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

[arthurking83]

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!! :p)

OK. IQ is fantastic, build quality is great, AF is..... :confused013

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...

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8343.jpg
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!! :crzy:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8343_100%25.jpg
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.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8347.jpg
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.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8347_100%25.jpg
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??) :D

BUT!!

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8356.JPG
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.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8357.JPG
and again!!
I had trouble focusing on the coiled up section of the antenna. Wonder why?? :p

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 ...

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSC_8358.JPG
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 :p).

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 :p)

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 ... :confused013

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 :action: ... 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?? :p)

[MarkChap]

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 ??

[chylld]

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.


...
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.


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.

[MarkChap]

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.

[kiwi]

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.

[MarkChap]

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.

[arthurking83]

......



??? 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!

[kiwi]

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.

[I @ M]

Well done AK, we will get you a job on DPreview yet. :p

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.

[chylld]

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.


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.


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?

[I @ M]

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.

[chylld]

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...

[MarkChap]

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

[chylld]

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.

[arthurking83]

....

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! :p

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! :rolleyes: ).. but once I engaged AF mode.. it had about a 1 sec delay, before it began to focus :confused013 .. 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' :p

(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 :p 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 :D) 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.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/Tam70200samples/DSE_0513.jpg
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 :p).. 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.

[chylld]

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!

[arthurking83]

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 :confused:
If you are expecting Nikon or Canon 70-200/2.8 levels of performance.. well I have no idea :p
(considering my handholding technique tho... maybe a 70-200VR is more appropriate)

[MarkChap]

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.com.au/category17_1.htm - $1129.00

[MarkChap]

Well the beast is here.

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

[arthurking83]

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 :confused:) 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!

:confused013

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! :rolleyes: )

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% :p) this lens is still surprising me with it's all round quality :)

[MarkChap]

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% :p) this lens is still surprising me with it's all round quality :)

Now that you mention filling the AF sensor with the subject, the shots that I missed would have been the ones where the canoes were a long way off and they only sit inches high in the water any way so the subject would not have been filling the AF sensor :confused013

Arthur, I very rarely use live view for anything, maybe some macro stuff, to confirm framing etc, the screen on the 40D isn't exactly the best. Don't even know how to get AF to work with live view :confused013

[kiwi]

With all due respect, tracking a fast moving and predicable object like a boat or canoe that is a long way away is very different (and no real test of AF) than say a running two-year old in the back yard or a rugby player etc

[MarkChap]

Ummmm, fast moving an outrigger canoe is not,
predictable, fairly predictable, if you can judge when the waves will lift the boat, slow the boat, push the boat side ways, speed the boat up and even seem to swallow the boat at times.
If you focus on the paddler then there is the added predictability of the paddler moving backwards and forwards with each stroke as well, then there is the predictable arms and paddle swinging across the body.

But yes all in all probably a little easier to track than than a child running around the back yard. And of course the unpredictability of a 100 kg forward taking a hit up.

With all due respect of course

[kiwi]

hehe, point taken. I thought you were simply tracking a hull at a mile away based on the shots posted.

I am genuinely wanting the AF to be really good.

[arthurking83]

.....

I am genuinely wanting the AF to be really good.


:p

Well then the Tammy will disappoint!

I wouldn't call it really good, but it's not as bad as the test reports make it out to be.
Of course it does have it's various issues, and loud is certainly not one of them, slow is not an issue(but only because it seems to be as speedy as any other lens I've played with.. not that it's fast.
Sometimes sleepy!!... that is as previously mentioned, there is an occasional tendency to not start working :confused:
Have no idea on why that happens, as it's not really any particular scene/subject related matter. Just every so often, where you couldn't even put a number on it, it doesn't start focusing when you activate the AF system.
I'd place that oddity in the possible miscommunication basket where maybe there's an issue with the contacts?
I remember a time back when the 70-200VR had troubles on certain Nikon bodies and Nikon issued a firmware update for the body.
Sorry can't remember specifics.. but possibly DBS on D200??
Also I recently read that Canon's 40D has an updated firmware for issues with the Canon 85/1.2..
That seems to be more like what the issues may be with this lens, and I think most certainly fixable by Tamron once they've collected enough data to work out what the lenses electronics may need.

Even though I hardly ever use Lv and autofocus, this is definitely a problem that shouldn't exist.
I tried again last night briefly, and it just doesn't want to acquire focus lock in Lv mode using tripod mode, which is using phase detect autofocusing.

So this probably points to certain areas of inadequacy with it's AF ability, but for 99% of most uses, there is no real AF issue with this lens, as has been magnified by the internet.

[kiwi]

OK, but the biggest thing in sports use is not so much acquiring focus, but keeping locked in and tracking a fast moving erratic object in continuous focus mode

[arthurking83]

Yep, that;s what I would have thought.
I think the Tammy would be up to the task.. it seems fast enough.

I was shooting my son on the trampoline a while ago and it kept up pretty well, but of course that's bouncing up and down and in and out, so my (in)ability (and proneness to motion sickness! :D) may have been a limiting factor.
I then tracked my daughter on the swing, whilst standing in front of her less than a meter away, and it kept up OK, as she was behind the central line of the swing, but as she approached closer it lost focus(as I'd have expected considering the Nikon 80-200 did the same thing.
Trampoline session was at about 100mm swing was at 70mm(80-200 as I remember it was at 80mm :p)

I'll try to take some more test shots of the kids on their bikes one day (if they ever get back on them again??) but I suspect that the Tammy will once again perform as well as the 80-200 Nikon there too.

I'd like to say that the Live View mode is a bit of a disappointment, but I never use Lv in that manner only the other day in recent memory, where I couldn't seem to manually find the focus distance I wanted, so I tried autofocus to see if that would do the trick.
I manually focused at what I thought was sharp, but on review it seemed blurry, so I retook the shot using AF in Lv mode, and that's where I noticed that the lens hunts wildly.
It does actually almost gain a good AF lock, it slowly zips towards sharp focus, it seems to get to the sharpest point, but then for some reason it then focuses beyond that point and from what I'm noticing now forward of the correct point.
And to be sure, the lens does not have any back/front focusing issues either.

ps. One thing I deduced from the other days Lv focusing issue.. I really need a better super sturdier tripod/head! :rolleyes:

I'll post up some pics in the coming days.

[chylld]

there is no real AF issue with this lens, as has been magnified by the internet.

well i decided to actually go to the shop and try both the tammy 70-200 and the sigma 70-200 on a d90 body. very simple test, salesman walking towards the camera with the camera on burst + af-c. the tammy never scored a good shot after the start, and once even racked all the way in and out. the sigma fared much better, consistently locked AF and got the shot, a few soft ones but most of them were sharp.

if your subjects are stationary or not moving much, the tammy would be an excellent choice; but for anything that's moving significantly in terms of depth, you'd do well to look elsewhere. as i'm after an action/birding lens, the tammy doesn't cut it at all.

[MarkChap]

Well I have done the test and The Tammy works just fine on Live View on my 40D.
Let me tell you I was just a little concerned when I read Arthur's post, started wondering about warranty returns, and arguments with Maxwells etc, but now my mind is once again at ease.

I think I will now stop trying to justify my purchase to the nay sayers and just dig in and start getting some shots worthy of the lens.
Blokarts (Land Yachts) on the beach at Yeppoon this weekend

[arthurking83]

(in between playing Mr Mom, Wii and Laptop Doctor, I'm going to attempt to update this review)

First up, of the three common lenses of this type, the Tammy is definitely the slowest to focus... measured in microseconds.
I still think that too much emphasis has been placed on the slower focus performance of this lens versus the other two(for Nikon), but it has to be noted that my photography style is probably different to others, and their needs.

Whilst in Marlo the other day, we had a chance to compare the Tammy against the Nikon and Sigma.
Sigma is definitely faster than the Tammy, and the Nikon is more so once again, by a fair margin to both.. so, where it may have taken the Tamron 1/2 a sec to get a focus lock, it took the Nikon 1/4s or so..most certainly faster, but not really an issue for the enthusiastic amateur that wants to get a shot, without the pressure by some higher power to do so, or to lose their job!

Tamrons became obvious(versus the Nikon) was when changing subject under focus. if that subject was a great distance from the last focused distance.
So with the Tammy, if you had a focus lock at a far distance, and then reframed to a subject at a much closer distance, it would hesitate or not even attempt to refocus, and on subsequent testing after I got home, would be dependent on subject matter once again.
Whilst playing with the Nikon for maybe 15moins or so.. maybe more... it always refocused with ever reframing attempt.. so in that respect the Tamron loses quite a lot of 'points'.
As for raw speed, the Nikon definitely trounces it, and the Sigma is faster, but I wouldn't rate the Tamron as slow.. simply not as fast as the other two.. beaten by almost immeasurable time differences, unless an Ion Trap timing device is part of your arsenal of testing equipment :p

As for tracking a subject, we didn't have any subject matter to work with, but I suspect that the Nikon would definitely do better and the Sigma and Tamron would be just behind in that order.
It was the Tamrons inability to re acquire focus after the subject was 'lost' and a new subject at a far greater distance was focused on, that kind of disappointed a little.

Put this way!
if you wanted a 70-200/2.8 the Tammy woudl not disappoint if you didn't have any comparable lens to judge by. It will still allow great opportunity to capture images that a slower telezoom would not, the difference of not having optical stabilization(VR in Nikon speak) was forgotten by me as I haven't played with a 70-200VR for years.. and that allows more opportunities for getting the shot more so than any focus issues.
I'm afraid that I'm getting terribly shaky now, and the variable nature of that unsteadiness is what's annoying(me). I can sometimes get a shaper shot at 1/60s @ 200m and at other times I can't seem to get one at 1/2000s! :confused:

Upgrading to a Nikon 70-200VR is certainly on the cards one day into the future.. although with the quality of the Tammy there's definitely no rush to do so.. the VR all I need

:)

[Seesee]

Ummmm...I'm not so sure I'd put the blame for this entirely on the lens in use, my D300 has similar focus issues on all my lenses, no one in particular is worse than others, sometimes it's most frustrating. I am finding this to be the case mostly with my Tokina 300 f2.8, but that may also be because I am using that lens more than any of my others.

Hey Arthur, so you've bought a Tammy 70-200 ?...what happened to your Nikon 80-200 ?

[arthurking83]

Ummmm...I'm not so sure I'd put the blame for this entirely on the lens in use, my D300 has similar focus issues on all my lenses, no one in particular is worse than others, sometimes it's most frustrating. I am finding this to be the case mostly with my Tokina 300 f2.8, but that may also be because I am using that lens more than any of my others.

Hey Arthur, so you've bought a Tammy 70-200 ?...what happened to your Nikon 80-200 ?

Sold it :p

I wasn't using it, and I went in to get that Tammy 18-270 I promised myself.. err.. my son! :p
had a few quick shots with the 70-200 and was convinced!... without even asking to see the Nikon 70-300VR! :rolleyes:

For my immediate purposes the Nikon would have been ideal, for my sons purposes the Tammy 18-270VC was close to perfect!...so what did I do? :action3:

LOL!

The focus issues seem to be slightly magnified with this lens, there's no doubt about that, and all lenses suffer some degree of hesitation sometimes, and the Nikon 105VR is my other worse lens for that, but you don't hear too many complaints about that lens(not as much as the very loud noises you hear about the Tammy anyhow)

I just tried the test again, indoors lights off and it's quite dim here at themoment due to cloudy conditions, and it sometimes it hesitates to focus at a different distance and other times it doesn't! A quick press of the AF button always gets the ball rolling again and it could also be a delay function I set on the D300.
Did you know about the delay function for AF on the D300?
Custom Setting Menu item a4 Focus Tracking with Lock On can be set to long, medium or short delay or OFF.
I had it on medium, and now I'm going to try OFF.
Problem with OFF or short, is that if you are skittish, or if there's a wind blowing and you subject is occasionally obscured by a closer distracting element(eg. a bird on a branch with a twig in front, where the wind is swaying the twig in and out of the line of sight). The longer delay will not let the camera change focus at every whim. Sometimes it's good, other times it's bad.. I just wished that computerised hocus-pocus in the camera was just smarter.

:D

[MarkChap]

I have not had a single issue with the lens not wanting to "start" when focusing.