I purchased this lens recently, but am planning to send it back. Experience is below for anyone considering this lens, or wondering if their copy is good or bad.
Note: this post does not review the "G2" model of this lens.
First informal tests showed up a possible issue.
Caveats:
- Handheld, 1/1000s or higher, high ISO.
- No, the sign is not straight. Who cares, look at the results!
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgybuQGbOafFXYkTzGQYakHy8URmT0rqrvqFUImxjfgl-ZVOMDtrBpzFrRH1x7Is0XuQV58gaq5lgp5XflOaYyrWn1ZiKCXZLxufh4sDPSlIAeTumsNVGrNrNccTYJG_upPm6_mvcO-Kw0/s320/A+-+Example.jpg) |
0 - Uncropped example shot |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiD-SLpDOtXpNfM60hXCoiF5fDyYz0HN7NLPPw-2BXAgfKDt3SurT-NYnpv23oOFZUcFXDU31hqBQUWkZlvmx7ua8q551iu_OAqdDtOR1kJ8fryv5w77rRxyQ773glX3SeRXivTW7movQ/s320/B+-+F2.8.jpg) |
f/2.8 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidFN-QHfCeP5vQ3jqq06OyIPJbyxvBPr3hIIoUzmsww9je88cC8tHp59E2pQdrSB2vMqkhLJaX17kmw40_Q4YLEf_Y6S7UInQyeflviT1AKgQFV7HuzzRNbSL7T46O_AkLWKZVkr_VZs8/s320/C+-+F3.2.jpg) |
f/3.2 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFvFpjr0GQ78iR1lLkc_JflDj71wfI_VeOoT5KRZkUBOBs1HIdjvYbHGwslFb51DvVZ7GvcAyCu2rWZVflPMfFexd0XonoLjUTVx9163JSXAtFujD22xZknHcjEuKR2freIZmt8g-ElNg/s320/D+-+F3.5.jpg) |
f/3.5 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60s9b1YDRiuFTSRbjrjaiBAap9tl1vGlZ2upMVUDmQNpXKXaR9EGLG5OT2zA906tn1gVP1Ly8k85ORoW5Drp-ZdWo4yXy3np7ARH85p0GyzV_M9RIK-XbhFNH5_dajKfmTfJIyIstFNk/s320/E+-+F4.0.jpg) |
f/4.0 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKbOrUwIQ8SUkeVGSrZ53vS_2Q4tQyvNtO5Xg6s16E2O-GZ_cZUtY-0P_zIBs9iRtGzB69gi4L831OqM3YxqxdIjwpef3OzEmPK0LmhmE5MW0KsdXaogdh6OzOOZr5QbjF31JiXNsJcjI/s320/F+-+F4.5.jpg) |
f/4.5 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYqk8R0UFuaClhZ_TKSL9FtZHCh80r41h-oIpkUHBbIsmJDcYSyKrLTIC0iC_tas8zkKq3kUn-dz5BxKihAdkmCAGFhAlS7C85Y0YF3gko8lk40CWS0tHbegh4oKg8jJxnnurGCq-YDg0/s320/G+-+f5.0.jpg) |
f/5.0 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOssVNO-g5LWqOx2uzaMth4v7PdY1gRVcgONULd_kck6TuXWiquSmr-ghK22b6KhOzmOq6GWeQPNmM6JiMLyoyBc2mZjZTtau1wCGKDsofloihytJC58Zqqg_ueYzShAh11dNUqGyMe8A/s320/H+-+f6.3.jpg) |
f/5.6 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz0ZhU8sXmPKxJHIdPA0oDPqFYV3ZOFaJWvXQHK9DRTU3uKCkg2JOvaGm7jkbAuHBGqr72sdmmcbi6yW5FYqrLG7DpM-uCQ9nmtnFEX2NfNe_2SFFn5LB5aPdlPWttWdGLTXt2Aiy0rPg/s320/I+-+f7.1.jpg) |
f/6.3 |
| | | |
f/7/1 |
Yes, I know DOF plays a part. But still obviously a possible issue.
So, on to more rigorous testing, below.
Note: I am aware it is not fair to compare a zoom against primes, a zoom at max zoom vs. a zoom at min zoom. However, these are the lenses I had available. All lenses were shot wide open to make the tests as fair as possible.
All at ISO 100, tripod, 5s self-timer delay, Nikon SB-24 flash, lens VR off, lens was refocused for every shot.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdHaMMO0DZOymlq6-vQS-F_PHNTVWFhXB8_DaLGQCuM2PYEtD826majw1-y-Motw-lw7eeYgNQGbOzXPhDceVGh0JYOj_3onVaqfMoD1m6Xfc0S2x5D2KeXXD415IkpeYfkWOKcC5_ggA/s320/0+-+Test+rig.jpg) |
Test rig |
Zoom vs. Zoom: Tamron 24-70 @ 70mm, f/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200 @ 70mm, f/2.8:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM6-krpeUXK6UhWv6MikXCM9L6b2f2ytqoHb2N0SFdP-KfuslONPtGiZFVozT02pY1TGYLWTlu5RFNJmewGH-xtGCh3DGx77y3pgaE890r4E1jp2Hz4ruN4xFQ_4VzPMleqf5JX_6BZwY/s320/Rig+1A+-+Tamron+24-70+-+70mm+-+Far+-+f2.8.jpg) |
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 @ 70mm, f/2.8 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4TiqjOUB7u9c3zSzmr71smoh1i6_5EGGQmeJbSADrvrMRnV1DMqMlzI8aZpSDGgU_gAZfw39M6Jbsr-914K3r2zfpUF9iE2xAgI9RDGoJyAvI2zJ6MHYZdWhVpxrtSV4HQYK00XRU7tk/s320/Rig+1B+-+Nikon+70-200+-+70mm+-+Far+-+f2.8.jpg) |
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 @ 70mm, f/2.8 |
Similar focal lengths: Tamron 24-70 @ 70mm, f/2.8 vs Nikon 50mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCtPULJD9L4TUQPmqE3gUN7B3IdkOgTcmLSRHXz66DYhVZhd4aCKsTDAM_bSsL9lyTwzjOSJ29gIf24uVWzLtWwmJzMbhC4iVNBnD-eYqkkYOs9Y-dfjX6dN_x4y9Mq2tiksIRiw3LSQI/s320/Rig+2A+-+Tamron+24-70+-+70mm+-+Mid+-+f2.8.jpg) |
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 @ 70mm, f/2.8 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdHaovX4oEO0HCoigloWCMVBJ_GroPXwnnARf6jZJf40825liysJssLSEX3Tan3iLgW6LRV5VAgLmZJbg8vc8jgV5lVKTSaXLdMl2XjMjZdkPzOxCjo1iOJg0SEko2uSUuc0R_7WaaM28/s320/Rig+2B+-+Nikon+50mm+-+50mm+-+Mid+-+f1.8.jpg) |
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8 |
Third-party vs. Third-party: Tamron 24-70 @ 70mm, f/2.8 vs Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro @ f/2.8:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAGE4XSPps5wLMd1fv5QvexgcqZdJBJMwJ7qX6iFYwj6MK1Z7hXIghr8QEW6DbRzViRnbeWNzYN5Zw55RExvTGv4jLY06o7xTYBChxMTIGE_jx_BIriWanaMdrs31iK5g6tklaKeH04ss/s320/Rig+3A+-+Tamron+24-70+-+70mm+-+Far+-+f2.8.jpg) |
Tamron 24-70 @ 70mm, f/2.8 |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4Hf31U0J1LlP8T36N8qMKtdE8SLOkVu1pBpBjqksIh0z9IQqP-4AK5DJbtS1e__0466YdYx91OA6oOFs35oO3rOp_9r6h0_ABUF4WTejzVs4nMOwFhREqIha4qT3Hksq_D1cYkD0sS8g/s320/Rig+3B+-+Tokina+100mm+macro+-+100mm+-+Far+-+f2.8.jpg) |
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro @ f/2.8 |
It's obvious the Tamron is far worse than any of the other lenses. Not what I would expect for this class of lens.
To be fair, I would not expect the Tamron to equal the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (which is legendary), the Nikon 50mm (also legendary) or the macro prime. But for my money, since Tamron touts this as a premium lens, it should be better than this.
Tamron @ 70mm at different apertures (target ~ 80 cm away):
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvbLoqS9rWDfV_uZrOxD7mA7T2XpUR587Tei2YiYLfXDsYeRLRVAhnIZ0hExEeEXcDYY5ZQLqUUq0D_x-rU084sc8lTxYWgP07r81mzmih5dYQ_fBPuKKSaMwuzWfBbuINWVRIf4zBsmk/s320/Tamron+24-70+-+Logo+-+f2.8.jpg) |
f/2.8 - Poor |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLxyBJvPK5zYkkRlmS_E0L4M1qWGxMlUjTi5tfoZItFeEgCauzC8XdR19KuwHSpl30a98iR23oOM-ToY21pRyPoDx4KzZjSmOYNXbu_juKq33Qq0y8pTPy-mIX54qlY_LS5T7rmlMisnw/s320/Tamron+24-70+-+Logo+-+f4.0.jpg) |
f/4.0 - Mediocre |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK7ad9RRhomYHB8geNuDBcXx84MZP_Y6fKXdiDA1OcN0l0ytFcCk7QFHjIzhKaHKBYYwT-4ywdcwxyB1hvo3UYc-4DRPdtFdaQqpzUG9_TKtIxGLqd9ebSizztvwFQZwNI2CrN7Tv1pNE/s320/Tamron+24-70+-+Logo+-+f5.6.jpg) |
f/5.6 - Excellent, tack sharp detail |
OK, so the lens is capable of good performance - just look at that lovely detail at f/5.6. So it's unlikely to be damaged or defective. It just has crap performance below f/5.0 or so.
Again, I'm not expecting a third-party zoom to be as good as a prime, or a Nikon zoom. But the whole Tamron value proposition is to get 80% of the performance for 50% of the cost. This lens doesn't live up to that.
Also, the whole point of buying a fast zoom is to shoot it fast. You can't tell me "just" to shoot it at f/5.0 or lower. What, the athletes are going to slow down because I ask them to?
I tested the lens for front/back focus but could not discern any differences at f/2.8, even at max adjustment in a Nikon D7200, owing to the poor image quality. I don't think this lens is compatible with a Tamron TAP-In dock, and it's unclear if any focus adjustment will correct this anyway.
Being a G1, my Tamron was used and so perhaps was not in the best shape. However, if you're planning to buy one, you may want to test it first.
No comments:
Post a Comment