How does this lens compare to the Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF lens (Model A001E)
1003720
According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a monster. And, you're sure to get a lot of looks from ppl when you carry this lens around. According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a... » Read More According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a monster. And, you're sure to get a lot of looks from ppl when you carry this lens around. « Show Less
1003721
This is a far superior lens. The sharpness is pretty impressive. I have used the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MK I and the Tamron is better than that one also. Haven't used the Canon MK II version yet but I am extremely happy with the Tamron
435057
I've never had IS in any lens. This is a hardy lens for travel, but needs a lot of light. A better choice might be the Tamron 28mm-75mm f/2.8 which is a fast lens. And with your 1.5x crop factor, you essentially have a tele up to about 100mm. This is a great lens and I've not used my 18-200 at all since I put it on my camera. The image quality is miles ahead as well. Good luck and have fun.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
1668188
You mean the Tamron 18-300mm VC lens compare to 18-270mm lens. In my opinion the 18-300mm VC is a better lens for the price
2104147
This is a perfect question for me to respond to. I just sold my 70-200 non IS and purchased the IS II, First no matter what, you will love the Non IS, the glass is incredible and the quality will make you want to use this lens all of the time. If you control the low light situations ans shoot with a tripod, you are good for a long time. Then you start using it in more action situations, and you want a low ISO, and it is a handheld situation, then you will see the need for the IS. Don't get me wrong, the NON IS is wonderful, i just quickly out grew it (in 8 months) because this lens moved up to my "go to" lens in so many more situations than I planned for and I found that the IS is the answer. Now I can get action shots in lower light with a beautiful short depth of field with this as a handheld even at 200MM.
1833852
It'd better response than my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. No more low light hunting the images!
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
1224662
Just make sure your buying the right Canon Mount in this lense, One more thing, It's going to work but just in manul focus mode.There is another Tamron Model that has a Built in focus motor. The Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Model A17E)A little more expensive but with auto focus built in the lense itselfe.Sorry about my broken english.Regards.
582400
i found its a better piece of glass and you will only need one lens for all scenarios. I was constantly switching from one kit lens to the other, now I ack one lens and im good to go in most scenarios. I sold my kit lenses and got a nice 50m 1.8 for portraits and use this 18-200 for all other instances.
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
1927445
Jen, I don't recommend this lens. I owned it for a short while when I was new to photography, and was disappointed with its IQ. Zoom lenses that cover this long of a focal length generally sacrifice image integrity to do so. This lens was no exception with heavy barrel distortion on the wide end, and it was very soft when zoomed even when stopped down. I would recommend getting a lens that does less, but does it better. This lens would not be any better than your kit lens. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for its value and IQ.
1533866
You have 10mm more with the Tamron. You have twice the size aperture comparing 2.8 to 4. That is a huge huge difference. I tested mine in detail at the center and some spots around the corner AT THE SAME APERTURE with my Nikon 24-120, it is every bit as sharp under high magnification. I did quite a scientific comparison. If you know the outstanding optical quality of the Nikon 24-120, you'll be really impressed.
2058089
The quality of the 60-250 is stellar but low light sports is not it's best use. If the Tamron has excellant optics, the f2.8 should be better for your needs. Check The lens reviews to see how the Tamron performs wide open. DXO Mark is informative.
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
19332
Thirding the question. Is there any new element and is the optical quality the same? How would a better lens be cheaper than the previous version?