[Qwntm]

And it's AMAZINGLY sharp in the center.


BUT, it's soft as heck on one side. I'd say that's a centering defect.


Back it goes. Lets hope the replacement is OK.


Gotta love Tamron, but you gotta get a good copy!

[biz-engineer]

The best value for money 70-200 FF f/2.8 zoom. Mine is sharp edge to edge, from f/3.5 :-) With a 1.4x TC @200 f4 (f/5.6), it is as sharp as the DA*300 f/5.6. The 70-200 + TC AF screw drive is noisy like if you were drilling a hole.

[kiwi_jono]

Sorry to hear!
I'm really impressed with the sharpness of mine. Sharp from f2.8 for 100mm - 200mm. 70mm is sharp too but back focusses a little bit (no problem when stopped down at all or if you make allowance).

[btnapa]

And it's AMAZINGLY sharp in the center.


BUT, it's soft as heck on one side. I'd say that's a centering defect.


Back it goes. Lets hope the replacement is OK.


Gotta love Tamron, but you gotta get a good copy!

Also got a new Tamron 70-200 last week. I wanted to grab one before Tamron pulled the plug on it. I was not sure if it was going to be good enough. I guess I got lucky because mine is sharp across the frame and super sharp from f4 on. I also borrowed a 17-50 f2.8 and shot with both. Pro class images from both lenses and perfect color matching. The 70-200 is noisy but focuses accurately and it is pretty fast too. The cost of Tamron combo (used and new) is below $1K. I am not sure how much more image quality you can get from a Pentax combo (70-200 f2.8 and 16-50 f2.8) that costs almost three times as much.

[Qwntm]

Also got a new Tamron 70-200 last week. I wanted to grab one before Tamron pulled the plug on it. I was not sure if it was going to be good enough. I guess I got lucky because mine is sharp across the frame and super sharp from f4 on. I also borrowed a 17-50 f2.8 and shot with both. Pro class images from both lenses and perfect color matching. The 70-200 is noisy but focuses accurately and it is pretty fast too. The cost of Tamron combo (used and new) is below $1K. I am not sure how much more image quality you can get from a Pentax combo (70-200 f2.8 and 16-50 f2.8) that costs almost three times as much.

Yes, I too have a 17-50 2.8 and it is really spectacularly sharp. I recently did the 16x48 inch print comparison vs the 6D and $1000.00 24-70 L Canon lens, with it.


The 70-200 went back to B&H today... I asked for an exchange so a new one should be coming along in a week or two. I hope it's a winner!

---------- Post added 10-15-15 at 09:09 PM ----------

Also got a new Tamron 70-200 last week. I wanted to grab one before Tamron pulled the plug on it. I was not sure if it was going to be good enough. I guess I got lucky because mine is sharp across the frame and super sharp from f4 on. I also borrowed a 17-50 f2.8 and shot with both. Pro class images from both lenses and perfect color matching. The 70-200 is noisy but focuses accurately and it is pretty fast too. The cost of Tamron combo (used and new) is below $1K. I am not sure how much more image quality you can get from a Pentax combo (70-200 f2.8 and 16-50 f2.8) that costs almost three times as much.

Good copies of the Tamrons are WORLD CLASS lenses. As good as any ones top of the line models in terms of IQ. At least that's been my experience. The trick is getting a good copy. My 17-50 will never be sold.

[clackers]

I have the 17-50, 28-75 and 70-200 - good copies, all.

[Luke.]

@clackers

Hey Mate i just wanted to please ask what are your opinions/thoughts of the 17-50 VS 28-75

I'd love to hear your thoughts which you prefer, why, focal length benefits etc…

Thanks

Luke

---------- Post added 10-17-15 at 08:21 PM ----------

And it's AMAZINGLY sharp in the center.


BUT, it's soft as heck on one side. I'd say that's a centering defect.


Back it goes. Lets hope the replacement is OK.


Gotta love Tamron, but you gotta get a good copy!

@Qwntm

Mate what is your standard routine/tests on a new lens to see if its a keeper?

Thanks

---

Last edited by Luke.; 10-17-2015 at 02:19 AM.

[clackers]

Oh, the 17-50 is an APS-C lens, and quite good, Luke.

As much as I like primes, at an event, one body will have it, another the 50-135 - everything's covered, almost no missed shot due to lens changing. Both are f2.8 lenses with lovely rendering.

The 28-75 is full frame, and is the normal zoom I use on my Sony A7 with adapter.

It's a such a good lens I sometimes use it on my Pentaxes, too, with a DA15 in the bag for wide shots.

Our fellow PF member LaurenOE is a professional who regularly uses the 28-75 for clients.

[Luke.]

Thanks Mate

I keep reading people who have the 28-75 swear by it and the length even on aps-c. While people with the 17-50 say the same.

I want/wanted the 28-75 badly for our K3 but felt i ''should'' get the 17-50 being aps-c even know i was feeling stronger to the 28-75

I'm on hold on the topic at the moment but was reading this post by Ed and wanted to take the chance to ask your thoughts as you mention you have both

Thanks again

[clackers]

No worries, Luke!

Let me complicate things by saying if I decide to only take a single walkaround do-it-all lens it's the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. :-D

[Luke.]

Lol!

How did i know that was coming

If not by you, i knew someone would chime in and help complicate it further!

But i did ask for your opinion!

:-)