[Conqueror]

The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 is considerably cheaper than the DA* 60-250mm and DA* tele primes.

What are your thoughts on this lens? General reading around it seems favourable.

Bulk and no WR seem the obvious negatives and possible focus noise.

The DA* 300mm seems an absolute cracker... but its expensive and fixed 300mm might be hard to get frequent use out of (versatility etc.).

I can't work out the 60-250mm ... some people [are perhaps rightly] saying its too short/too much of a halfway house solution interms of FL, compared with the 300mm for instance and I suspect 60-135mm is better served by the 50-135mm DA* .. and of course its very expensive

To make life complicated I've found in good light at f11 the 55-300mm DA is quite good in terms of colours, but a bit soft sharpness wise. I would hope/expect the Tamron to beat it in all departments, at the expense of bulk.

[cxdoo]

I have the Tamron. I had none of the other lenses you mention. WR is not very important to me. I don't shoot birds and other wildlife.
With that said, Tamron has me covered from 70mm up. I am more than happy with its performance and IQ.

[spartan]

I have this and the Pentax 50-135. The rendering of the 50-135 is better but the Tamron 70-200 is really sharp, on par if not better than the 50-135. I shoot at 2.8 and 3.5 quite often and the results are really good.

Look up user reviews in this forum or go to professional review. (I think PF has a review of the sigma, Tamron and pentax 70 (80)- 200)

[Jean Poitiers]

This lens will be my next "big" acquisition. Unbeatable value for the dollar form all the images that I have seen. J

[beachgardener]

yes I too am thinking seriously about the Tamron 70-200, might have to put a request in for a used model, here they are AU$1000 for a new one if available.

[cxdoo]

This indeed is a great lens.

For portraits:





For wildlife (in captivity, though ):





For sort-of macro and creamy bokeh:

[beachgardener]

cxdoo, thank you for the example images, sharp as, please any one with examples do post, i just might get this lens, Jean what do you think?

This indeed is a great lens.

For portraits:





For wildlife (in captivity, though ):





For sort-of macro and creamy bokeh:

[hcc]

Read the in-depth comparison for a more objective in-depth analysis:
Review: Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The comparative reviewed included the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8: "The Tamron is great because of its low price, impressive image quality, and macro capabilities"; "The Tamron will now positively surprise".

Hope that the comment will help.

PS: Adorama has one Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 use (E) for US$614 + shipping: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20670082.html

[beachgardener]

thanks mate, will do, am now

[cxdoo]

cxdoo, thank you for the example images, sharp as, please any one with examples do post, i just might get this lens, Jean what do you think?

Thank you.
You should get this lens. Even if you later think it was a mistake, it's the cheapest mistake in this price/IQ range.

[hcc]

yes I too am thinking seriously about the Tamron 70-200, might have to put a request in for a used model, here they are AU$1000 for a new one if available.

Adorama has two used Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. One used (E) is available for for US$614 + shipping: Used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Pentax Autofocus Mount -

Hope that the comment may help.

PS: I have no vested interested. I bought a number of used lenses from Adorama (Used) and Keh.com and I can recommend strongly both.

[beachgardener]

cheers, thanks, currency conversion has changed of late, not as good as it was, anyway worth thinking about.

[northcoastgreg]

I have both the Tamron 70-200 and the DA* 300. While the Tamron cannot quite match the DA* 300 (few lenses can), it comes closer than any lens in its price category has a right to expect. A couple of images from the Tamron:

[Conqueror]

I have both the Tamron 70-200 and the DA* 300. While the Tamron cannot quite match the DA* 300 (few lenses can), it comes closer than any lens in its price category has a right to expect. A couple of images from the Tamron:

Those pictures are great... I would be interested to see a DA 300m shot you have taken... will the different be noticeable(?)..

Your output from the Tamron is impressive going by those two

The 2nd shows very nice OOF rendering for a zoom

[northcoastgreg]

I would be interested to see a DA 300m shot you have taken... will the different be noticeable(?)..

The differences are subtle and, depending on the light, can take a sharp eye to notice. The DA* 300 is sharper (but you'll have to pixel peep to notice the difference) and just a bit more contrasty (although in real good light, it may not matter). The biggest difference may be color rendering. I would describe the Tamron color rendering as aesthetically distinct rather than 100% accurate. It's particularly good with warm and rich, dark colors: orange, yellow, dark blue, dark green. The Tamron is not so good (at least relative to the DA* 300) at light greens and light blues. There's also some subtle differences between how the two lenses render, although I'm not sure whether the differences here (mostly in favor of the DA* 300) are significant enough to matter in terms of practical output. I use both the Tamron 70-200 and the DA* 300 for volunteer work at the local zoo. I have noticed that the zoo tends to use more of my images from the DA* 300 than from the Tamron. Whether that's due to preferring the output of the Pentax lens I'm not sure. But the DA* 300 is the best lens I've ever used. It's about close to perfect as you're going to get at it's particular price point. The Tamron is the best bang for the buck lens I've ever used. It gets you very close to top of the line pro glass at a fraction of the cost.

Images from the DA* 300:











To give an idea of how sharp the DA* 300, consider this ~100% crop:



Here's a few more from the Tamron 70-200:









And a tight crop on the above image: