Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EF Cameras (Model A009E)

Having used the Tamron SP 70-200mm Di VC USD lens for a week, here are my observations so far:The lens is tack SHARP, seems crisper than my Nikon 70-200mm (VR1), even wide open at f/2.8. Good definition on the focus plane areas, corners seem sharp enough to me in use with minimal vignetting.The APERTURE rating seems accurate, in fact maybe slightly more so than the Nikkor. Available light is made to good use and the lens seems to be getting a true transmission of light at the f/2.8 rating in comparison to other lenses and manual off-camera metering.COLORs are nicely rendered with a slight warm cast, a look that I am familiar with owning other Tamron glass.CONTRAST seems good, flare seems well controlled using supplied hood.BOKEH is probably the best I have seen in this focal range (70-200mm zoom lens with multiple elements), much better than the VR1. There is a very pleasant creaminess to the background that is just not there with my old VR1. This is one of the primary reasons I like Tamron glass. I am sure the 9-blade circular aperture may be a part of this, but I think there are other elements that make the rendering so pleasant, although hard to quantify or explain. It is just a beautiful look with such a smoothness.CONSTRUCTION seems very adequate; the lens seems well-built and is substantial in the hand. As a pro photojournalist for 20+ years, I am very used to handling heavier lenses. Most of the lenses I use on a daily basis are fast and heavy (f/2.8's or faster). I regularly handhold a 300mm f/2.8, but for someone not used to handling heavier glass, this lens may seem a bit heavy, especially to carry around. The included tripod mount can be taken off, which is quite beefy (well-made) but adds to the overall weight of the lens a bit. I have taken mine off entirely, as i rarely use a monopod or tripod for this size lens. It also adds to the girth of the lens, as I would rather have it as small and sleek as possible to fit in my bag.The overall length of the lens is shorter than other lenses in this range, making it fit into a bag much easier. I like that a lot.I do think the BALANCE is not quite the best, seems a bit front-heavy to me. This is exasperated by the reverse of the focus/zoom rings. Probably the one thing about the lens I am not particularly fond of. Perhaps it is just a matter of getting used to it, but from my initial use I do not like the layout at all. I find the zoom ring hard to reach and maneuver easily and quickly. Something I need to do a lot of. The manual focus ring seems to fall within easier grasp and is easy to use with a slightly damped turning force. But it seems out of place and also easy to accidently turn.The AUTO-FOCUS is of the latest hyper-sonic motor variety, something new to Tamron and long overdue. It seems to work quite well in fact. It is very QUIET with smooth liquid turning that locks onto target most of the time with accuracy. Not always, but neither does my Nikon. I would say that the VR1 is very comparable. No better or worse from my use so far. I cannot compare the VR2 as I do not own it.I purchased this lens as it is nearly $1000 cheaper than the Nikon VR2, and as I have had several problems with my VR1, I frankly do not feel a second-party lens is necessarily subpar. In fact, I've had better customer service from other brands of late (even as a pro with NPS membership).The VIBRATION-compensation (Tamron calls theirs VC rather than VR) is I believe the best I have used in any lens ever. That's a strong statement, but I believe it works as stated. And it is the most unobtrusive system I have used by far. Almost inaudible in use (does not click, buzz or make loud noises while it is working). Also, the image does not move around in the viewfinder as other VR systems. As a photojournalist, I have not been a huge fan of VR as most of my glass is very fast to begin with, and nearly all of the time I am more concerned with subject movement vs. my own ability to handhold the camera, even at longer shutter speeds. But this system works quite well for the times when I use it. Even though I generally leave it off, the system works so well that it is hard to tell it is even on.I cannot compare this newer version to the older Tamron 70-200mm as I have not used it. I do wish that the MFD (minimum focus distance) was shorter and the magnification ratio higher however. But this lens is very comparable in that regard to the best, or highest cost name-brand versions available. As someone who owned the original Tamron 70-210mm f/2.8, I can say that this latest version is I believe the brand's best yet. Yes, I did say 70-210mm, the very old screw-drive AF lens that Tamron produced when Canon and Nikon were still touting the 80-200mm pro lenses. An extra 10mm on either end before the standard became 70-200mm. I can say that my over-15 year old 70-210 is STILL working too, still sharp, built like a tank. Of course, the AF is slow and always has been, especially by today's standards, but the lens was obviously well made.I cannot evaluate the moisture and dust-resistance claimed for this lens as yet. It does have a rubber sleeve at the mount which would help to keep rain from the mount area I guess, but I would be more concerned about the zoom/focus rings or any other area that might allow moisture in. As someone who generally has to shoot in any condition or weather, I will probably have to find out, unfortunately.So far, I am EXTREMELY happy with the quality and sharpness of the images made with this lens. In use, the AF works well, the VC works very well. Wish they had just kept the focus/zoom rings in the traditional placement.If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. And I'll add to my review if conditions change for the good or bad. ;)Thanks for reading, hope I have been of some help.

For all of you out there wondering if this lens is as good as they say it is? It's better. I'm a professional who puts my lenses to use on a daily basis. I expect and demand a lot from them. I'm not a brand whore and don't justify price simply because of it's label. However if there is one thing i have come to realize is that saving money can sometimes cost you money$$. And if there ever is an area of products that this pertains to, Lenses would be it. I have spent a significant amount of time shooting with both the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 mark ii and the Tamron SP 70-200 F/2.8 DI VC USM. And after shooting with both I was extremely surprised with how comparable these two lenses are. You don't have to make an argument for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 mark ii. It's a beast of a lens that is more then you can ever ask for. I love this age in photography and it astounds me every time i'm able to use products such as this. I fell in love with the Canon and pretty much it was a done deal at least in my mind. Enter Tamrons SP 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USM. In the past Tamron has always been a an alternative to it's higher priced better quality Name brand Competition. But that's where it usually would end. the Gap was always to big to ever really consider Tamron.Tamron re- invented itself with the SP 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USM. i mean hit it out of the ballpark with this one. This lens is just amazing. Just as good as the Canon... seriously! it's hard for me to say that but its true. It performs extremely well and really can handle everything I throw at it without a hiccup. Want to talk specifics ok. Lets tackle the points that factor whether or not one should choose the Canon vs Tamron. First up, Build quality: Canon without a doubt wins. Canons build quality is that of a tank. Very well made this thing will last you a good while. If there is one edge that Canon has over the Tamron it's this. That's not to say that the Tamron isn't built good because it is. Very well built in fact. Not all metal construction like its's rival but not cheap either. Auto Focus: Canon has the ever so slightly edges on this and I do mean almost unnoticeable. I mean we are splitting hairs here. The Tamron is quick to focus and I have come to rely on it just as I would the Canon. Image Stablization(IS) vs Vibration Compensation (VC): Tamron takes the cake here. Tamrons VC is fantastic. Better in my opinion than the Canon. You will notice on the Canon it has a choice of two IS modes. One for vertical movement and one horizontal movement. Tamron has no need for two. It's VC system covers it all (every direction) and covers it well. Bokeh: Canon uses 8 aperture blades and Tamron 9. Both producing beautiful creamy Bokeh. I would say they both are equal here and that's a really good thing for us.All said and done They are both great lenses...oh wait I forgot one more thing Price. Almost slipped my mind (ya right): The Tamron is $1000 less. Let me say that again $1000 LESS! Unless you have money to wipe your butt with, that's a thousand dollars you could use to purchase another awesome lens or put it somewhere else you could get more use out of. I don't know about you but Tamron is the clear winner here. Price being the deciding factor for me. You can't over look it. I mean if it was flip flopped and Canon was a $1000 less and Tamron was $1000 more this would never be a debate. Canon would win hands down Canon die hards would be saying are you crazy $1000 less. There would be no Canon vs Tamron. But being that Tamron is the cheaper priced lens and that's an understatement, Tamron is now on trial and has to be the one to defend itself. Not that it needs it. Trust me this lens really steps up to the plate. You can't go wrong with either lens and both will handle everything with ease. But after all said and done Tamron really does it for me. Kudos to Tamron!