So we come to Tamron.
In relation to the above, was and is my claim now is not the ultra-super-duper-Hig-End and sharpness to-end, but the image must simply be consistent. I do not want to compare with the Canon counterpart the lens, which bans alone the price.
Well, the Canon has a metal case, only plastic, but that does not interfere further.
Everything is stuck, nothing wobbles, creaks or makes anything else, you do not expect.
The design of the lens and the arrangement of the elements I like, and the zoom and focus are reversed, I find also fits the prima.
The image stabilizer is really great because it hits "nailed" to the point! In my copy, this was no unusual noises and did not work until after 4-5 images (but right from the outset)
Of course, it has "a weight", but somehow I remember that time on the set, when I started looking for all DSLR stuff to interest-weight is the best image stabilization ... yeah, right)
The autofocus is, to my mind, nimble and not noisy.
Why still only three stars?
Well, the "positive Stars" there is for top-written, but a lens's primarily there to take pictures.
That it does, but unfortunately not entirely convincing.
My comparison object (iv) is a normal Canon 70-300 1: 4-5.6 IS
This is not something special, it's just only just nothing else there ... so went to small photo safari.
The pictures I took over the settings of the camera, precisely in order to have comparable results. That was certainly not always and also when adjusting the focal length I was now and then 10 or 20 next (ie instead of 200, the Canon then ran with 180 or 220)
Starting etc in the apartment have enough things in the open, in various focal lengths ....
Even when comparing the pictures on the camera (EOS70d) is a fairly soft picture showed. There only in the enlargement visible (clear display too small), but on the computer saw it in the normal nor unmagnified view already-something was in the pictures from Tamron different.
The 70d has also now now and then a problem with the central focus point (I could not notice me), but also because to rule out a problem, the images were taken with different focus methods / -feldern.
The net result on the PC, to the confirmed and you had to push the PC not try to see differences that went that way.
This was already the first Kerbchen in wood ...
Since I had read a lot in advance and there was a possibility that had this lens front or back focus, I wanted to somehow naturally "check". These probably have the fewest a Profesional equipment (it does not need), but I happen to have found something where you see it too ...
Test object was a district heating pipeline. These two parallel tubes small sheet tips have come on top (the one not running it around). These have a length of about 50-60cm and are placed throughout. In conjunction with a fixed camera position and a fixed focal point (the same for both lenses), so you could do this test also.
Ideally, in the image of the point of the metal spikes sharply, one has also brought into focus.
If there is a deviation, you can now see well, was where focus. Based on the number of how many metal tips are now available in addition to the actual focal point, the deviation can also still the same approximate distance assign.
When tested with 200mm are the result of the Tamron three to four of these metal lace So those are already 1.5-2m misguided focus specifically on the Tamron as Backfocus. The Canon met about a length next to or about 50cm.
But well, I do not so aware of the many mistakes (just like on the PC) simply come by the operator, so it went on and on, the lens should get his chance.
Unfortunately-the result could not convince again and again.
No matter what mode you chose or what you tried, the Tamron has always remained back somehow behind the 0815 Canon and I did not want so actually.
Of course, slightly dimmed could notice an improvement here and there, just because you need to buy a 2.8er yes to it not to use / use-can as you can, almost at the same price and a Canon 70-200 f4 L IS grip which then has the same effect but just as original (although I do not want that, I do not too flashy) and then you have the same approach exemption effects.
Even me, the function of the camera is known that one can miss a fine-tuning the autofocus (per lens), but with such variations, I'm wasting it (still) no thought;)
I will, however, the lens still a chance (to return and let come new), because I is well known that there is also something like a series of scattering.
Mir is, however, to think that increasingly mutatis mutandis focus is the private sale of many lenses of any third party: "... sale for switching to the original product from the manufacturer ..."
Well, should show the second just such results, then I can go on with the current Canon as a 2.8L IS II priced certainly not out of the question;)
,
,
,
,
* Edit *
Just now the second lens has arrived here.
Apart from the fact that even the contents of the box is now complete (incl. The mentioned in another review / comment Silkypix license ...), leave the first pictures in the apartment a much better impression than was the case in the previous lens!
Today the weather is fine, I test then straight on-hopefully stay the mouth as they are, I'd be happy :)
___
The first interim report falls extremely positive, the lens will remain definitely more to try here.
I'll edit my review again in the near future!
___
* Supplement dated 19:11 *
... And simultaneous increase to 4 stars
Completely contrary to first impressions (ie from the first lens), has the second now done everything right. The focus is sitting where he is now and is not a lottery.
Comparing the two lenses So it turned out that it probably a rough shipping damage or even already had production problems first.
Anyway, the auto focus is not only good in the second, but also significantly different in the soundscape. Not that he was only loud, but if you do not compare, it does not fall on ... but now just now.
My tip would be:
If someone sit not equally satisfied, then a second try-that should help.
For me it was anyway so and now the guy is back behind the lens, the limiting element (such as it should be: D)