User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 mini review - Nikon mount

  1. #1
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 mini review - Nikon mount

    LOL! Rick said you have to use the full name of the product in the title description.. if you are pedantic and need it all.. you're going to have to wait all night, as I'm a rather slow typist(ie. it's a very long product name!! )

    OK. IQ is fantastic, build quality is great, AF is.....

    AF is good. A lot has been said of the slowness of this particular lens to auto focus and even mentions of 'loud'(I read somewhere??.. I'll try to track that down too.)

    I think the issue here is that those people are using those ring type ultrasonic motor type lenses as comparisons to the 'poor ol Tammy' ... quite unfair I reckon as it's in reality a screw driven lens.. BUT with an inbuilt micro motor to focus automatically with the AF-S only Nikons.. hence on Tamrons site they state that this lens has 'BIM' which I presume is Built In Motor, but only in Nikon mount.. that is(if someone else can confirm this) all other mounts may rely on screw driven focusing method.
    How this affects other mount types I don't know, but I only have a Nikon mount version and I can tell 'yas all that focus is not slow! It;s not slower when compared to most other screw driven lenses and is on par with the 80-200/2.8 AF-D(there's an AF-S version of that lens, so we're not confusing the issue!!).

    Quick note!! I have seen a comment from someone, somewhere(and not necessarily on here) that this lens is loud in it's focus noise... maybe that's true if you are listening for church mouses.. but compared with the screw driven 80-200Nikon.. it seems quieter in general.. but about on par with that lens. I think the comment is hardly worth the effort... it's definitely not ZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!! loud... it sounds about normal to me and I have many screw driven lenses and couple of AF-S/HSM lenses. ultrasonic type AF systems as almost whisper quiet.. when you compare them with any non ultrasonic lens ... the non ultrasonic lens is always going to sound louder!

    As for the slow to focus issue???
    Maybe the comment are for non Nikon cameras.. so I went out to play with it tonight on the D70s(which is less able than the D300 in the AF department) and I found no real issue to complain about!
    While AF occasionally did stutter or not initiate immediately it wasn't in general terms.. anything to worry about!
    In fact so much so, that I think the comments about the Tamron's slowness to focus are all a beat up. Yeah, yeah.. a 70-200VR?HSM/SSM or whatever is going to focus faster.. it damned well should, and if it wasn't perfect every single time you wanted AF!!! I'd be taking it back to the dealer and asking for my (approx) $2K more .. back.. and investing in a better body and this Tammy!!

    I've used a Nikon 70-200VR briefly and I do remember it being blazingly quick. that was over two years ago tho.. and I have to say I have no regrets in accidentally getting my Tammy(even considering how much nicer I'd have been to have the VR and AF-S.. as I'm a sucker for AF-S)

    So I tried to nail a specific situation where the Tammy may be a liability in it's ability to AF for a given situation.. and I basically found nothing that other lenses wouldn't have done in the same circumstances.. I thought maybe low light was the issue or that a specific camera was the issue.. maybe the comments are for the screw driven lens mounts only.. so the D70s was chosen as it's set up for single shot AF mode(I have the D300 set to continuous) it was low light so some images appear noisy, and I'll try to explain as best I can when I had issues what happened...


    No issues! Single shot focused from near to 'spot on' in micro seconds. Single shot clicked and the shot nailed(as best I could). If anyone had experienced this AF speed and complained that it was slow.. they need to have their camera gear revoked!! I can imagine faster AF, but we'd only be measuring hundredths of a second.. of course that could be an important spec, if you photograph ballistic projectiles at the point of exiting long metallic barrels!!


    100% crop of above. Focus was spot on.. handheld technique was sloppy and not very well controlled and rushed.. but it serves the point that this lens is both sharp contrasty and fast and accurate in focusing.


    here we had problems! I couldn't for the life of me get the lens to misfocus at all light was relatively low(exif : ISO640, 200mm, 1/60s, f/4) 100% crop looks noisy so I cropped to 50%.
    Remember 200mm and 1/60s!! my technique is not 100% perfect at the best of times but three frames in sequence saw that at least 1 image was presentable, considering the light conditions.


    50% crop. I defocused and refocused may times trying to get this lens to misfocus or become slow to focus or even to procrastinate about focusing at all.. but it just focused perfectly time and again.. so I took three shots to confirm that it wasn't just being lazy in pretending to have focused. it actually focused each time spot on(I hope??)

    BUT!!


    It did stutter! It wouldn't lock focus on this shot for a long time. Not much I could do to coax it into focusing on the flower stem here.. eventually I did manage to get it to focus but it was painfully slow. Reason! the background was very cluttered.. madly so and this image actually shows that it does a reasonable job of bokeh too. The background was mixed leaves and more stems, so the af sensor(size) was obviously confusing the lens.
    Too much clutter in the view of the AF sensor, and the lens hunts. Similar to the situation where you have no contrast to detect.. point your lens at a blank white wall in low-ish light and that's basically what happened here(but the opposite) too much contrast to detect and the lens and AF system didn't know which one to choose. Lens did focus, but usually on the background clutter. This test was to see if I could get it to differentiate what exactly I wanted to focus on.. eventually I did with small half presses to creep the focus point closer.


    and again!!
    I had trouble focusing on the coiled up section of the antenna. Wonder why??

    It's silhouetted against the power pole and of course every now and then it would focus on my chosen point but would once again return back to the power pole..
    also the chosen AF point was one on the side which doesn't have cross sensors only the vertical sensor... reality is that it should have focused correctly as this sensor point(orientation) was perpendicular to subject.

    My understanding of the best use of a sensor(where sensors are orientated like | or like _ ... if your sensor is perpendicular to the subject, or contrast or detail in the subject matter then AF is likely to be easier to achieve. where the sensor is a cross type looking like this + it doesn't matter. With the majority of bodies the center sensor is cross type and the peripheral sensors are vertical types. Higher end bodies have more cross types.

    SO when I moved an inch to the right ...


    Af was spot on and quick to reacquire every time... once again I defocused(manually) and auto focused. Each time was quick(less than a second.. in other words almost immeasurable).

    Does the Tammy 70-200/2.8 have any focus issues.. nup!! Not that I can see with my usage. Maybe against the $2K supersonic competition, it may seem that way, but the reality is that it doesn't. It's a good lens with great IQ.

    My only complaint is that the tripod foot is 'taller' than the old 80-200/2.8 and therefore when hand holding and the most natural way to hold the lens is to cup the tripod foot in the palm of your hand.. well I have a Manfrotto RC5 QR plate and it digs deep(the corner) into my palm and feels uncomfy after a few mins.
    Tripod collar is removable and as I use a tripod most of the time anyhow(except in these samples ).

    Any reservations??? NUP! it;s a good lens.. will keep up with my kids 'bouncing across the room' just as the 80-200/2.8 did. Maybe an occasional missed shot, but that happens anyhow regardless of lens(usually known as 'operator error')

    whaddya reckon out of 10 as a points score??

    I reckon if you want a good value fast telezoom.. get it.. no more questions!
    if you want the best.... then save your pennies and get the best(shouldn't have wasted your time reading this )

    two caveats!
    I don;t shoot sports either on a personal or professional basis. It may or may not have focus issues in a very fast paced environment.. pointing the lens at kids on bikes zoomng this way and that is about the fastest pace I've experienced... well not exactly but you get what I mean.. occasional birds, one time an equestrian event.. and so forth.
    This lens should autofocus fine for most situations like these. That's a simple judgement based expectation going by feel rather than actual useage experience.
    If that turns out not to be true, I'll add an updated post to explain that/why.

    other caveat!! this is for Nikon mount on a D300 and D70s. D80, D200 D100 etc.. etc... should perform better than this lens has on my D70s(they have better AF systems!) How it fare on a Canon/Sony/Pentax.. I have no idea ...

    if someone could do a quick sample test by walking in to a store and at the least, checking AF performance on any other mount type.. I'd love to hear their experience.

    I was initially in two minds about trying this lens based on the 'slow to focus reports' .. I can tell 'ya it's bogus!!

    next Melb meet I will demand ... that the other Nikon owners at the meet try this lens and play with AF and get a general consensus on this (non) issue.

    hope this helps
    (actually I hope it makes sense?? )
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  2. #2
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very well written Arthur,

    Certainly cannot complain about the IQ.

    The AF issues that you highlighted would be expected in the situations you described.
    I think it is time to lay down some hard earned ??
    Smoke Alarms Save Lives, Install One Today
    I shoot Canon
    Cheers, Mark


  3. #3
    Member chylld's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks arthur for the review... my first post here, i'm in the market for a fast tele for my d90 so this is quite helpful for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    ...
    It did stutter! It wouldn't lock focus on this shot for a long time. Not much I could do to coax it into focusing on the flower stem here.. eventually I did manage to get it to focus but it was painfully slow.
    ...
    and again!!
    I had trouble focusing on the coiled up section of the antenna.
    ...
    Does the Tammy 70-200/2.8 have any focus issues.. nup!! Not that I can see with my usage.
    ??? And I thought Ken Rockwell contradicted himself alot! Mate, no offense, but you clearly had AF issues with the lens that other lenses most probably wouldn't have.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    will keep up with my kids 'bouncing across the room' just as the 80-200/2.8 did. Maybe an occasional missed shot, but that happens anyhow regardless of lens(usually known as 'operator error')
    Sounds like I'll be skipping over the Tamron 70-200 and heading straight for the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D. After the Nikkor 70-200 it's apparently the best there is in this class, and definitely doesn't have the same AF issues as the Tamron.

    DPReview also compared the Tamron 70-200 against the Sigma 70-200 and reported that the Tamron struggled to keep up in continuous AF mode. I don't have anything against Tamron here (have a screw-drive 28-75/2.8 and macro 90mm myself) but there's clearly a trend here wrt Tamron built-in motor AF performance.

  4. #4
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have read several (can't remember them all, but did read the DPReview one) "industry" reviews and actual real life reviews (like Arthurs) The industry reviews are all pretty harsh on the AF but the real life users are mostly saying that it is a bit of a beat up and is not as bad as some of the reviews would have you believe.

    Nobody is criticising the IQ, which is a big plus for me

    Certainly seems that as a Value for Money lens this will be hard to go past.

    I laid down the hard earned this morning at a red hot price, so will post up a Canon users views when i get in my hands.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mark

    It's interesting the point you raise about the difference in reviews between say DPR and real users

    I might be throwing the cat here, but I'd suggest those buying the Tamron, or the Siggy for that matter, are doing it for value and not for ultimate performance and judge it accordingly, and DPR are the reverse.

    By the way, another very interesting mini preview.
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  6. #6
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Darren,

    You have probably hit the nail on the head exactly.

    For me Value for Money is more important than ultimate performance right now.
    The sports stuff I do I do for the fun of it.
    If i miss the shot this week I will just go back next time and try again, I haven't got an editor up my ribs for photos for the next edition and don't have to sell some photos this week to feed the family.

  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum!
    Threadstarter
    arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chylld View Post
    ......



    ??? And I thought Ken Rockwell contradicted himself alot! Mate, no offense, but you clearly had AF issues with the lens that other lenses most probably wouldn't have.



    .......
    LOL!

    Sounded like it, but I know from that shot of the coil and the flower(where I tried to focus on the 2mm wide stem!) my other lenses have focus issues in those circumstances too!

    My point was that AF isn't only the lenses fault as it's also user error and limited by what the camera body can see/do.

    Agree with Darren on the major point of a review.. where I concentrated mainly on value for money rather than ultimate performance(I think I implied or ever said that many times??)
    But the harsh reviews this lens has received about it's AF performance is not justified.

    Maybe it's only 80% as good as the ultimate lenses like the uber 70-200's... but you pay quite a hefty price for that privilege... and I think in 90% or more of situations that advantage isn't going to be realised.
    ie. I'd happily shoot this lens as a sports/event lens if that's what I had... but of course if it were indeed lacking and I was missing shots.. I'd update to the real thing in a heartbeat too.

    Sorry chylld, but I didn't contradict myself at all.. the conditions in those images where I pointed out AF issues, I've had troubles with both the Tammy 28-75(which you have?) and my 105VR(with the focus limiter on).

    If you have troubles with the 28-75mm then you'll have issues with the 70-200.. if you're happy with the 28-75, then I'm fairly sure that the 70-200 will give you the same performance that it gives me.

    Oooh! and I just remembered too.. the antenna focus test I did I used the D300 when I used my 28-75 and 105VR.. whereas I used the D70s with the 70-200!!

    As I said there can be occasional focus starting issues with this lens, and the reason some folks say it's slow is because as it nears the focus distance it stutters to attain beter focus accuracy.. the Nikon 80-200/2.8 focus at a similar speed but doesn't stutter!
    The difference between the tow is that the Tammy is spot on every time(verified with Live view at 10x magnification) the Nikon used to miss on too many occasions for me!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    True AK

    But, if someone was going to ask me whether I'd recommend any screw-driven lens as good for sport I'd have to say no - go Sigma HSM or AF-S. Especially if it's the len's primary use.

    If it's not the primary use then the great IQ and handling of the Tamron sounds excellent and on par with any other glass out there.

  9. #9
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well done AK, we will get you a job on DPreview yet.

    chylld, funnily enough, today when I was having a play with a manual focus 180mm Nikkor, my own Sigma 70-200 and a Nikkor 70-200 VR, the exact same issues that Arthur experienced occurred with both the auto focus lenses so I don't think the Tamron is alone in that dept. And by the way, your web site is broken, I only got as far as the front page and then just a blank pop up.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  10. #10
    Member chylld's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    Sorry chylld, but I didn't contradict myself at all.. the conditions in those images where I pointed out AF issues, I've had troubles with both the Tammy 28-75(which you have?) and my 105VR(with the focus limiter on).
    I guess it depends on your interpretation of an "issue". For me, "painfully slow" and "wouldn't lock focus" are issues, if they aren't for you, then no problem

    MarkChap makes a good point in that the lens can be reviewed from either the "value for money" standpoint or the "outright performance" standpoint. Make no mistake, I would definitely like to get the Tammy for its excellent optics, but as most of my tele subjects are birds in flight (my backyard has almost a dozen different varieties) the performance has to be up to scratch.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    If you have troubles with the 28-75mm then you'll have issues with the 70-200.. if you're happy with the 28-75, then I'm fairly sure that the 70-200 will give you the same performance that it gives me.
    This is true if the 28-75 is the newer version with the built-in motor, which is actually MUCH slower to AF than the older screw-drive version (I've tried both.) I have the older version and the AF is as fast as the SWM on my 18-200VR.

    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    chylld, funnily enough, today when I was having a play with a manual focus 180mm Nikkor, my own Sigma 70-200 and a Nikkor 70-200 VR, the exact same issues that Arthur experienced occurred with both the auto focus lenses so I don't think the Tamron is alone in that dept. And by the way, your web site is broken, I only got as far as the front page and then just a blank pop up.
    It's worrying to hear that the 70-200VR has AF problems? Were you trying to 3D track a moving object?

    And not sure which website you're talking about?

  11. #11
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chylld View Post
    It's worrying to hear that the 70-200VR has AF problems? Were you trying to 3D track a moving object?
    Nope, just checking focus on 3 lenses, single point focus on all 3 as opposed to dynamic, group dynamic etc. and the problem arose on both the lenses mounted on a D700 and on a D200.

    The problem was explained by Arthur above, the lack of contrast in a fine object against a "busy" background can easily fool any focus system and I don't think of it as more of a problem with the Tamron than with any other brand lens.

  12. #12
    Member chylld's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    Nope, just checking focus on 3 lenses, single point focus on all 3 as opposed to dynamic, group dynamic etc. and the problem arose on both the lenses mounted on a D700 and on a D200.

    The problem was explained by Arthur above, the lack of contrast in a fine object against a "busy" background can easily fool any focus system and I don't think of it as more of a problem with the Tamron than with any other brand lens.
    Riteo, seems like I've been harping on about a different problem altogether then... my bad.

    Arthur, would you be able to see how well the Tammy does in 3d tracking situations? i.e. try to capture a bird in flight in burst mode and see what ratio of sharp to not-sharp shots you get? If it can do this then I'm almost sold as well...

  13. #13
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    chylld,
    In all honesty if you are after a birding lens you are going to be disapointed with the reach on a 200.

    You really want to be up around 400

  14. #14
    Member chylld's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkChap View Post
    chylld,
    In all honesty if you are after a birding lens you are going to be disapointed with the reach on a 200.

    You really want to be up around 400
    fair point, well taken.

  15. #15
    A royal pain in the bum!
    Threadstarter
    arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chylld View Post
    ....

    Arthur, would you be able to see how well the Tammy does in 3d tracking situations? i.e. try to capture a bird in flight in burst mode and see what ratio of sharp to not-sharp shots you get? If it can do this then I'm almost sold as well...
    As I said.. the lens wasn't the issue in my specific case, so it was either my bad technique(not understanding what the AF system needed) or the D300's AF system is inadequate!

    Funny you mention 3D tracking as I did that this evening(in slightly better light but still dappled shadowy light under many trees.. at about 4-5PM at my folks place.

    Tracking was fast and positive while watching my son bounce on a trampoline, and focus tracked as fast as I would expect it too while my daughter swung closer and further on the swing... read that as near instant.

    I do suspect that in hand held situations at 200mm where the operator can shake a fair amount(at least I do)... the shaky vibrating action may be causing the AF sensor to move just enough to make it seem that focus is not as positive. It seems to be more sensitive to movements than the 80-200/2.8 was.

    a side point too!! At a guess another possible advantage to having VR in lens would be that at longer focal lengths maintaining a steady image can be very hard, and thus trying to keep the focus area dead on a particular subject would also be difficult.
    I did notice that in my usual AF-C mode the focus/lens would do small micro adjustments as I couldn't maintain a steady enough lock onto the part of the subject I wanted in focus.
    This was magnified by the trampoline session.

    I'll try to post more samples, but it's not actually going to prove anything..

    I did try out all three focus modes on the D300 today, which are single point, tracking mode, and then Auto 3D tracking(not really a great fan of the Auto 3D tacking mode as I don't really understand it perfectly(but that's another point)

    In the auto tracking mode it did seem a little better than the 80-200.. but that could have been a caused by my son still wearing his bright red school top whilst bouncing on the trampoline.

    I remember my nephews doing the same a while back and I used both the 105VR and 80-200 and they both struggled(in bright mid afternoon light) but, from memory, they may have been wearing less vivid tops against the greenery in my folks yard... and it was the first time I did anything like that.

    So once again.. I'm calling the AF performance, an even showing, compared to the 80-200Nikon.

    The only thing that happened yet again.. as I first turned the camera on and began the first attempts, the lens had this weird delay to start focusing(plus the fact that I had it initially in manual focus mode(clutch pulled back! ).. but once I engaged AF mode.. it had about a 1 sec delay, before it began to focus .. once that delay was over, it zipped(quietly) from MFD to about a 5 or 6 meter focused distance in literally no time and I was snapping relatively sharp shots.

    after that.. the lens had no issue in maintaining focus tracking scared sh..less chooks(as my kids proceeded to 'terrorise them'

    (ps I only use AF in continuous mode with the help of the AF-On button.. this way I get to choose when the lens is required to focus)

    And I do agree with Darren about screw driven lenses and fast paced action though.

    if the focus requirement is to go from one end of the distance scale to the other, on a regular basis, an AF-S should be better in terms of speed and accuracy.
    Although this lens is not screw driven though, it feels as though it is.
    You never get the sometimes grindy graunchy sound that I used to hear with the 80-200.. and as I've said it does do a small stuttering dance as it nears the required focus distance.. a series of small steps as it tries to get an accurate fix. I haven't experienced that with any other lens to date.. and I don't see it as an issue, as such, as it does come up spot on every time you focus on something... maybe that's what all those references to 'slow AF' mean??


    I can't see this lens being a liability if I were to shoot racing cars(never shot racing cars 'per se' .. but have shot normal cars on normal roads at close quarters fantastically unsuccessfully as I need to practise my technique before I try that again!)
    Nor equestrian.. I'd have no problems having this lens in front of me(unless I wanted more reach).
    I've had a little experience with shooting cricket from the boundary and it should do well enough, except that you need a 200-400mm zoom for that purpose.

    never done footy(the real footy!! AFL ) or any type of sport where you may have to track two vastly spaced subjects in microseconds, so I couldn't give a comment or subjective opinion on this lenses usefulness.

    Birds!!?? It tracks them perfectly, and maintains a good focus.. but as Mark said you really want longer than 200mm.


    more than just a sample of the kind of IQ this lens reproduce.. it's to show, that even with clutter all around, the lens's ability to AF, and maintain AF isn't an issue.
    T70-200 had no issues tracking this lil fella(although handholding technique could be improved). The bird kept moving in and out of view with a lot(!!)..... I mean more than a lot of clutter between us... the area is thick with fern trees(that's why they call it Ferntree Gully ).. so I had less than a second, every second as the little darter moved about through the bush.

    maintaining a focus lock on small birdies isn't an issue either.. focal length may be!!

    ps. that's a 40% crop because it's noisy and the image specs are ISO1400, 200mm @ 1/100s, and f/4. The handholding let me down a little, and I could post the fullsize image, but there's no point other than to say that the rest of the image(cropped out part) is just OOF ferns, with massively blown highlights.

  16. #16
    Member chylld's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Feb 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the huge reply, you've boosted my confidence in the lens heaps!

    It is true that I would want >200mm for birding, however the T70-200 seems like a good fast tele that can do some birding and cover all the other tele needs sufficiently. I wonder how well it works with a TC?

    Can I ask where you got it and for how much? camerastore.com.au has the Canon version for $850!

  17. #17
    A royal pain in the bum!
    Threadstarter
    arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I got mine from Elizabeth st(here in Melb) for $900.

    They had a Tammy 18-270 with VC for $800 or so, and that's why I went in.
    Ended up trying out the 70-200 and was immediately impressed with it, as I'd heard so much about the slow focusing issue, so I wasn't expecting to get something like that.

    When it snapping into focus on a street sign I pointed at.. I thought to myself.... huh?.. is that slow?.. so I tried and tried, and couldn't see any slow focusing relative to any of my other lenses.. the 18-270 is much slower to focus but as you'd expect anyhow.. and that wasn't really for me anyhow.. but the IQ was impressive.
    I actually wanted an 80-400Nikon and would have waited a little longer... and now I'm curious to see how it does with a 1.4, 1.7 and 2x TC too.

    will work on getting all three TC's one day soon(most likely the Pro300 Kenkos), especially as I have huge gaps in the 200-300mm range and 300-400mm range.(I like to frame correctly at the time of capture).

    OK.. my mini review isn't to be taken as some kind of definitive or scientifically conclusive test. It's only a users experience by a user of other amateur lenses.. and if taken in that context then I'm sure the Tammy70-200 will not disappoint
    If you are expecting Nikon or Canon 70-200/2.8 levels of performance.. well I have no idea
    (considering my handholding technique tho... maybe a 70-200VR is more appropriate)

  18. #18
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chylld View Post
    Can I ask where you got it and for how much? camerastore.com.au has the Canon version for $850!
    Plus $16.00 freight and they had the Canon mount in stock (minus 1 now)

    They are advertising the Nikon Mount for $1149.00

    That's the best price I could find.

    Teds - http://teds.com.au - don't specify mount at $999.99

    Digital Camera Warhouse - http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.co...tegory17_1.htm - $1129.00

  19. #19
    In Training MarkChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 2008
    Location
    Widgee,
    Posts
    2,255
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well the beast is here.

    Will pop up thread with a review from a canon owners point of view in due time

  20. #20
    A royal pain in the bum!
    Threadstarter
    arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    WHOA!!!!!

    OK.. and update on this lenses problematic auto focusing issues!

    Yes it does seem to have a BIG issue with focusing, which only came to light for me yesterday.. what? .. roughly 4 weeks after I bought it!

    I (dunno Y ) but I tried to AF using Live View(on the D300) yesterday, and in about 4 or 5 attempts it just would not acquire a focus lock. It focused in/out - in/out - in/out.... and then stopped for a while at what I think was minimum focus distance or thereabouts.. way out of focus!



    No idea why, and I didn't try it with any other lens to see if this was a lens issue or camera issue.

    One day soon, hopefully if I get some free time?... I'll try it again on another subject.

    I usually don't use Live View for actually focusing, mainly to confirm focus has been acquired in testing focus accuracy(and here you were thinking Lv was useless! )

    If I'm not confident that AF has been achieved, I'll then switch to Lv and focus manually! whilst in Lv mode.. not autofocusing.

    To be sure!! If you are on a tripod and using a static scene, auto focusing with Live view is usually more accurate than Auto focusing the traditional way via the viewfinder!
    But it's dead slow and even though it's tedious manually doing so, because you usually fiddle back and forth a few times to be 100% sure yourself.... it's still usually faster for me!

    SO.. I've finally found(albeit not 100% confirmed on my lens) that there is an issue with the focusing, and to be honest I never doubted that there would be.
    But for 99% of my use, which includes dynamic scenes, but not limited to sport(eg. I was photographing passenger aircraft from approx 100meters(under the flight path at Tullamarine Arpt) and it never missed a shot, tracking with great accuracy), I'm also prone to doing occasional candid portraits, many landscapes, abstracts and all.

    The common factor I've noticed with this lenses some times focusing issues is that the subject or focus point has to fill the AF sensor nicely! If not you can have focusing issues.. I think that may have happened yesterday with the Live View issue.

    I'd curious to hear if Mark(Chap) has any Live View focusing issues(on his Canon)

    generally(that means approx 99.9% ) this lens is still surprising me with it's all round quality

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •