewhere that it's sharper than the Canon equivalent (although I find that a bit hard to believe).

It was my first lens upgrade after the 18-55+55-250+50mm 1.8 set. I bought it for the same reason as you at around the same price. It made me feel powerful/like a bigshot. Image quality was for what I knew back then really great, but the AF was miserable (at least on my copy). That was the largest reason why I ended up selling it. Lack of USM made it miserable for tracking sports, and I found it near unusable in lower light.

I'll buy it @ $400!

Indeed, that's a nice price for a 70-200mm f/2.8 of any brand. I'd probably jump on it too, given the opportunity.

I've been thinking about that one some myself. Asamimasa hit the weaknesses right on the head (from what the reviewers said), but as I never photograph sports and probably wouldn't need it in low light, maybe they are no disadvantages at all...

For 400? Great. But it's more used as a long-ish walkaround zoom.
The optical quality is GREAT, but the focusing sucks.

The Sigma 70-200 should be about 150$ more used. That one is not as great quality-wise at 200mm, but AF is better.

Anyways, for 400 I'm sure you could pick up say, a 85 1.8 for portraits..

Deep Pocket wrote in post #10819267
For 400? Great. But it's more used as a long-ish walkaround zoom.
The optical quality is GREAT, but the focusing sucks.

The Sigma 70-200 should be about 150$ more used. That one is not as great quality-wise at 200mm, but AF is better.

Anyways, for 400 I'm sure you could pick up say, a 85 1.8 for portraits..

i'd still pick it up at 400 bucks as the quality should be much better than say a 75-300, or a 50-250 lens, plus you got a wider aperture.

Actual pictures from a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I find it a great portrait lens if you have room to move back a bit...I love it fir candids at weddings etc...I do need good light to not get the blueish tint that is also evident in the photos above...I am not crazy about it as a low light lens, even with the f2.8 ...But at $400 ? GRAB IT !!! (PS; mine is the last lens in my bag that I would part with..........

For portraits on 1.6x, I would really recommend something shorter as you will probably find 70mm too long more often than you find 200mm useful (again for portraits). I use the Tokina 50-135mm or Sigma makes a great 50-150mm f2.8, or even something like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 may be more appropriate.

Sure this lens is a great price, but only if it meets your needs.