New Tamron 70-200 f2.8 zoom for only $1,300.00

donaldejose

Looks like this could be a winner! 5 stops VR, less than half the price of the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8, great MTF charts (scroll down this link http://www.tamron-usa.com/A025special/product/lenses/a025.html ), promised good bokeh, compatible teleconverters, what is there not to like? I thought I would create this tread as a place for discussion and links to reviews or pictures taken with this lens.

MegapixelSchnitzel

It seems like a really good deal and an excellent lens. But here's my nagging question: how did they achieve this price point? What corners were cut to get such a high-performance optic down to this level? What is Tamron doing different than Nikon. How do you all think this lens will hold up to the elements and the wear of time?

donaldejose

Looking forward to some of the reviews to answer these questions.

[Deleted User]

So a few things.

First, based upon my comparisons from the Tamron site, V2 has a slightly enhanced lens design with one additional LD lens to V1, otherwise 23 lens construction appears identical.

2. Tamron appears to be purporting this to be an APO lens without the moniker per se. This should be interesting if it is an APO lens.

3. I concur with MPSchnitzel (great German name by the way), the fact that Tamron can produce 2 revised lens redesigns in short order (150-600 V2 and now 70-200V2)in quick response to market demand/trends.

Nikon needs to reengineer itself to stay ahead of the curve, not responsive years beyond demand. Management needs to be entirely modified, incentives changed, and cost structure reviewed continuously and reduced to allow Nikon to respond as a series of smaller companies rather than one large, immobile company about to hit an iceberg, weighted down with a culture of "we are the best but a little to late to compete".

Having said that, Tamron may be offering prices that are only marginally profitable to increase market share. Hard to decipher a company's objective.

I am quite impressed with Tamron's run of new optics in the last 1.5 years.

donaldejose

"quite impressed with Tamron's run of new optics" - the same is true for Sigma Art line

Coastalconn

I need it, I want it and I pre-ordered it. This lens on the D500 should be awesome for my close-up hawk images.. I found out 2 days ago my 300 f2.8 on my D4 is too much reach sometimes...

Like I commented in the announcement post, kind of shows how much Canonikon is price gouging..

Sports

My old 70-200 will be upgraded in a year or two. Or maybe three... The Tamron looks like an exceptionally good buy, but let's also see what a future Sigma Sport version brings. I thought the new Nikon was in the game, too, but its price point is simply too far north, compared to the Tamron.

retread

My 70-200 VRII will stay, it is still a good lens and there is a cost to upgrading and I just can't do it. I bought nothing but Nikkor since 1967, in the last two years I purchased a Tokina, a Sigma, and a Tamron.

decentrist

MegapixelSchnitzel said:

It seems like a really good deal and an excellent lens. But here's my nagging question: how did they achieve this price point? What corners were cut to get such a high-performance optic down to this level? What is Tamron doing different than Nikon. How do you all think this lens will hold up to the elements and the wear of time?

You have a 6 year warranty, at which time, you'll be out of this lens and on to an upgrade. The question should be, why is Nikon charging over twice as much?

donaldejose

Independent lens makers should be able to achieve economies of sale since they can create mounts for Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, etc all on the same lens. Nikon cannot do that.

heartyfisher

donaldejose said:

Independent lens makers should be able to achieve economies of sale since they can create mounts for Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, etc all on the same lens. Nikon cannot do that.

I have heard this argument before ... seems a bit ... (dunno what word to use LOL )...

I think Nikon and Canon makes 10 times to 100 times the number of lenses the independent lense makers produce .... so having to make lenses for more than one mount would cost more than less. Some of them have stopped producing lenses for the smaller Brands like Pentax and Olympus..

donaldejose

Sure, in total lenses but does Nikon make 10 to 100 times more 70-200 f2.8s than Tamron expects to make with all its mounts combined? I don't have the lens numbers. If so, than economies of scale go in Nikon's direction. Does Tamron and Sigma pay employees less? Maybe, but are not wages higher in Japan than in China and are not Sigma Art lenses made in Japan? Perhaps the Tamron will make the new 70-200 in China or some country with low wages? I have not seen information on where it is made. What can account for such a price disparity with the Nikon? Is it cheaply built with cheap components? The reviews should provide some answers. For now, I am just really glad we have the option of the new Sigma and Tamron lenses.

Sports

@heartyfisher, @donaldejose - You're way off wrt. the size of the 3rd party lens makers. Sigma and Tamron have more or less the same market share as Nikon. In Japan at least, but since they're all Japanese, the global numbers are probably not that different.
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/01/16/nikon-market-share-in-japan-for-2016-according-to-bcn-ranking.aspx/#more-110088

Andrewz

Tamron is the largest independent lens manufacture in the world. We're not talking just DSLR lenses, there are many other optical devices that have Tamron lenses in them.

Tamron can afford a smaller margin that they makes up for in volume across their whole line of products.

With that said it looks great on paper. The new Nikon has been report to be the best 70-200 ever. Can't wait to see a comparison. It might be time to upgrade my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

Coastalconn

@Andrewz Pretty impressive review by the Angry photographer on YouTube.. If I remember correctly I'm not supposed to imbed links here. Looks to be a serious winner at the price point..

Ironheart

@Coastalconn No rules against links, as long as they don't impinge on someone else's copyright, and are not spam or advertisement.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/298/important-forum-rules-policies-help-users-map-and-more-must-read-first-before-posting

Coastalconn

Hmm, not sure why I thought that. Thank @Ironheart Love him or hate him, here is the video..

[Deleted User]

Sample images and review at "ephotozine". Seems not to have quite the color contrast of the double-the-price Nikkor.

Ton14

Well, I keep my tag sharp Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, still great (too heavy) on my D600.

RobLW365

flip said:

Sample images and review at "ephotozine". Seems not to have quite the color contrast of the double-the-price Nikkor.

ePhotozine as about as low quality as you can get for online publications. Just read some of their half-arsed guides and reviews to see that.

donaldejose

I might get this lens if other reviewers and DxOMark agree with Ken Wheeler, AKA the Angry Photographer. But I must say Ken is wrong about the Sigma Art series and the Nikon 105mm f1.4 so his record isn't 100%.

Andrewz

Just had my hands on this lens in my local camera store (natcam.com) looks nice, focuses super fast and VR seem very good as well. Of course this is just an impression. It will be nice to see some ratings and technical review. Again at half the price of the new Nikon....