# Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD Hands-On



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 28, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/tamron-70-200-f2-8-di-vc-usd-hands-on/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/tamron-70-200-f2-8-di-vc-usd-hands-on/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>The new Tamron 70-200!

</strong>A lot of people have been eager to hear and see how good the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892851-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC</a> lens is. Coming in at a mere $1499 compared to <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">$2099 for the Canon version</a>, it has a chance to sell well for Tamron if it can at least be close to the highly regarded Canon.</p>
<p>Photo News had a chance to play with one and have come away pretty positive about the Tamron. There are lots of pictures and thoughts about build, the AF and optical performance of the lens.</p>
<p><strong>From Photo News</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD brings Tamron’s legendary optical performance into the 21st century with the addition of USD and VC. The autofocus is fast with the addition of USD, the VC is effective , and the image quality is what we’re used to from this legend. Tamron has fixed a few quirks of the older version and we’d feel comfortable taking this lens on any job or just a walk in the park. The deciding factor for this lens will be the price point.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD is due to start shipping on November 30, 2012.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.photonews.ca/?p=5849" target="_blank">Read the entire review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD $1499 at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892851-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM70200VEOS.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A34GQEC/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00A34GQEC&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## sdsr (Nov 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> What is the price of this lens?
> 
> The review seems to say $2099 but the canonrumors blurb mentions $1499.



The price at B&H is $1499


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2012)

It doesn't have the red ring, therefore, I'll stay with Canon f2.8 IS II ;D


----------



## sunseeker (Nov 28, 2012)

"LEGENDARY" quality for Tamron? Let's say it's acceptable. How can that guy call it LEGENDARY? Did they try the 18-270?!


----------



## bdeutsch (Nov 28, 2012)

I'll wait to see more formal testing then just a few handheld field shots, but it certainly looks tempting. I just got the Tamron 24-80 f/2.8 -- barely used it yet, but so far it seems fantastic and a great price compared to Canon (even though it doesn't have the red ring).


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photography


----------



## bdeutsch (Nov 28, 2012)

sunseeker said:


> "LEGENDARY" quality for Tamron? Let's say it's acceptable. How can that guy call it LEGENDARY? Did they try the 18-270?!


Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me too .... someone was just copying a press release for part of the article. Hopefully the review portion was based on the author's judgment and not the publicity agent's.


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photography


----------



## brad-man (Nov 28, 2012)

This will be a difficult decision for me. I have the SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD, love it, and have no intention of "upgrading" to the EF24-70L II due to $700+ price difference and IS. I know there are a lot of granite-armed gunslingers out there who insist that IS is not necessary in this focal range, but I find it incredibly useful. This choice is not so obvious as it is more apples to apples. I look forward to seeing more samples and some in depth reviews. Hey Rogier, how about a quickie? I am still hoping the EF70-200L II will drop below the $2000 level sometime after the holidays. Thankfully, I have a copy of the most wonderful EF70-200 f/4L IS, so I'm in no major hurry...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> It doesn't have the red ring, therefore, I'll stay with Canon f2.8 IS II ;D



But it could have the red ring... I have added the red ring to several zoom lenses. Go to the grocery store, get some broccoli, go home and eat it. Take the red rubber band that was on the broccoli and stetch it over your lens and voila! You have a lens with a red ring!

Seriously though, you can use an appropriate sized rubber band, half on the zoom ring and half on the lens body, to combat the evils of lens creep


----------



## AtSea (Nov 28, 2012)

As they write in the disclaimer of the article:

PHOTONews Canada is owned by Amplis Foto Inc. Amplis Foto Inc. is the distributor of Tamron lenses for Canada. The words are our own based on the lens we were provided by Tamron Japan.


Not to say there's an obvious bias, but I would check out a few more reviews before dishing out $1500


----------



## jondave (Nov 28, 2012)

'Legendary' immediately rang alarm bells for me... It's the marketing spin that's legendary I would say.


----------



## cliffwang (Nov 29, 2012)

That's real nice to see the third party manufacturers can make good lenses. Thus, we will have more choices and it could push Canon making better products for us. However, this lens is too late on the market. Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2 have been released for three years. Moreover, if the IQ is only similar to Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2, 1500 USD is too expensive. The reasonable price tag should be about 1300 USD.


----------



## that1guyy (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm loving these third party lenses. 

On my wish list:
Sigma 35 1.4
Tamron 70-200 2.8
Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?


----------



## robbymack (Nov 29, 2012)

that1guyy said:


> I'm loving these third party lenses.
> 
> On my wish list:
> Sigma 35 1.4
> ...



the tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is supposed to be pretty good, apparently the VC version is a bit softer. That being said I used to own a canon 17-55 2.8 it was awesome and I still miss that range on FF. the 24-70 gets close, but I loved the fact that at 55mm on apc c the canon was a good portrait lens too. 70 on ff is just a little short of ideal.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 29, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> That's real nice to see the third party manufacturers can make good lenses. Thus, we will have more choices and it could push Canon making better products for us. However, this lens is too late on the market. Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2 have been released for three years. Moreover, if the IQ is only similar to Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2, 1500 USD is too expensive. The reasonable price tag should be about 1300 USD.



Agreed. However, Tamron tends to offer year-round rebates once a lens has been released for a few months, so I would expect the street price will be closer to your $1,300. Even at that though, for U.S. customers, the price of a refurbished 70-200 L II is not that much more when it is on special.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 29, 2012)

This is so tempting. Oh so tempting. I'd love to see a comparison shoot of this and the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II with the same body (preferably 5d3, but 1dX would work as well), and with MFA. I'd also love a real world test of the weather-sealing on both of them, although I know the Canon's is quite good. If the Tamron claims weather-sealing, it needs to keep up. The other downside is I can't get CPS service on the Tamron...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

I have been looking forward to reviews of this lens. I have used the non-VC version and found it very competent optically but also found the AF too slow to use in professional work. I took some really nice pictures with it for a few weeks and then sold it. So, I am interested in this lens, but only if it is a true competitor for the Canon MKII version. I get this magazine (it comes free to those who have bought and registered Tamron products) and find that they strive towards objectivity (i.e. they will be honest about downsides to Tamron products) but will typically lean towards the glass-half-full perspective.

I am personally disappointed with a couple of things here: 

#1 The very flat and uninspiring conditions don't lend itself to overwhelming pictures here. I would have liked to see a little more of a mixture of conditions (maybe some shots in the city at night) to show a larger gambit of color. That being said, the color on the mallards looks nice.

#2 They spoke of how great the bokeh was, but none of these image show off bokeh in any kind of meaningful way. How about getting a little closer to something?

I found the bokeh in the non-VC quite smooth, but I wouldn't say it threatened my 135L. One big plus of the original as the minimum focus distance, which allowed for very smooth flower shots like this one (SOOC)




Windblown by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I wish they could have shown a little more inspiring images all with the text. I have been very pleased with the new 24-70 VC, and if this was a true match, it might be worth the money.


----------



## PhotoNewsCanada (Nov 29, 2012)

Thanks for sharing the article CR. 

Just to clear up a few questions:

"Legendary image quality" - Probably a bit strong  but refers to the previous lens it replaces (at the price it sold for). Certainly not a reference to every lens Tamron has ever made, or a comparison to a 600L. If you haven't used the older 70-200mm, it was definitely sharp and contrasty but had a few drawbacks, namely focus speed. Simply put, it was slow. 

Yes, the weather sucked. Toronto in November, what can you do? We plan to upgrade the review with some more shots as we get them, but wanted to give people a taste as soon as we could. 

Who in Canada shoots the best lens reviews? We'll get the 70-200 in their hands.


----------



## bsbeamer (Nov 29, 2012)

wonder how this will stack up against the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (enough abbreviations?!) - looks like it's $250 more expensive than the Sigma


----------



## killswitch (Nov 29, 2012)

I am actually very interested in this offering. I cannot afford the Canon's MKII and it's MK I (with IS) is not as sharp as the non-IS version. If this is sharper and has better color contrast than Canon's non-IS and Sigma's OS, I will probably pull the trigger on this. Having said that, if this was priced $1300 or less then it's a real winner.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 29, 2012)

lengendary. I think they should have said "super awesome badass". howabout our bokeh? followed by shots that didn't really show any. then they, the "review" site, come on here and ask for our advise to locate a good reviewer guy so they can get him one of these lenses to review... weird. i know you are the importer, but man...
with all that sillyness said, i do hope it all pans out, and that this lens is as good as stated. That'd be great. choice is great.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

PhotoNewsCanada said:


> Thanks for sharing the article CR.
> 
> Just to clear up a few questions:
> 
> ...



I'd certainly volunteer. I am about to post my review of the 24-70 VC to my website. I live in Ontario and am both a part time professional and full time enthusiast. My work has been used in magazines and the Globe and Mail. I'm interested in trying the lens. That being said, I consistently like Bryan Carnethan's approach to lens review the most and would most respect a review by him. I am a relative nobody.


----------



## AtSea (Nov 29, 2012)

PhotoNewsCanada said:


> Thanks for sharing the article CR.
> 
> Just to clear up a few questions:
> 
> ...




Nice to see you guys coming into the discussion. 

Thanks for the time spent on the review - I never decide based on one review alone anyway, but it's certainly a start. 

As a fellow Torontonian, I concur about the weather.


----------



## heptagon (Nov 29, 2012)

that1guyy said:


> Also need a 17 - 55 (approx) but the Canon f2.8 one is too expensive. Anyone know if the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is good?



The sigma is good, but it has some drawbacks. The focus ring only turns about a quarter from nearest to infinity. It's hard to impossible to focus a shot manually. 

Also some photos are out of focus (phase AF, centerpoint) but i don't know if it's the error of the lens and if the tamron/canon lenses would have less focusing errors. In the reviews i hear no complaint about the autofocus that's just personal experience.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 29, 2012)

robbymack said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm loving these third party lenses.
> ...



The Tamron 17-50 2.8 without VC is excellent! L-lens quality optics. The build is sturdy enough and there is no lens creep; AF uses a conventional micro-motor but is not really as slow as you would think. I use this on my 7D and 400D. Optically it beats my f/2.8 24-70L Mk I. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has the best performance to price ratio of any lens I can think of.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



+1 I only let go of mine when I went FF. Sold it to a friend and now it lives on her 7D


----------



## Scott911 (Nov 29, 2012)

Looks like a great option to consider. Glad to see another choice available for when I get to the point of needing to seriously look at that focal range in a f/2.8 lens.


----------



## RafaPolit (Nov 29, 2012)

This really feels like a Tamron advertisement rather than an actual review  . I agree with others that reading the word 'Legendary' in any Tamron specification other than price just throws away the entire review.

Best regards,
Rafa.


----------



## that1guyy (Nov 30, 2012)

RafaPolit said:


> This really feels like a Tamron advertisement rather than an actual review  . I agree with others that reading the word 'Legendary' in any Tamron specification other than price just throws away the entire review.
> 
> Best regards,
> Rafa.



It doesn't seem like an advertisement to me. The reviewer seems fairly unbiased and presented both pros and cons. I agree legendary may not have been the best word, but the reviewer also posted on this thread and explained he meant "legendary" when referring to the previous version of this lens, which has very good image quallity, not the entire Tamron lineup.


----------



## ddl (Nov 30, 2012)

That's the problem with this Canada PhotoNews magazine in general.

Most of the "reviews" are aditorials saying how good the product is and some could pass as ad writer copy.

I've read almost every issue over the past few years by grabbing the free copy at the camera stores here in Calgary and there are very few reviews that I would say accurately balance off good versus bad points.

I hope to see an accurate comparison test amongst all 70-200 2.8 stabilized lenses. I don't know what I'd do if the Tamron proves better than my currently owned Sigma 70-200 f/2.8OS which I'm quite happy with. I recently had a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC that I returned due to erratic focus behaviour (plus I'm scared over the Lens Rental article showing one of the internal elements in that lens to work loose) so I'm not certain that if I sold the Sigma that I wouldn't move directly to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 30, 2012)

ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much). 

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774

Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a *bit* lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 30, 2012)

risc32 said:


> lengendary. I think they should have said "super awesome badass". howabout our bokeh? followed by shots that didn't really show any. then they, the "review" site, come on here and ask for our advise to locate a good reviewer guy so they can get him one of these lenses to review... weird. i know you are the importer, but man...
> with all that sillyness said, i do hope it all pans out, and that this lens is as good as stated. That'd be great. choice is great.



Right. I owned its predecessor for a while. Not only was it slow to focus (worse as the amount of light diminishes, unsurprisingly), but focusing was inconsistent - sometimes spot on (and when it was the results were excellent), but sometimes not, regardless of what the viewfinder and camera told me (this was on a Pentax K-5, though, which may have had something to do with that). So I would like to see a review by, say, Lenstip, which measures the proportion of "hits" to "misses". I would also like to learn more about magnification at close range and bokeh, two areas where reviews I've seen show the Sigma equivalent to be a safe distance behind the Canon 2.8 Mk II. Photos of the same subject (preferably something other than test charts) taken with different 70-200s for comparison would be nice too....


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 30, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ePhotozine has a review up on this lens now. Their only gripe is the price, which frankly seems to be all over the place. In the US it undercuts the Canon MKII by about $700; in Europe the Tamron's suggested retail is higher than the Nikon, Sony, and Sigma versions and is only cheaper than the Canon (but not by much).
> 
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-lens-review-20774
> 
> Tamron dodged a bullet with the 24-70 VC because Canon's price came out so much higher that it made the Tamron seem reasonable despite being hundreds higher than the Sigma equivalent and because Tamron had a killer feature (VC) that the new Canon didn't. This lens may be a harder sell if they don't bring the price down. It's only advantage at the moment is being a *bit* lighter and more compact. AF is still not as fast as the MKII, so...I would expect to see the US price more like $1350 within a few months. I doubt too many people would choose the Tamron over the Canon if the price was even just a few hundred difference.



Comparing their review of the Tamron with their review of the Canon, it seems they're suggesting the Tamron is optically superior.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 30, 2012)

It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.

I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 30, 2012)

From ePhotoZine's test:

From looking at their graphs, it would appear that resolution is higher wide open in the Tamron at the 70 and 135mm range, but the Canon is higher at 200mm.

The chromatic aberration is slightly lower in the Tamron, although both are negligible in field conditions. 

Fall-off illumination numbers are lower on the Tamron than the Canon. 
1.85 stops Tamron @70mm 2.09 stops @200mm
1.92 stops Canon @70mm *2.6* stops @200mm

Lower distortion on the Tamron too: 

From the Canon review: "Distortion is minimal at 70mm with Imatast detecting 1.96% barrelling. At 200mm 1.12% pincushion distortion is present, which is a moderate level, but may be noticeable under certain circumstances. At both ends of the zoom the distortion pattern is uniform across the image area, which should make it simple to correct in image editing software afterwards. "

From the Tamron review: "Distortion is very well controlled throughout the zoom range. At 70mm only 0.645% barrel distortion is present, which is replaced with 0.42% pincushion distortion at 200mm. If straight lines are paramount, then you'll be pleased to learn that the distortion pattern is uniform across the frame, making it relatively easy to correct in image editing software afterwards, although this distortion is so mild, very few people will actually need to apply any corrections."

This looks like it is shaping up to be a pretty impressive lens.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 30, 2012)

I hope all the glues will hold (not trying to be sarcastic).

A cheaper but almost as good as alternative to the Canon MK II is always very lucrative for photographically-non-earning enthusiasts like me...


----------



## aznable (Dec 1, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> It would be pretty revolutionary for Tamron to step up and try to compete on merit alone without a significant price advantage, too. In the US they still have the large price advantage, but that doesn't seem to be the case in other markets.
> 
> I'm certainly interested in seeing more reviews, however, particularly ones that directly compare the Tamron to some of the big players.



infact the 24-70 vc from tamron costs half the price of the 24-70 ii from canon...and maybe is a better lens in various aspects

third partyies like canon and signa cannot compete with original manufacturers like canon and nikon because peoples prefer to buy "originals" insted of "copies" (tis is the popula belief...tragic)


----------



## killswitch (Dec 5, 2012)

Some more 70-200 f2.8 VC hands on. Thoughts?

http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/sample-image-gallery-tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-vc-usd-telephoto-zoom-lens


----------



## meli (Dec 6, 2012)

that1guyy said:


> I'm loving these third party lenses.
> 
> On my wish list:
> Sigma 35 1.4
> ...



I've tested one in a friend's camera albeit in a nikon mount. 
Drawbacks: no manual override,
But, that thing is sharp as hell, actually i lost a bet cause this thing's centerframe is sharper than nikon's 24-70 or 50 prime 
(not gonna comment on AF, it was fast & spot on but then again i didnt have experience with that camera's AF(d7000) or the native 17-55)
Wish i had a nikon2canon mount to compare it with some of my glass. 
Perhaps it was a really good sample, but still...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 6, 2012)

meli said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm loving these third party lenses.
> ...



No manual override? That conclusion differs from all the reports we have had so far. Lenses equipped with Tamron's USD motor all have full time manual override. 

I'm more concerned about the early reports that the lens is significantly shorter than other 70-200mm zooms. I find that a big deal!


----------



## meli (Dec 6, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



a misunderstanding, i was talking about the sigma 17-50!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 6, 2012)

Ahh, that makes a little more sense


----------



## sdsr (Dec 6, 2012)

This is encouraging, as far as it goes:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s#more-11067


----------



## killswitch (Dec 6, 2012)

sdsr said:


> This is encouraging, as far as it goes:
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s#more-11067



Thanks for sharing. Things look good so far. How long before you think Tamron might reduce the price or offer rebates for such a new lens. Just curious.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 6, 2012)

I'm a bit bugged by the shorter than advertised focal length. I was strongly considering investing in this lens, but that factor may push me towards spending the extra to get the Canon MKII.


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 7, 2012)

Interesting. I wonder why they do that. What is wrong with just producing a 200mm? Regarding your dilemma a teleconverter would solve the problem yes?


----------



## sdsr (Dec 7, 2012)

killswitch said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > This is encouraging, as far as it goes:
> ...



Beats me, but here's another review:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_sp_70_200mm_f2_8_di_vc_usd_review/

And presumably there will be more to come....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 8, 2012)

That last review, while very favorable, left a lot to be desired. The reviewer kept talking about the sharpness level from F5 .6 to F11, completely neglecting the fact that most people who use this lens will rarely use it at those apertures. He also concluded, "that the Tamron offering in this case was more expensive than either the Canon or Nikon equivalents." I don't believe that this is true in any of the markets that the lenses are offered in, and definitely not in the North American market. He didn't mention the shortened focal length that Roger observed. I didn't find any of the image samples that he offered really gave any kind of true picture of the capability of the lens.

I am looking forward to a review from someone like Bryan Carnethan. I'm also looking forward to a head-to-head comparison between the new Tamron and either the Canon or Nikon equivalents.


----------



## Ewinter (Dec 8, 2012)

what's funny is that in the uk, after the £160 cashback on the canon 2.8 IS II, the tamron is only £10 cheaper


----------



## killswitch (Dec 8, 2012)

Another review up.

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/fx/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2.8-di-vc-usd-a009-lens


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 8, 2012)

Tamron used to include pouches with their lenses that were quite nice. Shame they stopped.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 8, 2012)

killswitch said:


> Another review up.
> 
> http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/fx/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2.8-di-vc-usd-a009-lens



This review wasn't as enthusiastic about the image quality, comparing it more to the Sigma than the Canon or Nikon equivalents. My enthusiasm for this lens is cooling a bit. I am skeptical that the lens quality is only on the Sigma level, though, when previous reviews have placed image quality on par or slightly better than the Canon. At the moment I would lean towards the Canon


----------



## killswitch (Dec 11, 2012)

Worlds first! Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD - complete review


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 11, 2012)

I always enjoy Matt Granger, and this review is certainly favorable. It seems to me that the Tamron would represent a very strong value/competition at about the $1200 range (which is where I think it will end up selling for in the North American market long term). I would consider it at that price.


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 10, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> I hope all the glues will hold (not trying to be sarcastic).
> 
> A cheaper but almost as good as alternative to the Canon MK II is always very lucrative for photographically-non-earning enthusiasts like me...



I assure you, I will be 'earning' with this.


----------

