Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di SP Macro Review

A look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 macro lens. Crappy focus but superb optics make this a wonderful portrait or still life lens. Check my website for more coolness - http://www.bustedshutter.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Tamron
• 70-200
• 2.8
• Di
• SP
• Macro
• Nikon
• review
• dom
• bower

[krakadyll]

What do you mean of fast moving??? Like Sports? Do you think it will be good for wedding?

[BustedShutter]

@krakadyll yeah sports....might work for a wedding, but the the focus is little bit loud...in a quiet church, people might take notice so that's something to think about...you can always rent the nikon 70-200 for a wedding until you have the money to buy one yourself....i might do that

[hazzard82]

since its a 2.8 lens it preety much fails when af fucks you when u require fast shooting, either get sigmas or save up for nikons then this crap.

[BustedShutter]

@hazzard82 the optics of the tamron are better than the sigma...DPReview has the details...they even said the optics rivaled the nikon...so if you aren't shooting fast moving subjects, the tamron rocks....i would hardly call it crap

[MrPropaper]

Would this be good for sport shooting?

[BustedShutter]

@MrPropaper not a good lens for sports...the AF is pretty slow....excellent for portraits though...if you're on budget and looking for a fast sports lens, check out the sigma 70-200...af is pretty good

[BustedShutter]

@rndrkeagle i haven't counted.....did you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

[zach3493]

very informative. this is the only review I could seem to get any information from on this lens. just a tip, not hating because I make this mistake too, is to try not to say "umm" so much. lol thanks for the review. keep them coming.

[CovesPhotography]

@DVaderlar I've used this for both sports and general telephoto. It's heavy for carrying around all day, but the image quality is fantastic! I highly recommend a monopod if you're doing sports, as it doesn't have VR/VC.

[CovesPhotography]

@pmmj I have the Tamron 70-200 and 17-50 VC. I love the 70-200 for portraits. It's beautiful, although some situations it's too much. If you're in a tighter situation the 17-50 works. I can't comment on the 28-70 as I don't own it.

[pmmj]

28-75 vs 70-200 tamron which is better for wedding and for portraits and long shots???

[DVaderlar]

Im interested in this lens. Would u recommend it for general telephoto lens AND some fast action like amateur sports? Or should i look at sth like 70 300 vc usm?

[ibek1200]

I used to have a Nikon AF-D 80-200 ED and had some problems with sharp images. I cant afford Nikon 70-200 VR II so tried to find something instead. And recently I have switched my Nikon 80-200 for this Tamron. No regrets. Sharp as the lens can be.

[ElPirataChanel]

SHIT EXAMPLES, SHIT MUSIC , SHIT VIDEO, SHIT REVIEW , SHIT FACE, SHIT LENSS = SHIIIIIIIIIITTTTTT LIFE

[Cagey75]

Another shooter torn between this and the sigma. Thanks for the review [old as it is]

[NIBIR98]

@theredgiraffe of course, but this lens costs LESS THAN HALF of either of the nikon 70-200s

[surferboy36O]

@theredgiraffe Are you just refering to the auto-focus?