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.

I'm not going to get into the specs because quite frankly, many on here don't care nor understand it. That's what DPReview and DXOMark are there for. I shoot 6A High School sports - namely, football, basketball, baseball and LaCrosse and purchased this lens shortly after it came out at the advice of Tamron's Midwest Regional Rep (who I met at one of the games I was shooting). Previously, I would rent a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 Mk I and then II. While they produced fabulous results (especially the Mark II version), they are absolute TANKS. If I didn't use my Manfrotto Monopod, my neck and shoulder felt like I had a concrete block hanging off me after a 3 hour football game. NOT SO with this Tamron. In fact, I stopped bringing the Manfrotto with me altogether after the first couple of games. By not using a monopod, it enables me to be very mobile with my EOS 7D (and now 7D Mark II) with Grip. I do experience some fatigue by the end of a shoot, but it's nothing near what the Canon beasts caused.Tamron NAILED IT when they designed this lens - both optically and the physical mechanics. I find the results better than the aging Canon Mark I and on par with the Mark II version, sans just a little more chromatic aberration at times (ok, I had to throw one tech term in there - occasional very slight purple fringing in areas of the photo, if you know what you're looking for) and it's extremely well made (Canon's all metal body is definite overkill - unless you're possibly shooting in a combat setting). The Ultrasonic motor focuses very fast and the VC image stabilization is SUPERB.Some have given this lens a lower rating on here, complaining it's "too heavy". WHAT?! This is the smallest and lightest lens in it's class and is optically on par overall with Canon's latest and certainly better than SIGMA's current 70-200 f/2.8 offering (although SIGMA's new "Global Vision" one is on the horizon and they are fantastic lenses, I own two).It's built VERY SOLID, as good as it NEEDS TO BE. Will it hold up in extreme environments like Canon? Probably not, but I don't make a full time living off my photography and would most likely go the Canon route if I was. The lens has moisture resistant construction which I will say works very well - I've been caught in more than one downpour at a football game with my backpack at the opposite end of the field (my EOS 7D is also weather sealed). This construction also works to keep dust from getting between the lens elements. I use this lens outdoors almost exclusively in the windy, dusty midwest (except for basketball) and have taken over 10,000 photos with it. I own other lenses from both Tamron and Sigma and this lens is on my camera better than 90% of the time.My favorite prior to this was my Tamron 60th Anniversary 70-300mm f/4-5.6 (STILL the best bang for the buck of ANY lens out there - although this one is giving it a run for it's money) and even though it's substantially lighter (with longer reach), I prefer this one. It's simply a JOY to use with AMAZING results. Don't be afraid of the weight of this lens, especially if you're a Rebel T-series user with a significantly lighter body than mine. Throw a grip on your Rebel and with this lens, you WILL look like a SERIOUS photographer out there. Incidentally, many people make the mistake of getting a very capable body and then throwing cheap lenses on it. Cheap glass will get you results accordingly. While this lens is a definite investment, Tamron has a $100 rebate on the table most of the time, thus at $1,400 making it the best value 2.8 on the market today (SIGMA will be countering shortly with their new offering). I have sent lenses in to Tamron for warranty work, and they are fabulous with very quick turnaround. At 6 years, it's the best in the business.Yes, this lens will work on ALL CANON EOS DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS EVER MADE - both Full Frame and APS-C (in case you're wondering). Seriously folks, I can't say enough good things about this lens. I've been a serious photographer for over 30 years and it's right up there with the finest pieces of photographic equipment I have ever used. I am also a serious amateur astronomer with high end optics and some very expensive eyepieces and this lens is on par. Third party lens makers, namely Tamron and SIGMA used to be economy choices for those who couldn't afford nor desire the extra "freight" of owning Canon or Nikon glass. Not anymore. The are competing head to head and in some cases trumping the big guys all at a more affordable (and sane) price. You can't go wrong.