View Full Version : First review I've seen for the Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD in Nikon mount
And unfortunately, not one to inspire a lot of confidence.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f2-8_Di_VC_USD/
Perhaps this was just a bad copy, but then that doesn't say a lot about Tamron's quality control.
arthurking83
28-04-2013, 1:33am
I've seen others that are even less flattering.
But something of note with respect to the perfomance of the Tammy v the Nikon VRII ... the Tammy images all look better at f/2.8but excluding the 200mm shot)
I reckon there's an issue with this copy of the Tammy at 200mm.
I am now having a serious look at the Nikon 70-200mm f4.
It reviews very well, is a grand cheaper, has the latest incarnation of VR, and is lighter.
OK, I lose one 'f' stop and it doesn't have the 'Pro' build, but the Sigma 150mm f2.8 I have sits in the middle of it's range and should cover that need on most occasions.
One of my main requirements from this lens was the VR, and the f4 alternative will fill that requirement nicely.
I am now having a serious look at the Nikon 70-200mm f4.
It reviews very well, is a grand cheaper, has the latest incarnation of VR, and is lighter.
OK, I lose one 'f' stop and it doesn't have the 'Pro' build, but the Sigma 150mm f2.8 I have sits in the middle of it's range and should cover that need on most occasions.
One of my main requirements from this lens was the VR, and the f4 alternative will fill that requirement nicely.
I like mine. It has decent build quality and great VR and takes a nice photo. It's also half the size and weight of its 2.8 cousin which means I tend to put it in the camera bag without having to think about it. :)
I like mine. It has decent build quality and great VR and takes a nice photo. It's also half the size and weight of its 2.8 cousin which means I tend to put it in the camera bag without having to think about it. :)
Cheers MrQ.
The size and the VR are most appealing.
And unfortunately, not one to inspire a lot of confidence.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f2-8_Di_VC_USD/
Perhaps this was just a bad copy, but then that doesn't say a lot about Tamron's quality control.
Kevin, I would pay much if any attention to that "review" as the individual that did it is a bit of a gear head, self proclaimed "expert" who in reality has rather little photographic experience and even less lens technical knowledge.
On another forum where he was trying to present his "findings" on a new Nikon lens, a man who does happen to know a thing or two about Nikon lenses (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html)answered him directly with the words "of course, anyone can claim to being a lens reviewer" :D
I also wouldn't be worried about Tamrons quality control, no worse or no better overall than anyone else really when all is said and done.
Mind you, your ideals with the Nikon F/4 version are to be admired as it does seem to be a very handy lens.
I reckon there's an issue with this copy of the Tammy at 200mm.
I'm with you.
The reality is that the "reviewer" is probably too busy measurebating over something else and forgot that minor triviality with that lens. :D
Thanks for the reply Andrew.
Firstly, the 70-200 f4 is no cheap alternative. At around $1257, grey market, (DWI) and without a tripod collar ($200) it is, I think, pretty expensive, and dearer than the Tamron and Sigma offerings. DWI have the Nikon f2.8 @ $1975.
The big attraction for me is the latest VR and 850gms, as opposed to around 1500gms for the f2.8's.
I can see it being a useful portrait lens, and also fulfilling my need for a walk-around lens as well.
I've had three Sigma lens (105/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 for Pentax, and now the 150/2.8) and all were excellent for my uses. I'm just trying to cut down the weight a bit, although @ $939 the Siggy 2.8 would leave me heaps of change for a set of dumbbells.
arthurking83
29-04-2013, 8:28pm
While for the most part, I agree with Andrew on this particular reviewer(his name is Tom on another forum) .. I still think his results may be true and correct for this particular lens .. and hence why I mentioned that this is almost certain to be a defect for his lens.
My older cheaper and supposedly less inferior T 70-200/2.8 definitely has better contrast and resolution than this test shows for this lens, and I highly doubt that Tamron would risk losing an increasingly strengthening reputation with such a lens too.
These things happen, and hopefully this one is an exception rather than a rule.
At the moment, I'm also thinking that at just under $2K the VRII appears to be the best value for money lens in this range .. even better than the currently too expensive 70-200/4.
When the 70-200/4 comes down to 1K without collar and about $1100-1200 with, then I reckon it'll present better value for money.
That extra stop of light gathering power shouldn't be underestimated(I reckon).
You don't need the tripod collar for the f4.
If you NEED f2.8 then the Tamron seems a good option, otherwise you should take a closer look at the Nikon f4. The convenience factor was what sold me on it.
You don't need the tripod collar for the f4.
Sorry MrQ but, if you intend to photograph other than hand held, think a landscape at 3 second exposure, then a tripod and a collar are something that you will definitely appreciate, if not NEED.
Perhaps you should think beyond purely what floats your boat the most and towards what others may do with their gear. :)
For me, I guess it is important to know that if I'm forking out around $1500 for a lens, the Tamron, I need to be assured that it doesn't have any problems, inherent or perceived.
And the more I look at the equation, the more I feel that the Nikon f4 is grossly overpriced in comparison to the f2.8 version.
My main requirement for this lens is to fill a gap in my line-up, specifically for a lens with VR, OS or whatever, in the 70-200mm range, with a tripod mount included.
I keep looking at the Sigma, under $1000, and the main gripe I've come across is that it is a little softer at the edges and corners than the two Nikons. Possibly won't be a problem with what I will use it for. It certainly doesn't seem to lose anything in comparison with the Tamron, and it's a lot less $'s.
So, we have these choices:
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 Around $2000..................... Undisputed as the best of the bunch
Nikon 70-200 f4 Around $1600 with collar....... Cant justify the asking price, lose 1 'f' stop
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Around $1450 .................... Unknown quality
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Around $1000 .................. Can't find a lot of criticism other than it's not OEM (?)
I'm no rocket scientist, but the decision is starting to look like a 'no-brainer'.
arthurking83
29-04-2013, 10:04pm
Maybe some of us are a bit old fashioned, but a 180mm lens weighing nearly a kilo .... I reckon Nikon allowed the option of a tripod collar for a pretty good reason.
Maybe some folks don't need (or want) it .. but others do.
And on that topic, I doubt that Nikon's overpriced tripod collar would be as good as the high quality aftermarket versions that I'm sure will abound soon enough.
So on reflection Nikon's decision not to include one may even be a good thing.
I still reckon this lens is too expensive tho. Compare it to Canon's 70-200/4 pricing which is usually about $200 (or more) cheaper.
I think because this lens is still quite new, it probably has about $200 worth of discounting yet to come in the coming months or year.
Maybe some of us are a bit old fashioned, but a 180mm lens weighing nearly a kilo .... I reckon Nikon allowed the option of a tripod collar for a pretty good reason.
Maybe some folks don't need (or want) it .. but others do.
And on that topic, I doubt that Nikon's overpriced tripod collar would be as good as the high quality aftermarket versions that I'm sure will abound soon enough.
So on reflection Nikon's decision not to include one may even be a good thing.
I still reckon this lens is too expensive tho. Compare it to Canon's 70-200/4 pricing which is usually about $200 (or more) cheaper.
I think because this lens is still quite new, it probably has about $200 worth of discounting yet to come in the coming months or year.
I agree totally Arthur.
I am one who does need a tripod collar. I use my tripod most of the time, my hands not being as steady as they were.
Dollar-wise, the Nikon f4 just doesn't add up. And I agree that it's price will probably drop, but then I'm not getting any younger either.
While it would be nice to have all the OEM gear, as an enthusiastic amateur I don't think I'll see any appreciable difference in my shots 95% of the time.
Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS in my garage. Love it for what I do. Great value for money. It's a keeper for me until I win enough lotto ;)
arthurking83
29-04-2013, 11:11pm
..... It's a keeper for me until I win enough lotto ;)
Hey! Ian.
You need to promise that if you do win lotto, one of your priorities in about 8 years time is to get the newly released(for when it comes)..... D7!
(it'll complete your sig perfectly)
Done Arthur! Actually, I'm saving now for it ;)
Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS in my garage. Love it for what I do. Great value for money. It's a keeper for me until I win enough lotto ;)
Cheers Ian.
And the operative words in your post being
Love it for what I do My sentiments exactly.
Sorry MrQ but, if you intend to photograph other than hand held, think a landscape at 3 second exposure, then a tripod and a collar are something that you will definitely appreciate, if not NEED.
Do you not have a tripod mount on the bottom of your camera?
The 70-200 f/4 is the same length and weight as my 28-300mm lens - and I'm sure nobody would suggest you NEED a tripod collar for that one. It's also about the same weight as most of the DSLRs it's likely being attached to, so you're not preventing any stress on the lens mount by attaching the tripod to the lens instead of the camera body.
If you WANT a tripod collar for the f4 that's fine, but there really is no need to add it to the lens price when you're comparing it.
Do you not have a tripod mount on the bottom of your camera?
The 70-200 f/4 is the same length and weight as my 28-300mm lens - and I'm sure nobody would suggest you NEED a tripod collar for that one. It's also about the same weight as most of the DSLRs it's likely being attached to, so you're not preventing any stress on the lens mount by attaching the tripod to the lens instead of the camera body.
If you WANT a tripod collar for the f4 that's fine, but there really is no need to add it to the lens price when you're comparing it.
MrQ, that's what I love about this forum.
When you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees, someone invariably gives you a nudge to wake you up.
What you say makes perfect sense. Hanging an 850gm lens off a camera and grip combo weighing around 1kg seems a smarter option than doing it the other way around.
I really do like the sound of the Nikon 70-200 f4 and it is back in the fray.
Cheers
Kevin
Do you not have a tripod mount on the bottom of your camera?
Yes. And they are there on each body we own for a good reason and that is to attach the body to a tripod (usually with a dedicated mounting plate ) when using shortish focal length lenses.
The 70-200 f/4 is the same length and weight as my 28-300mm lens - and I'm sure nobody would suggest you NEED a tripod collar for that one. It's also about the same weight as most of the DSLRs it's likely being attached to, so you're not preventing any stress on the lens mount by attaching the tripod to the lens instead of the camera body.
Actually stress points being aggravated by having a telephoto lens totally unsupported by anything other than the camera / lens mount wasn't in my mind when I typed about the need for a tripod collar on a long lens under certain scenarios but seeing as you brought it up ----
The lens in question has a ( manufacturers figures ) weight of 850g and the body we are considering mounting it to in this thread has a weight of approx 850g. That to me is a very similar weight for both unless I am very much mistaken.
Now, when we go back a few years, in my case about 100 or so, since we were supposedly educated at school I distinctly remember the theory of leverage and the effects that the phenomenon has on the ability of reasonably short lengths of material to exert quite large forces upon other material depending on a thing called a fulcrum point.
Strangely enough, when Nikon design their lenses and tripod collars ( sometimes better than others, sometimes much worse ) they manage to get the tripod foot / tripod matching point somewhere near a point of balance with an average body that would be used with that lens attached. That is, they design the whole shebang so that neither the body hanging off the lens or the lens hanging of the body will exert undue stress on the matching bit due to the leverage exerted by a fulcrum point that allows such leverage to be applied.
The first thing that Nikon service check when they have camera bodies with suspect focus issues is the lens mounting plate as it is the greatest cause of focus errors with Nikon bodies. The reason that it is so? Because people have mounted lenses on bodies and exerted too much pressure on the lens mount by either mounting the camera to a tripod with a long lens hanging off it, picking the camera up by the body when they have a long lens hanging off it or by otherwise stressing the mounting point.
It is not the actual weight of the lens alone that is the issue, it is how that weight is distributed when attached to a camera that causes damage.
See leverage and fulcrum points and the forces that can be multiplied when levering an object.
See also how Nikon recommend that you handle and mount lenses and cameras.
See also the writings of one guy (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html) who happens to know a little about lenses, cameras and science in general on the subject.
But I digress, my original recommendation for a dedicated tripod collar on a long lens was in relation to long to extreme length exposures and the effect that vibration can have on IQ. Vibration is a funny thing in that it can be both exaggerated and diminished by mounting points, leverage and the materials used in the construction of all parts of the equation, ie, camera body, lens, tripod mount collar, tripod head and the tripod itself.
Common wisdom suggests that overall vibration is kept at bay best with cameras and long lenses when an appropriate mounting system is used that does not allow leverage to influence the results.
That is one very good reason that camera and lens manufacturers as well as dedicated mounting specialists such as Kirk and RRS produce tripod collars.
If you WANT a tripod collar for the f4 that's fine, but there really is no need to add it to the lens price when you're comparing it.
I wasn't adding it to the lens price and I am the last person that would be recommending that anyone should purchase the Nikon tripod foot for that lens when it can almost be guaranteed that the speciality mounting manufacturers will have a better option at a cheaper price on the market in good time.
A most comprehensive and thoughtful discourse Andrew.
Now my enlightenment of the laws of Physics dates back to the 1950's and may be a little rusty, more likely very rusty, but would not the fulcrum point in the camera/lens equation be the lens mounting point.
Irrespective of where the tripod collar sits on the lens, you still have the total unsupported weigh of the camera body hanging off the mounting plate. I always assumed the balancing point was more to do with exactly that, balance, so you were not placing a front or back heavy set-up over a tripod head.
From a stress point of view, as I said above, it seems the better option to have 850gm unsupported, than the 1.3kg that my D600 + grip weighs. (I just weighed them)
What is the unknown here is how that combination will balance on my tripod, and whether it causes any unwanted additional vibration.
PS: The whole purpose of this exercise is to get a VR lens that's not too heavy, to use when hand-holding is required.
PPS: This is starting to make my head hurt.
Rattus79
30-04-2013, 3:32pm
I'm another happy Sigma 70-200 2.8 owner, although, mine's the older non os version since I'm a pentax shooter, it's just not necessary.
It is a little soft at 200, but from everything I read comparing it to the tammy, the tammy was supposed to be sharper, but slower to focus as it was a screw drive focus system. I'm not sure if they have an SDM (or whatever your proprietary brand calls it) version yet though.
I'm another happy Sigma 70-200 2.8 owner, although, mine's the older non os version since I'm a pentax shooter, it's just not necessary.
It is a little soft at 200, but from everything I read comparing it to the tammy, the tammy was supposed to be sharper, but slower to focus as it was a screw drive focus system. I'm not sure if they have an SDM (or whatever your proprietary brand calls it) version yet though.
I had the same model with my now departed K5 and loved it.
Irrespective of where the tripod collar sits on the lens, you still have the total unsupported weigh of the camera body hanging off the mounting plate. I always assumed the balancing point was more to do with exactly that, balance, so you were not placing a front or back heavy set-up over a tripod head.
+1 ... in fact, if you're looking at the foot as the fulcrum then you actually have the weight of half the lens balancing against the other half + the camera. Not a great situation for minimising vibration. And the entire camera weight is still hanging off the mount putting stress on the lens mount.
I have a feeling this is one of those "UV filter for lens protection" arguments. If you WANT a foot for a particular lens then by all means get one - they're a great idea for large, heavy lenses. It doesn't change the fact that it's not NEEDED for this particular lens and shouldn't be factored into the cost.
Irrespective of where the tripod collar sits on the lens, you still have the total unsupported weigh of the camera body hanging off the mounting plate. I always assumed the balancing point was more to do with exactly that, balance, so you were not placing a front or back heavy set-up over a tripod head.
From a stress point of view, as I said above, it seems the better option to have 850gm unsupported, than the 1.3kg that my D600 + grip weighs. (I just weighed them)
Kevin, it is all to do with the amount of leverage exerted by the objects whether supported by a collar or supported by the camera body.
The actual lens mount is designed to support a load optimally with both mating surfaces in a vertical orientation. Of course it will support loads at all angles but by increasing overhang and subsequently leverage, the stress factor is magnified.
BTW, adding a grip to the body raises the centre of gravity, increases leverage angle and introduces more joints that can magnify vibration ( or maybe help dampen it ) and is not generally regarded as a sound move.
As a rough and ready example, where in the picture below is the most bending movement going to occur at the lens / camera mount? The tripod collar mounted example or at the camera body mounted example?
The actual "weak point" being the lens / camera mount joints between the load and fulcrum in both examples but with equal weights on either end of that joint one has more ability to exert leverage due to overhang.
This may or may not in line with the ability of the camera / lens combination to resist strain on that joint ( Nikon engineers know the figures, I don't ) but i will prefer to er on the safe side and stick to the makers advise to use a tripod collar on longish lenses.
Of course, all of this ties in with vibrations and harmonics and once again I feel that for most occasions the shorter overhang or more centralised mass will aid the quest for vibration free photography.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/lens%20mount.png
Andrew, many thanks for taking the time to give this old fart a quick update of the laws of Physics pertaining to levers and fulcrums.
Your diagram, plus a quick look at Wikipedia, clearly demonstrated the extra load exerted on the lens mount with the camera mounted on it's base. It also indicated that with all that weight in front of the balance point, the chance for extra vibration would be magnified. I guess that is why the collar is usually to the rear of the lens, depending of course on the lens configuration.
I really like the idea of the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR as a walk around lens, but I also know most of my shooting will be with a tripod.
I've been doing some numbers, as you do often when you are an OAP with an expensive hobby, and if I flick my Sigma 150/f2.8 and matching 1.4
T/C, I'll be around half way to the cost of this bit of kit.
Decisions, decisions.
Again, thank you for your time and patience.
Lance B
30-04-2013, 7:52pm
The Tammy 70-200 gets a good write up on Lens Rentals.
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/telephoto/tamron-70-200mm-f2.8-sp-di-vc-usd-for-nikon
arthurking83
30-04-2013, 11:13pm
+1 ... in fact, if you're looking at the foot as the fulcrum then you actually have the weight of half the lens balancing against the other half + the camera. Not a great situation for minimising vibration. And the entire camera weight is still hanging off the mount putting stress on the lens mount.....
Maybe you have a different understanding of how tripod collars work, and none of mine work in this way, they're usually more like 2/3(front biased) 1/3(rear biased) .. but more importantly is that you don't attach the tripod collar directly to the tripod head. You generally attach it via a quick release plate, and this plate will be x mm long(where x = your preferred length).
the mere fact that this plate may have some length to it can mean that you now have the option to slide the camera/lens combo fore aft to balance the combination on your tripod properly.
This balance is what helps in minimizing undue force on the mount.
Going with your description, non or not many lenses would have tripod collars.. and lens makers would prefer all their lenses to hang out in front of the camera such as they will with the 70-200/4 minus tripod collar.
(Note too tho that I usually recommend against the Manfrotto RC2/RC4 type fixed QR plates, and this is part of the reason for that .. amongst other reasons).
..... It doesn't change the fact that it's not NEEDED for this particular lens and shouldn't be factored into the cost.
It should if the discussion is trying to maintain some semblance of like for like.
if a tripod collar exists at all, even if this is in the form of an optional extra, then you need to compare like for like .. and the fact is that a Tammy 70-200 and Siggy 70-200 all come with a tripod collar too.
Irrespective of your opinion on the usefulness of the tripod collar, your opinion only means something for your purpose(unless you have scientific data to prove your ideas) . so in a like for like comparison, the lack of a tripod collar is a negative point for the F/4 lens. Add $200 to the price for a better understanding of the value for money factor.
FWIW: The Canon mount version of the Tammy VC lens is now listed for $1100 on ebay(free postage) .. and I also noticed the Nikon mount version from the same DeeDuubUEye seller for $1999!!! :eek:
I reckon in a few months time the Nikon version will be selling closer to the Canon version(it has too, otherwise it'll fail against the Sigma) .. and if/when this does happen, I'll become more interested in it again.
At the moment, the Nikon VRII seems to be the better option overall.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.