Goal achieved.

Congratulations.... Don't have one but looking at UK prices they are over a grand.... :-$
 
I've got one just a couple of days ago. You won't be disappointed. That lens is absolute bargain on Panamoz price.
 
RainMaker said:
I've got one just a couple of days ago. You won't be disappointed. That lens is absolute bargain on Panamoz price.
Click to expand...

Indeed - couldn't believe it when I saw the price vs digitalrev vs english pounds!

Read lots on it and every review is coming to the conclusion that it is AT LEAST as sharp as nikon VR2 and in some cases sharper (also the sharpest 70-200mm on DxO!).

Can't wait to get it :)
 
Phil Young said:
Funny... everywhere I've read says the build quality is as good as it comes...
Click to expand...

I hope your new lens is great. :thumbs:

I did a bit of reading on them online a couple of weeks ago but I was a bit put off by what I read. Sometimes on the internet things can be blown out of proportion though.

New toys are always good fun.
 
c22w1 said:
I would be very interested to know too, the price is very tempting. Just got to convince my wife that I need one now.
Click to expand...

I got mine for £650 from panamoz including their 5% discount for BT. Considering it's supposedly the same quality as the VR2 I think it would be mad not to!

The only bummer I can see is that it won't AF on a TC... which is slightly annoying.
 
I was after the Tmron 70-200 older version, non-VC for ages. Couldn't find it available anywhere at the time! And ended up with the Sigma HSM [pre-OS] I didn't get on with that lens really. Always kind of wished I'd managed to get the Tammy, as at the time my favourite lens was their 17-50. Also the Tamron 70-200 was apparently sharper than the sigma, and Nikon Vr1! Big claim back then. But it was also apparently the slowest AF - that wouldn't have bothered me, I don't do sports.

Later, when I was in a lucky position to be able to, I bought a Nikon 70-200 ... I didn't use that one a whole lot either :/ I guess 70-200 is just not for me. But if i ever do want one again, I would either get the Nikon f/4, or the tamron VC, let us know how you get along with it.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I was after the Tmron 70-200 older version, non-VC for ages. Couldn't find it available anywhere at the time! And ended up with the Sigma HSM [pre-OS] I didn't get on with that lens really. Always kind of wished I'd managed to get the Tammy, as at the time my favourite lens was their 17-50. Also the Tamron 70-200 was apparently sharper than the sigma, and Nikon Vr1! Big claim back then. But it was also apparently the slowest AF - that wouldn't have bothered me, I don't do sports.

Later, when I was in a lucky position to be able to, I bought a Nikon 70-200 ... I didn't use that one a whole lot either :/ I guess 70-200 is just not for me. But if i ever do want one again, I would either get the Nikon f/4, or the tamron VC, let us know how you get along with it.
Click to expand...

Can't wait to mate - I have no doubt it will be everything I expect, everywhere has the same conclusion - the optics are at least on part with the best offerings of canon and nikon and I can't believe that we aren't seeing threads popping up all over the place if you can get the same quality as the VR2 for £650!

I've been on the hunt for a longer lens for a wedding that's coming up and as you do, I thought it'd be a good excuse to blow some money...

I should get it next week so will go out on Friday with it and take some shots of squirrels ;)
 
According to the Kenko compatibility chart they're not supported for Sigma and Tamron lenses, but I've used my Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x with my Sigma 150-500 OS and 24-70 f2.8 EX HSM with no problems whatsoever. They might work with your Tamron but I'd check one out in a shop before you buy it. The Kenko Pro300 DGX converters are very good though and if they will fit it'd be worth looking at them.
 
modchild said:
According to the Kenko compatibility chart they're not supported for Sigma and Tamron lenses, but I've used my Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x with my Sigma 150-500 OS and 24-70 f2.8 EX HSM with no problems whatsoever. They might work with your Tamron but I'd check one out in a shop before you buy it. The Kenko Pro300 DGX converters are very good though and if they will fit it'd be worth looking at them.
Click to expand...

Cheers Stu - might be coming back for some more of that advice soon!
 
---
Haven't got much time to test. Here is one (bit strange) duck picture at 200mm f2.8:

IMG_3848.jpg


Don't know if that is good or not (I am not talking about the art value, it's zero anyway :lol:) and how it compares to the big brothers. However I am happy enough and it saved me few bucks. I canceled my Canon 70-200 f4 IS order to get that Tamron and I think this was not a mistake.

Bear in mind mine copy required quite a bit focus micro-adjustment at the wide end. Before that it was frighteningly soft at 2.8.

In terms of build quality, image stabilization and focus speed it is nothing short than excellent. I am not a pro and photography is just a hobby to me. So this lens well suits my amateur needs for the best price I could have imagined in this class.
 
RainMaker said:
---
Haven't got much time to test. Here is one (bit strange) duck picture at 200mm f2.8:

Don't know if that is good or not (I am not talking about the art value, it's zero anyway :lol:) and how it compares to the big brothers. However I am happy enough and it saved me few bucks. I canceled my Canon 70-200 f4 IS order to get that Tamron and I think this was not a mistake.

Bear in mind mine copy required quite a bit focus micro-adjustment at the wide end. Before that it was frighteningly soft at 2.8.

In terms of build quality, image stabilization and focus speed it is nothing short than excellent. I am not a pro and photography is just a hobby to me. So this lens well suits my amateur needs for the best price I could have imagined in this class.
Click to expand...

This is very reassuring! Very sharp!
 
Yes Phil, it is sharp (after the adjustments). They say 200mm is the weakest length, but it is pretty good in my eyes.

However sharpness is not the only thing, the lens provides nice colours, good contrast and very pleasant bokeh. The only real IQ issue I can see is quite strong vignetting at 200@2.8 on FF. Not a big deal, and something you are immune at the moment looking at your camera profile :)
 
RainMaker said:
Yes Phil, it is sharp (after the adjustments). They say 200mm is the weakest length, but it is pretty good in my eyes.

However sharpness is not the only thing, the lens provides nice colours, good contrast and very pleasant bokeh. The only real IQ issue I can see is quite strong vignetting at 200@2.8 on FF. Not a big deal, and something you are immune at the moment looking at your camera profile :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't suspect I'll have a problem with vignetting but to be honest, I'm partial to it and bit anyway, probably my most used effect.

They also say the VR2 is slightly softer wide open at 200mm so I guess they are comparable.

Any more images??
 
I have the VR2 and have owned the sigma 70-200 OS and I can tell you the difference in the vr 2 is the repeatability of the getting perfect sharp shots. The OS when it hit the spot was fairly close to the VR2. The thing that struck me after my first wedding using the VR2 was that every shot was perfect, no duds!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Either way I'm sure the 70-200VC will be a superb lens for that sort of money.
 
F/1.4 said:
I have the VR2 and have owned the sigma 70-200 OS and I can tell you the difference in the vr 2 is the repeatability of the getting perfect sharp shots. The OS when it hit the spot was fairly close to the VR2. The thing that struck me after my first wedding using the VR2 was that every shot was perfect, no duds!
Click to expand...

Apparently there is a noticeable difference between the sigma and the tamron and the MTF's show this.
 
Phil Young said:
Apparently there is a noticeable difference between the sigma and the tamron and the MTF's show this.
Click to expand...

Hi Phil,

Just been reading through this thread again. I can understand you being protective of a sizable purchase but there is no comparison between the likes of the Tamron and the Nikon VR2.

I have seen the Tamron in the flesh a few times and used to own the VR2. In this thread a few other posters have mentioned some of the issues with the Tamron and that is the reason why the Nikon is so much more expensive, well that and the superior build quality.

I am sure you will get many good shots with your new lens and for the price you paid no doubt it offers very good value for money and I am sure you will be delighted with it.

The Nikon VR2 however is far and away the best zoom lens I have ever used or owned excellent in every way apart from the well known focus breathing issue that all 70-200's suffer from.

As the other poster said above the VR2 is perfect every single time absolutely razor sharp at all apertures it's next to impossible to take a bad shot with this lens which is why it costs such a heavy premium.

At the end of the day I am sure your lens will be very good so just enjoy it and take some quality images with it.

Best of luck with your new lens, I take it hasn't arrived yet?

I have recently had some issues with Panamoz myself :(
 
f/2.8 said:
Hi Phil,

Just been reading through this thread again. I can understand you being protective of a sizable purchase but there is no comparison between the likes of the Tamron and the Nikon VR2.

I have seen the Tamron in the flesh a few times and used to own the VR2. In this thread a few other posters have mentioned some of the issues with the Tamron and that is the reason why the Nikon is so much more expensive, well that and the superior build quality.

I am sure you will get many good shots with your new lens and for the price you paid no doubt it offers very good value for money and I am sure you will be delighted with it.

The Nikon VR2 however is far and away the best zoom lens I have ever used or owned excellent in every way apart from the well known focus breathing issue that all 70-200's suffer from.

As the other poster said above the VR2 is perfect every single time absolutely razor sharp at all apertures it's next to impossible to take a bad shot with this lens which is why it costs such a heavy premium.

At the end of the day I am sure your lens will be very good so just enjoy it and take some quality images with it.

Best of luck with your new lens, I take it hasn't arrived yet?

I have recently had some issues with Panamoz myself :(
Click to expand...

It's not me being protective at all.. it's you being negative and me replying in a positive manor.

To be honest, I'd go with the reviews on YouTube which tests it with the Nikon and canon at the same time which is clearly an unbiased opinion.

I wouldn't protect a purchase, that's just sad, if something isn't good then just say it isn't so don't get me wrong - you're just trying to bring a downer on a new purchase.

*edit* also, remember who has been saying "suposedly better than the vr2" and who has down and outright said its not (presumably you have done a thorough test to get to that conclusion??) You also didn't mention that you've used the tamron in your original post hence why I think you're actually the one that's trying to defend a lens...
 
Last edited:
Why on earth would I defend a lens I no longer own?

I own lenses from all the manufacturers including Tamron.

Will leave you to it.
 
Phil Young said:
Any more images??
Click to expand...
Not much I am afraid. Haven't got time to play enough. Here are few other non inspiring test pictures:

Boat headlight, 170mm f2.8
IMG_3839.jpg


Another boat, 200mm f5.6
IMG_3870.jpg


My son, 110mm f5.6
IMG_3933.jpg


And one for pixel peepers, neighbor house, 150mm f11
IMG_3892.jpg


Once again, to me this is a very fine lens overal.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Hi Phil,

Just been reading through this thread again. I can understand you being protective of a sizable purchase but there is no comparison between the likes of the Tamron and the Nikon VR2.
Click to expand...
Well, in fact most reviews are comparing Tamron with Nikon's and Canon's big guys. So there is comparison. Still the overall conclusion is that own brand lenses are better but Tamron is very, very close with small margin. On some respects it even delivers more. However the cost difference is far more considerable. Twice or more in this price level means hundreds of £.

I think Tamron gives hell a lot more for the money and as a hobbyist it's the better choice for me. Saved bucks can buy another high quality lens to play with (50 L f1.2 is waiting for me :)). Of course if you are shooting as a pro and for the living, Nikon/Canon is the obvious choice. No argument here.
 
Lens arrived.

WOW!!!

the Nikon VR2 would have to be some kind of insanity lens to get better than this - it's easily as sharp as the 1.8g and I got acceptable shots down to 1/2 a second at 200mm on my D7000!

No fine tuning required. Initial testing shows AF is fast and accurate.

I'll take some shots over the next couple of days and get some up but initial inspection shows it to be exactly what I expected - amazing.
 
Nice one Phil, 70-200 range is fantastic. Glad you got a good copy buddy
 
Phil Young said:
Lens arrived.

WOW!!!

the Nikon VR2 would have to be some kind of insanity lens to get better than this - it's easily as sharp as the 1.8g and I got acceptable shots down to 1/2 a second at 200mm on my D7000!

No fine tuning required. Initial testing shows AF is fast and accurate.

I'll take some shots over the next couple of days and get some up but initial inspection shows it to be exactly what I expected - amazing.
Click to expand...
Congrats mate. No surprises, the quality of that Tamron is exceptional. I am enjoying mine more and more and can only feel sorry for nay-sayer :)
 
My tamron 28-75 has shocked me by how good it is. Even on the D800 it was spot on ! I would imagine the new 70-200 is a cracker
 
Tamron produce superb lenses, the gear snobs seem to say how rubbish they are but they are superb optically and the price is even better.

The 17-50 2.8 is always attached to one of my bodies as a walk around lens so i'm not suprised one bit that the new 200 is superb.
 
Looks a hell of a lens, I'd be curious to compare the AF speeds with the Canon 70-200 2.8 II.

I once had the Tamron 70-300VR and it was an excellent lens, but the AF let it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top