[reoterq]

I have seen some reviewers that had slow autofocus complaints and was wondering if it was due to the K100 body.

[Bossy]

I have seen some reviewers that had slow autofocus complaints and was wondering if it was due to the K100 body.

Yeah, i've been using this lens on my K10D..

Auto Focus seems to be so slow, and since Pentax is notorious in low light focusing, it makes the combination worse... These are 2 pictures from Aussie Open 09 with daylight and spot light.. Under the spotlight, the AF seems to hunt more than in daylight.





Apart from that, this lens has a great IQ and I really love the bokeh...

[AlexanderMayorov]

here are some first test shots + 100% crops

[ftpaddict]

These are 2 pictures from Aussie Open 09 with daylight and spot light..

How did you get into the Australian Open with that big a lens?

[Bossy]

How did you get into the Australian Open with that big a lens?

They limit the lens range until 200mm, since my Tamron is 70-200, it is officially allowed to bring and use inside the stadium... Cool, isn't it ??

[danielchtong]

here are some first test shots + 100% crops

These are the best Tamron 70-200mm I have seen. Impressive detail and bokeh at F3.2 at 200mm

I did use DA200mm even at F5.6 and still retaining the creamy bokeh. Try that out .


Daniel

[XATN3q]

They limit the lens range until 200mm, since my Tamron is 70-200, it is officially allowed to bring and use inside the stadium... Cool, isn't it ??

why do they have that kind of restriction ?? can you explain me ??? thanks

What happen if we can smug in some teleconverters ??

[ftpaddict]

They limit the lens range until 200mm, since my Tamron is 70-200, it is officially allowed to bring and use inside the stadium... Cool, isn't it ??

Cool indeed, but I still can't understand why they put such a limitation in place. Are they afraid the official photographers are so incompetent, that even the spectators can take better pictures than them?

[AlexanderMayorov]

You can check for the colors and sharpness of the lens from this photo
RapidShare: Easy Filehosting

One photo with 100% crop



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3428314665_0c2b631a8d_o.jpg <== resized
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3428316701_be51375b4c_b.jpg <== crop

[Bossy]

why do they have that kind of restriction ?? can you explain me ??? thanks

What happen if we can smug in some teleconverters ??

Cool indeed, but I still can't understand why they put such a limitation in place. Are they afraid the official photographers are so incompetent, that even the spectators can take better pictures than them?

I have no idea why they put limitation for the length of the lens, but I think it's all because of the pro photogs down near the court. They don't want someone else to take really close picture of the players.

Since i sat really far from the court, near the top, then it's impossible for me to get the player's face...

I was thinking about the Teleconverter as well, but at that time i didn't have any, so I was just using my primary lens..

But next year, i will attend the Aussie open and get some new gear (teleconverter) and try to slip it inside my bag... LOL...

[quickiekuchen]

The Tamron 70-200 2,8 is good, but really cheap.

The Reason? Like Sigma, at Tamron a quality-control doesn´t happen. You can get a fine or a bad lens. That´s reality!

In Germany more and more people avoid SignificantMalfunction and Tamron.

A 70-200/2,8 shouldn´t be cheap!!!

For example: Tamron 70-200/2,8 >>> 599,00 EUR
Canon EF 70-200/2,8L >>> 1.100,00 EUR

!!!

[jsherman999]

The Tamron 70-200 2,8 is good, but really cheap.

The Reason? Like Sigma, at Tamron a quality-control doesn´t happen. You can get a fine or a bad lens. That´s reality!

In Germany more and more people avoid SignificantMalfunction and Tamron.

A 70-200/2,8 shouldn´t be cheap!!!

For example: Tamron 70-200/2,8 >>> 599,00 EUR
Canon EF 70-200/2,8L >>> 1.100,00 EUR

!!!

Sorry, but I find this a bit shortsighted - having a 70-200 2.8 lens with pro-quality
optics available for under $700 USD is a great thing for both Tamron and the
consumer. Most people don't want to or can't pay $1500 USD for one lens.
The Tamron/Sigma options bring this level of IQ to more people. Even some
who can afford a $1500 lens choose to be thrifty and get the Tamron, and
are giving absolutely nothing up optically.

Also, at least with Nikon, their 70-200 2.8 lens is $1800 - $2000 because they
add Image Stabilization, for one thing, which adds weight and a lot of cost.
On Pentax, we enjoy in-body SR, so the Tamron/Sigma offerings are perfect.

Also, the Tamron is not built cheaply - they are very solid. I'm also not
convinced that the QC issues are as bad as you indicate relative to Canon/Nikon -
spend some time on dpreview and you'll start getting the idea that these
$1500 - $2000 lenses are pretty problematic too

With Canon/Nikon, you're also paying a premium for the cache of the name - a basic
factor of marketing, and has nothing really to do with quality.

Every manufacturer has lemons, it's just not accurate to assume Tamrons
are going to be lemons a lot of the time when the Canon/Nikon lenses
are virtually trouble-free - not the case at all.


.

[quickiekuchen]

I didn´t mean the build-quality, which is really good. The sharpness is very good, too.

Sigma/Tamron are cheap, because oft the never happened quality-control (since 2004). So adjusting is pure chance!

If these lenses were 800,00 EUR to 850,00 EUR, this would be a "real" price!

Sigma/Tamron are going very very wrong with these kind of production! Believe me! In Germany, only people without knowing these fact are buying these lenses.

[AlexanderMayorov]

I dont care about what others think.I use this lens because its one of the best solutions and choices for the moment.
You may argue that Tamron / Sigma are not that good as Nikon and Canon. But instead of talking about the QC you better take a look at digits and difference in the price.
Is there any other lens with 70-200 f2.8 range for Pentax ????

Show me one and I will accept that Tamron and Sigma are bad

[m8o]

Every manufacturer has lemons, it's just not accurate to assume Tamrons are going to be lemons a lot of the time when the Canon/Nikon lenses are virtually trouble-free - not the case at all.

Case in point, while I have gotten much content from/my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (tho have recently realized autofocus is off @ infinity & f/2.8, tho I have little reason to use that so I didn't notice til others pointed it out, so not so bad) I'm still not comfortable enough with Pentax's own QC issues to purchase either a 16-50/2.8 or 50-135/2.8 which I really really want ... so what are my choices if I can't even depend on our own primary manufacturer for reliable quality? so, yes, I'll support with that for sure.

My lens range has a big hole in it, and I'm still not sure what I'll get to fill it with. But the photos from this lens certainly confirms what I'd thought would be the case -- that the 70-200/2.8 is cut from the same cloth as the 28-75/2.8 and is probably the best value there is for fine fine glass.

My personal plight... If this Tammy wasn't reported as 'noisy' or 'slow to focus' I'd have my mind made up; if the Sigma didn't have such bad CA wide open at telephoto, my mind would be made-up. If either was weather sealed my mind would be made up. So a fence sitter I remain. :ugh: I guess w/the Tammy I can use a standard TC, so another plus for the Tammi.