Best Digital SLR Cameras

70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD Tamron zoom lens (A001) * compatible with Nikon digital and autofocus film SLR cameras * 3 low-dispersion glass elements for superior image quality * internal focusing design maintains constant lens length for better balance and easier operation * minimum focus distance: 37-7/16″ (throughout zoom range) *

User Ratings and Reviews

5 Stars Best 70-200 for the money and very close to the best optically period!
This lens has never failed to amaze me with it’s optical quality. It has a fairly slow AF speed in low light. The build quality isn’t vintage Minolta. But, for that matter, what is? It is as solid of a 70-200 that I have felt that isn’t all metal (ie. Sony g or vintage Minolta). The optical qualities of this lens match, if not better, any 70-200 on the market and approach that of some of the best Minolta primes. I doubt that the bokeh is as good with this lens as a Minolta prime or G prime. But, you can’t have prime bokeh with a zoom lens. That said, I have been using it with a Pro 300 DG 1.4x converter on it and this lens still shines. Put it this way, I have been posting some images of 100% crops on my flickr account lately and it is hard to distinguish these shots from other similar shots of lesser lenses of a longer focal length(500mm’ish) with no TC AND much less of a crop. Yes it is that sharp. If you doubt what I am saying you ought to check out the set of pictures I have taken with it. I am nothing more than an amateur having fun. But, this lens makes me look better than I am.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eightballrj/sets/72157612276294083/

5 Stars Tamron takes Nikon/Canon to the optical wood shed!
With Nikon and Canon throwing buckets of money at Pop Photo and other magazines, it’s hard to get a respectable review of a third party lens! And those rabid Canon/Nikon owners, bawling about a little noise during focusing, or a slight click, or it ain’t pretty enough,and no built in stabilisation, in their eyes, there isn’t anything good with Tamron or other third party lenses when compared to their overpriced lenses, except for the price and optical superiority in some instances on the part of those awful Non-Canon/Nikon lens producers.

True a $1,600.00 Canon lens seems unbeatable judging by the price and that pretty white Canon lens look! But I found out the real truth about the Tamron 70-200 F:2.8′s side-by-side comparison to the Canon equivalent, and it made the Canon seem like a Vivitar knock-off. To quote the reviewer, the Canon 70-200 F:2.8…had “VISIBLE BARRELING AND PINCUSHIONING” compared to the Tamron 70-200 F:2.8. Later I tried to find that same review for a second look, and Canon had it pulled until another fabrication could come out making them look like the cat’s pajamas once more to the camera world at large!

I did have a minor aperture problem with my Tamron 70-200, but the company replaced the lens no questions asked. While taking a vacation trip along the Columbia River last Spring, I took a shot of a Tugboat and barge going up river from a mile away,I could almost read the name on the life ring outside the pilot house.

The saturation and sharpness of the lens was incredible. Night shots and Portraits and 1:3 macro close-ups are almost too sharp to discribe, and all with my 6MP K100d Pentax.

Yes the HSM focusing system on the Canon will outshoot this lens hands down, but if the optics can’t take decent architechtural shots without making them look like a barrel or corsette, what does it matter the price?

I don’t rate a lens by the ambiance or the bokay, but due to my 40 years of artistic and technical knowledge of lenses in general, It took me five months to decide between the Tamron and the Sigma 70-200′s build, and the reason for my decision over the Sigma, was that it took five ED glass lenses to correct for chromatics in the Sigma and only two for the Tamron, making it optically better, and this was corroborated by a lens technician of 15 years at another third party lens company who worked with his products and comparing them with all brands of lenses, and grew to understand why the need for ED glass…

Why add ED glass? If the chromatics and light transference are high, less correction? See my point? Companies don’t like to put ED glass into their lenses because it is expensive! It just sounds good in print, when in all actuality, it means that the Optical Design has need to be tweeked for the light to properly focus on the sensor, without chromatic fringing.

So to sum up my diatribe, if you are an ardent amateur photographer or a sharp freelancer, and ain’t worried about a little Buzz, click or whirr, when your lens takes a darn sharp photograph, then stick with optical performance, and not a name, look, or extreme price tag when purchasing a new lens.

It took Tamron five months to fill all the Nikon/Canon orders before they could start filling the Pentax orders! Go Figure! Doesn’t that say something about this F:2.8 70-200 Tamron wonder? So why did I opt for the Tamron lens? Read on!

Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar, and Soligor have been taking it to Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Olympus and Minolta for years, and if these photo giants had their way, they would like to wave a magic wand, and do away with these third party Optical upstarts…Yesterday!

5 Stars Tamron purchase
I recently purchased the Tamron AF 70-200mm lense for my husband’s

birthday. It arrived on time and he was completely thrilled with his

gift. The lense was very carefully packaged and handled. Thank You for

helping our family to make this day very special for my husband.

3 Stars Good for what it is…
What you read about this lens is absolutely true in my experience with it over the last few weeks.

Positives:

sharp, wide open (on D700).

lighter than the alternative (but still not a light lens).

well built and feels solid.

comes with a 6-year USA warranty.

Well-priced.

Negatives:

focus, hunts, chatters, loses focus easily.

warranty service notorious slow (think 4 weeks minimum – often longer).

no lens stabilization system.

You need to evaluate your needs in light of this latter trade-off. If you are a sports shooter on a budget you might consider the better focusing Sigma (though not as good optically. To me it’s a place-holder while I wait and see if Nikon will redesign the 70-200VR.

3 Stars Sharp stopped down, but ssslllooooowwwww to focus
I recently bought this lens hoping to save some money by not getting the Nikon 70-200. I returned it the next day due to several factors. I’ll keep this brief and just make a list of positives and negatives.

Positives:

1. Stopped down to F8 this thing was RAZOR sharp.

2. Handling was good.

3. Not terribly heavy.

4. Zoom and focus rings fairly smooth.

Negatives:

1. Nowhere near sharp wide open. Almost unusable.

2. Slow focusing, especially in moderate to low light.

3. Inaccurate focusing in low light.

4. Noisy when focusing. Didn’t really bother me, but it may bother some.

Anyway. If you are shooting static subjects and stop the lens down it is really nice. Otherwise, you get what you pay for. Don’t even thing about using this for indoor sports.

Buy/More Info