# Tamron to Announce 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 18, 2018)

```
<p><a href="http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/02/70-210mm-f4-di-vc-usd.html">According to Nokishita</a>. Tamron will soon announce a 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD.</p>
<p>Is this the lens that was <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-teases-a-new-lens-ahead-of-cp/">teased last weak</a>?</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-33763 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-to-announce-70-210mm-f-4-di-vc-usd/tamron-4/'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-to-announce-70-210mm-f-4-di-vc-usd/tamron_1-4/'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-to-announce-70-210mm-f-4-di-vc-usd/tamron_2-2/'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_2-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tamron_2-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 18, 2018)

Doesn't look like the lens from teaser.


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2018)

Crazy. We were just discussing if there would ever be a 3rd party option of the f/4 variants. Boom. Now, will this lens have G2 goodies? Because the 2.8 G2 is the giant killer for an amazing price.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 18, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> Is this the lens that was teased last weak



That would be "weak" indeed!


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 18, 2018)

I’m sure it’s a great lens, but for any Rebel owner Tamron is competing with the 55-250STM, which as far as I can tell is about as sharp as the push/pull Canon 100-400 on Full Frame (at equivalent FOV), and it’s as light as a feather, and costs less than $200.
This thing needs excelent AF, a good 4 stops worth of practical stabilization and center sharpness out the wazoo if it’s going to be perceived as a good value.

If there’s one thing Canon has done right it’s their budget EF-S lenses (55-250STM, 24mm Pancake, 10-18STM).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 18, 2018)

9VIII said:


> I’m sure it’s a great lens, but for any Rebel owner Tamron is competing with the 55-250STM, which as far as I can tell is about as sharp as the push/pull Canon 100-400 on Full Frame (at equivalent FOV), and it’s as light as a feather, and costs less than $200.
> This thing needs excelent AF, a good 4 stops worth of practical stabilization and center sharpness out the wazoo if it’s going to be perceived as a good value.
> 
> If there’s one thing Canon has done right it’s their budget EF-S lenses (55-250STM, 24mm Pancake, 10-18STM).


I believe this Tamron 70-210mm is not intended for users of Rebel cameras, but users of 5D Mark ii, 6D, and other full-frame low-cost.

In fact EF-S 55-250mm STM is a rare jewel, and probably the new Tamron will not outperform it in terms of image quality when mounted on APS-C cameras.


----------



## Talys (Feb 18, 2018)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sure it’s a great lens, but for any Rebel owner Tamron is competing with the 55-250STM, which as far as I can tell is about as sharp as the push/pull Canon 100-400 on Full Frame (at equivalent FOV), and it’s as light as a feather, and costs less than $200.
> ...



Yeah, this would be to compete with 70-200/f4 L IS.

Depending on its price and performance, I suppose it could be interesting. However, 70-200 is such a critical lens for so many people, and both the Canon f/4 and f/2.8 are such great lenses that I think it's a tough sell, as folks tend to be more price insensitive on the lens that are core to their task.

The problem is that the Canon lens is only about a thousand bucks, and I doubt the Tamron is going to be half that. Plus, the 2.8 now has some fierce sales, and many copies are available used, so there's competitive pressure from that front too.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2018)

I'm hoping it is compatible with the docking station... I think (hope) that all future Tamron and Sigma lenses should be "dockable" to receive updates.... that more or less eliminates the feat of incompatibilities with future bodies and is a great marketing point.....


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 18, 2018)

210 is interesting, I guess... If this is SIGNIFICANTLY less weight and price, it could be a great lens for a 2nd kit. Anything over $750 and I'd go with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM instead. 

Have the SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD (G1) and it's a great lens. A little on the heavier side, but that's expected. Biggest issue with this lens (and all 3rd party) is with video usage on 5D4 and not getting built in lens corrections. It's problematic for vingetting and especially noticeable on full frame. Waiting for the Canon 24-70 with IS (for YEARS) and will likely switch over if I'm still on EF & EF-S at that point.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 18, 2018)

I am also interested in this lens. Something higher quality than the 70-300 (any manufacturer), but less expensive than the 70-200 F2.8 options.

I will be replacing most, if not all pieces of my camera kit at the end of April, when I will be in Cologne, Germany. They have many good quality 2nd hand stores for photography equipment, as well as new of course.

So far my plan seems to be this:

- 1D mark II - upgrade to used 6D
- Tamron 28-75 F2.8 - get my current copy of this lens serviced and see how it performs on the 6D, and if I will be happy with it.
- Keep my Canon 50mm F1.4 USM, see how it works with the 6D.
- Look for other lenses to use with the 6D.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 19, 2018)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sure it’s a great lens, but for any Rebel owner Tamron is competing with the 55-250STM, which as far as I can tell is about as sharp as the push/pull Canon 100-400 on Full Frame (at equivalent FOV), and it’s as light as a feather, and costs less than $200.
> ...



I think the Tamron would have faster AF against the STM lens. That's a big deal at these focal lengths.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2018)

I'm on the fence over a waiting for a nw non L 85 and 135 L whatever IS or not and some new 70-200 variant but not anything heavy. I am in the heavy bag, light camera camp. It's called the waiting game at this point.


----------



## vangelismm (Feb 19, 2018)

slclick said:


> Crazy. We were just discussing if there would ever be a 3rd party option of the f/4 variants. Boom. Now, will this lens have G2 goodies? Because the 2.8 G2 is the giant killer for an amazing price.



I always wondered this too.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2018)

I suspect this will be quite aggressively priced. Perhaps as low as $600, with the tripod collar an optional accessory (probably going to be the same collar as the 100-400 for extra synergy).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 19, 2018)

Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2018)

I’m fairly sure Tamron knows roughly inifinity times better what sort of lenses are better business-wise than Random CR Commenter #85549 :

> smaller
> better in low light

Also, physics called. They’d have a word.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.



stupid tamron is *******! why didn't they make this 70-210 f/4 to actually be 50-300 f/2.8

anyway, ignoring random reality disconnected internet user, this is actually cool. some 30 years ago sigma, tokina and canon had 70-210mm lenses but f/2.8

unfortunately for tamron, my canon 55-250 STM gives me a good reason not to buy this...or the canon 70-200 f4, however much i would want to...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.



You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....

Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......


----------



## MrFotoFool (Feb 19, 2018)

Given the quality of recent Tamron lenses this should be great. I think a lot of users don't want the price and weight of an f2.8 (which is why Canon makes an f4 version). My hope is that Tamron will next make an affordable super telephoto with one stop smaller aperture (meaning a 500 f5.6).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Who has not used it, does not know: EF-S 55-250mm has very fast autofocus, and greatly outperforms the EF 70-300USM.

We must stop the myth that "STM is always slow". This bias comes from those who only used the pancakes or 50mm STM.


----------



## danfaz (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> . and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do..



Possibly equal 200mm compared to Canon? My experience with Tamron zooms is they fall short of the same focal length as the equivalent Canon zoom.


----------



## Refurb7 (Feb 19, 2018)

But why put the zoom ring on the outside, further from the camera body? This is the opposite of what Canon does on its 70-200. And it seems less practical to have it out there.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 19, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> I’m fairly sure Tamron knows roughly inifinity times better what sort of lenses are better business-wise than Random CR Commenter #85549 :
> 
> > smaller
> > better in low light
> ...


yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.
> ...


 Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> But why put the zoom ring on the outside, further from the camera body? This is the opposite of what Canon does on its 70-200. And it seems less practical to have it out there.



Due to optical design most likely. They have to be mechanically coupled to the corresponding lens groups...


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.



Random consumers usually know what _they_ want. Unfortunately, often they think they're a representative sample of the general target audience even if they aren't. They're generalizing from a single data point (themselves). Large companies have many many more data points, both by having already sold a shitload of goods and by spending money on market studies. It's not that every product by every company is always a success, of course. But _a priori_ they certainly know what they're doing better than random internet commentariat.

The EF 70-200 f/4 USM is a _very_ popular lens and commonly thought to be one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses Canon sells. The 70-200mm f/4 IS USM is also very well regarded and popular among the crowd who want a high quality tele without the huge extra bulk of an f/2.8 version. F/4 is plenty enough for even many professional purposes.


----------



## Talys (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



"better" in low light can mean different things to different people. One thing that often gets overlooked when comparing 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 is that when using OVF, f/2.8 _always_ has superior autofocus, and the viewfinder will always be brighter, than f/4.

For a lot of people, 70-200 is a portrait lens, and if you're using it indoors with flash, 2.8 AF just performs better that way. Unlike 24-70 and 16-35, you don't need to choose between image stabilization and aperture, so the only downside of the 2.8 is size/weight. I think that this just isn't an issue for a lot of photoghraphers because they've gotten used to body + 1.5kg.





Sharlin said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.
> ...



Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?



My educated guess is: same price bracket as the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. My bet is between $600 and $700. $500 is too low; $800 too high.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 19, 2018)

If the price can come down to around that for the non-IS Canon f/4, that's a really solid move. The f/4 with IS is already close enough to newer lenses that I doubt Tamron could really better it _enough_ to compete at the same price point, but undercutting the IS f/4 and completely overshadowing the non-IS f/4 would be a great move.


----------



## SkynetTX (Feb 19, 2018)

I'd like to buy a telephoto zoom this summer (mostly for landscapes of distant subjects) and if this one will be better in any aspect (more sharpness, less CA, less focus breathing) than the 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 I will probably buy this. At this focal range even f/4 is fast enough for most purposes and provides great background blur. I don't really care about the extra 10 mm of this one but would probably be interested in a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens or something similarly small, lightweight and relatively fast.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



With this one, it probably is 210mm..... not quite sure where I read it, but I think the 70-200F4 is really 185 or 190mm....


----------



## rh18 (Feb 19, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?
> ...



I was thinking $799 but I noticed in the leaked photos that it only has 1 VC mode and no focus limiter (or so it appears), so they probably are targeting more like $600-700.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 19, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.



Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes [sic] comment like this[?]

Maybe they think this is an area they can MAKE MONEY? Maybe the extra 10mm made the lens easier to design? Maybe you ought to stop trying to think about things, it's clearly too hard for you.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2018)

If it's priced anywhere near the OG 70-200L and gets the usual thumbs up from say Bryan and our man Dustin, I'm in.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 20, 2018)

70-210 reminds me of the original Vivitar 70-210 Series One lens of 1973 or so. This was the first lens that claimed to be computer designed to allow superior performance than the zooms of the time.

As for the actual FL at the long end, it seems that most lenses are quite casual as to the accuracy of the rating.


----------



## diness (Feb 20, 2018)

This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.

If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2018)

diness said:


> This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
> 
> If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!



Welcome to the CR Forum!


----------



## diness (Feb 20, 2018)

slclick said:


> diness said:
> 
> 
> > This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
> ...



Thanks! I have watched CR for quite awhile, just never commented on anything!


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 20, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.



It’s their version of going to 11.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 20, 2018)

B&H lists the following prices:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens: $599
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens: $1,149
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens: $1,299
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens: $1,949

So the way I see it. It will sit below the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM in price for sure.
If we do the math... the Tamron F2.8 offers the same features as the Canon whilst being one third cheaper.
One third cheaper than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens is about $759... we'll see what happens.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 20, 2018)

rh18 said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > My educated guess is: same price bracket as the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. My bet is between $600 and $700. $500 is too low; $800 too high.
> ...



Also remember that from the looks of it the tripod collar is going to be an optional accessory, as with the 100-400mm. Should drive the price down nicely.


----------



## snoke (Feb 20, 2018)

Tamron 15-30/2.8 and Pentax 15-30/2.8 almost identical.
Pentax need cheap zooms. New Pentax lens soon?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

diness said:


> This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
> 
> If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!



It is a wonderful lens, one of the “must have” lenses..... a great combination of quality/price/size..... but you are right about the noise, the IS on the lens is about the loudest I have ever heard on any lens. Tamron has the opportunity here to come out with a better lens at a lower price. I hope it is compatible with the docking station..... that introduces the ability for firmware updates for future compatibility and if it has similar AFMA to the 150-600 G2, superior AFMA to Canon.

BTW, welcome to CR


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 20, 2018)

diness said:


> This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
> 
> If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!



I own and often use the Tamron 15-30, 24-70 (G1), and 70-200 (G1) F2.8 lenses for video. Picked them up over the Canon because of IS/VC, then added the 70-200 (G1) to match the others.

My biggest issue with Tamron lenses is lack of in-camera lens corrections, or non-functional lens corrections, specifically peripheral illumination correction. The vignetting can be a problem with these lenses and is generally harder to fix with video (than shooting RAW and fixing in Lightroom/Photoshop). If you're using for photos, these are great lenses. If there was a reliable way to enable in-camera lens corrections, they would be great for video as well.

If Canon ever released a 24-70 F2.8 with IS, I would likely change everything over.


----------



## Talys (Mar 5, 2018)

Generally speaking, on the 70-200 focal length, I prefer the f/2.8 despite the significant size/weight difference -- ironically not for the f/2.8, as I'll often stop down to f/4 anyways... but for the better/faster autofocus that a wider aperture affords.

There are many situations indoors when it's not as bright, and f/2.8 focuses noticeably more confidently than f/4, and for patio birding, if it's a bit overcast, f/2.8 makes a huge difference.



bsbeamer said:


> My biggest issue with Tamron lenses is lack of in-camera lens corrections, or non-functional lens corrections, specifically peripheral illumination correction. The vignetting can be a problem with these lenses and is generally harder to fix with video (than shooting RAW and fixing in Lightroom/Photoshop).



I've always wondered about this, but I barely ever record videos, so I've never taken the time to research it. 

The only video I've ever made on my 80D was of a heron "fishing" using a Sigma 150-600, the vignetting was, well, pretty much what you'd expect from an uncorrected telephoto (looks silly). Is there any way to correct this "automatically" in post?



bsbeamer said:


> If Canon ever released a 24-70 F2.8 with IS, I would likely change everything over.



IIRC, the rumor is Canon is field testing two models of 24-70/2.8 IS  I would purchase that lens in a heartbeat too.


----------

