I have the 70-200 Tamron is this lens as sharp and fast? I really enjoy the 70-200 but for parties it's too long. Thank you!!!
811132
I have to return my lens. Used twice on a shoot and serious focusing issues both times. I will not pass judgment, as I plan to return to Tamron under their warranty and I bought this upon recommendation from fellow fans of this particular lens. I shoot Canon and this was the first time I purchased outside of their line...
811133
Hi Chris,actually i loved the 24-70 2.8... shar and fast as i was looking for !!! but, as you know, this is my personal like... hope you like it as i do !
811134
while i have never had the 70-200, i've had other canon lenses, including the red strip 24-105 4L, and other tamron lenses...from my experience this 24-70 will be as sharp or sharper than them all...tho, like all lenses, you should not shoot at full open 2.8 for best sharpness...i shoot at 3.2, and with the image stab i is no problem...and fully open to 24mm the outer portion may be less sharp, but that holds for all wide angle zooms...this is as good as the best, it is among the best.
811135
I don't have the Tamron 70-200 but I have the canon 70-200L f4, and I must say the 24-70 Tamron is not as sharp as the canon. Having said this, the Tamron is sharp enough for me and in anycase you need wide-tele lens for general photography as opposed to long telephoto zooms such as 70-200.
811136
I have a Nikon mount of this lens and I also have the Nikon's top of the line 70-200 VRII lens and the images produced by my copy of this lens are as sharp as the Nikons 70-200. I liked my copy of this Tamron lens better than the Nikon 24-70mm lens. I would say give it a shot and if you get a good copy of this lens it will be a keeper.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
1150477
Is there a zoom lens in approximately the 17-80mm range that has good result shooting hoops? I have tried several, the last being Tamron's 17-50mm F2.8, and the results were not that impressive. Had good results using Canon's 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8, but would like to find a wider angle zoom that can deliver.
196653
I have owned the Nikkor 18-70, Nikkor 17-55, as well as Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 12-24. Out of these 5, the 14-24 is the sharpest at f2.8 and also the lowest in distortion. The barrel distortion @ 14mm is easy to fix in post-processing. but more importantly--it has very little distortion/drop-off of sharpness at the edges, which is tougher to fix. Simply said--it would be very hard to improve on this lens!
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1213468
I bought this kit .. The Tamron .. 70-300 I have come to love this lens . It macro setting are wonderful and is a good telephoto. Now there is no vibration control, but I have seem to work past that. The Auto focus is quick and it can produce some great DOF on you photo. You can check out my photo stream @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/obelis/ for the most part all the photo since I have bought this kit are with both the Tamron and the Nikon that come with this kit. (I have added a 50mm a telephoto 500mm and from time to time use a 1.5x teleconverter) The bag is nice quality, The SD Card is still going strong, The remote works great. The Tripod well it will do in a pinch it not bad, but nothing to write home about. . As for the Flash ..Well I tested it and it works but I have never used. (I try never to use flash and this camera takes great photo in low light.)
1526812
I had the Tamron first. I got it because it had good reviews, a lower price, and IS. Bottom line: it was very soft and had AWFUL back focusing issues over 50 mm. I sent it to Tamron for calibration and it came back worse. I ended up returning it and instead of getting another copy of the Tamron, got the Canon. Best decision I ever made. This is the sharpest lens I own, including all my primes. I was told by Tamron that 20% of their 24-70s have focus issues on the Mark III (which I have) due to the Mark III's focusing system and the Tamron not being totally compatible with it. I have a 60D as well and the Tamron also had back focus issues with that body as well, although slightly less. I would not hesitate to recommend the Canon, bar none.
170019
Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron low light lens, so if either will work for the situation, I choose this lens. Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron... » Read More Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron low light lens, so if either will work for the situation, I choose this lens. « Show Less
1927445
Jen, I don't recommend this lens. I owned it for a short while when I was new to photography, and was disappointed with its IQ. Zoom lenses that cover this long of a focal length generally sacrifice image integrity to do so. This lens was no exception with heavy barrel distortion on the wide end, and it was very soft when zoomed even when stopped down. I would recommend getting a lens that does less, but does it better. This lens would not be any better than your kit lens. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for its value and IQ.
357729
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range.But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too.Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1609775
PD thank you for the great review. What do you guys think about the new Tamron 70-200mm ?
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
1533866
You have 10mm more with the Tamron. You have twice the size aperture comparing 2.8 to 4. That is a huge huge difference. I tested mine in detail at the center and some spots around the corner AT THE SAME APERTURE with my Nikon 24-120, it is every bit as sharp under high magnification. I did quite a scientific comparison. If you know the outstanding optical quality of the Nikon 24-120, you'll be really impressed.
747380
This was my first lens bought for the exact same purpose you've stated in your question. The lens is great for parties, architectural shots, landscape and maybe some night shots but definitely not the best for astrophotography. I would recommend the Tokina 11 - 16mm F/2.8, its a far much better lens. Also I need to mention that the Tamron is quite soft around the edges.
503709
I have only shot it with the 14-35 f/2 and it was VERTY fast to AF even in indoor conditions. It is much much faster than the E-M5 from what I hear. Maybe not as fast as the E-5 but the 14-35 was plenty fast for me. I can not comment on other lenses as I have not tried them, and probably will not be as A: I am not a fan of large lenses and B: I can not afford to buy them all to test them :)
134991
Very good lens I own two from Tamron , this exact same one and the 24-70 mm F/2.8. Solid lend well made, takes good Pictures
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.