I am wondering what people thought which f stop was the sweet spot for this lens, Thanks

This lens is new to me, so no weakness so far

Cheap and the image quality was quite solid.

AF worked but was painfully slow at times (for sports use).
This lens has a 'limit switch' - this limits the AF range so it won't rack from one end to the other if something close momentarily passes in front of the lens.

I'm very happy with the lens. It is doing pretty much what I wanted from it, within my budget. This lens does have a good repuation in optical quality.

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor 80-200 F/2.8

Sharp F2.8 Reasonable price Can be a good portrait lens for its soft smooth highlight.

Slow focusing and eat battery... Lack of highlight details.

I purchase this lens new a year ago, before Minolta release its 70-200 F2.8G SSM. The lens is sharp with normal contrast and somewhat soft color. It's not a bad lens. Most of its weakness can be improved by photoshop except the lack of highlight details... (well, you get nothing to manipulate) You can put on these two lens to look at some white wall/objects; you can see the differences by your naked eyes. One positive way to see it: it can be a great portrait lens which hides skin inperfection. Minolta 70-200 F2.8G SSM is 3.5 time more expensive; color is natural and excellent; much faster focusing (SSM). Similar in term of sharpness.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

Minolta 70-200 F2.8G SSM

Fast focusing, excellent low light capabilities, affordability (compared to name brand equipment). Built like a tank. Also I cannot complain about filter size (77mm) as I have been more than fortunate to purchase used Hoya HMC filters on as need basis for less than new/retail.

Weighty, but this by no means is a complaint or weakness, just a fact.

Purchased this lens as new demo model in 1995 to be used in conjunction with my Minolta 8000i, (which was purchased because I could not afford a Nikon F4 system!). This lens has provided me with consistent tack sharp photos with excellent color rendition, and have used this lens as primary ever since. I eventually teamed up this lens with Tamron 2x Teleconverter for long distance photography, and astrophotography, with no disappointments at f5.6. This lens took superb clear photos of Lunar Eclipses (1996 & 1997) on Fuji 800G with excellent contrast, and Comet Hale-Bopp (1997) also on Fuji 800G. It also took exceptional night shots of a 1 million gallon gasoline storage tank in NJ which was struck by lightning, and subsequently caught fire. These photos were taken with Kodak 400 PPF (now 400NC) and were subsequently published and received two awards, and with a 11x16 copy of the photo being displayed in Focus Electronics. This lens is now utilized at DIRT Motorsports Racing events in Upstate NY, and has not let me down, despite either extremly dusty conditions or getting caught in downpour. This lens has been dropped twice on hard pack from waist height, banged around race pits and race car trailer on a weekly basis for three race seasons (Apr- Oct), has been rained on (not a sprinkle, either), and in nothing short of that unintentional abuse, this lens has not failed once in excess of 100 rolls of film. After 9 years of use and as a result of the abuse it has endured, the front assembly has become loose, under/in where the tripod swivel/ring mount is. I recently used the lens at game/wildlife park (while loose), and was still fully functional with no discernable loss in photographic quality.. For a "third party" brand, this lens leaves nothing to be desired... I recommend it to any one, in any type of mount, whether you are loyal to Minolta, Canon or Nikon. As for repair, I emailed Tamron, and explained the repair needed. I received a reply within 12 hours. As I write this, the lens is sitting on my desk awaiting mailing to Tamron USA for repair and diagnostic.

Customer Service

Superb Tamron Service: quick responses to emails (<12 hours), clear concise answers.

Similar Products Used:

Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 APO G, Sigma 300 f2.8, (both borrowed), Tamron 70-210 f4-5.6 (on father's Pentax Spotmatic) and photos from the lens reviewed here were also compared to photos from Minolta 50mm f1.4 and Sigma 24mm f2.8 for comparison. I have to say, that I could discern no differences in regards to focusing speed and clarity between the Minolta 80-200 f2.8 and the Tamron 70-210 f2.8.

Fast glass, Good image quality. Cheap compare to Nikors

Quite heavy so not easily to hand hold steadily to product sharp pictures. Like everyone else has mention, this lens does not have IF and it is a pain to use a polariser. AF is also quite slow for the Nikon f-mount because the camera has to move a big piece of glass at the front..

I got this lens new a couple of years ago and it was my first "pro" lens. I like the f2.8 aperture and the image quality is very good (When I actually hand hold it properly or on a tripod)

Similar Products Used:

Tried the Nikor 70-210 AFS VR and I would trade up to the Nikor if I have the $$$

OPTICS CONSTRUCTION

SLOWER AF than NIKON counterpart but not bad either. 77mm filter size always a problem ( $$$ )

Just got my first set of chromes back and I must say I am impressed with this lens optically. I bought it used on ebay because I didnt have the money for the nikon and really dont use this type of lens that often so couldnt justify if I did. Glad I saved the money ( or additional DEBT ). I havent arrived at too many conclusions about what focal lengths are sharper than others because everything looks great corner to corner. Perhaps slightly less sharp at 2.8 but I have heard the Nikon and Cannon counterparts also exhibit this ( or any lens but a leica for that matter ). The lens is big and a bit unweildy but its well constructed. Not a crap tamron but a professional tool. I had read other reviews on the internet complaining about this lenses color characteristics. I have experienced no significant difference with its rendition versus my nikon glass. I've also used zeiss glass in 35mm and this lens rates very highly. I used to use the 70-300mm ED Nikon and its not even in the same class optically speaking. Not that the former is a bad lens but I never knew where it was sharp and where it wasnt ( it has some weak spots ). Autofocus is a bit slow. If you need the speed then I would go for the manufacturers models but this lens is quite capable of good sports photography. The handy focus limiter helps immensely. Maybe not worth it new but on the used market a bargain. Very impressed and built quite well ( one reason I didnt get the sigma was its reputation for shoddy construction though I've heard optics are first rate ) I give it a five stars given the bargain I feel I got on ebay. New I would say get the manufacturers lens if its only a hundred or two hundred extra just for the autofocus speed and resale value. Five stars overall. Impressed.

Similar Products Used:

Nikor primes and various consumer and pro nikkor zooms over the years.

1) 2.8 2) Sturdy Build 3) Tripod Collar 4) Has a full or half button to help with the focus speed. 5) Peace of mind that it is compatible with my camera

1) Seems to hunt in AF when low light. 2) Tripod collar to close to body hard to get to af/mf switch 3) Cannot use Tripod collar with an Elan II w/ battery pack on a Bogen 3030 head. I have to take the battery pack off 4) No IF ( I don't like the front turning, I have to put the lens in MF to put the shade on or off)

I tried this lens side by side with the canon 70-200 2.8. Let me say WOW the Canon lens is, well let me get back to the Tamron. I bought this lens because I cannot afford to spend $1,000 + dollars on the canon version right now. I also am more interested in the 100-400 IS Canon and really can't get both. I chose this lens over the Sigma because of the reviews of Sigmas either breaking or not being compatible. I never hear that about an SP Tamron. I also own the SP 24-135 lens which has been great by the way. The Lens has a nice feel to it. I will summarize in the Strengths and weekneses.

Optics is very sharp, built is very good. Tripod collar even do not removable does not bother me. Focal ring has a good feel.

Slow focusing if you compare it to USM. but again for the price I paid for I can''t complain. You''ll get use to it and will learn to adjust to it. Not IF.

Excellent lens but try to get it used @ ebay. I paid $400.00 for mine and the optics was in excellent condition. Very good lens to have if you want to get into quality 70-200 range f2.8 but do not want to spend too much.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM

- optically good
- rubber finishing is comfortable to use

- not internal focus
- heavy
- rubber focus ring is very narrow, difficult for MF

I am a big fan of Tamron, (used to) have AF 90 2.8, 20 - 40 zoom, and 70 - 210 F2.8 zoom.
I have to say that this 70 - 210 lens' design is outdated, Most of other manufacturers have F2.8 lens in this zoom range, and most of them have upgraded their products to IF, e.g. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, Tokina ....
I am not saying that this Tamron lens is bad, it is actually very good optically. But Tamron has got to improve the design of the lens, make it more user-friendly.
One point to mention, this lens is not cheap when compare with Sigma or Tokina. I sincerely hope that Tamron can acceleration its product development. Above all, I am a big fan of Tamron, don't let us down.

Customer Service

Never needed

Similar Products Used:

No other F2.8 zoom in this focus range
Have shifted to prime lens (EF 85 1.8 and AIS 85 1.4)

Sharp, fast, well-built.

Big, heavy, sliding focusing ring cover that's annoying at times.

I'm happy with this lens... Although I haven't tried the Nikkor 80-200 2.8AF, I suspect the Tamron is close in performance, and a couple hundred dollars cheaper.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

n/a