I can put this lens on my beloved Minolta 7D, or any Sony A-mount camera, and it can be adapted too. The resulting images are just great.
In summary, if it wasn't for its mechanical AF coupling that is a bit slow side of things, this lens would be almost perfect, especially considering its price.
It is a lens from 2008, at the time part of Tamron's top line lenses. Forget about macro tough: the reproduction ratio is only ⅓. Still, its close focusing abilities are better than the other equivalent lenses made at the time: a little less than 3 ft.
It’s very well built, but definitely not environmentally sealed. As I just said, (on Sony and Pentax) the AF coupling is mechanical: meaning it’s using the little motor in the camera instead of a fancy fast integrated motor and therefore it can be a bit slow and noisy. Also, there is no direct override of the AF ring: you have to pull it to go into manual mode. Not super user friendly.
Anyway, that is all for what is not super great with this 70-200mm.
I’m shooting it on APSC cameras, but the following should also apply to full frame cameras. Maybe just barely a bit <strike>worse<\/strike> less good.
Resolution is impressive despite the expected slight softness / lack of micro contrast at F/2.8 which definitely is not an issue at all. If you don’t want to “fix it in post”, F\/3.5 is the way to go.
Distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting are almost non-existent at any aperture. Even in the so-called macro mode. There is absolutely nothing to say about color rendition: it’s neutral. I didn’t have (yet?) any bad flare issue. The ugly huge lens hood must be quite efficient in that aspect. 
Bokeh is OK, not the best, not the worst, but above average anyways. Again, nothing special here.
AF on the Minolta 7D is fast (for this camera) and I didn’t experience a lot of hunting even in super low light. Accuracy on the Minolta is perfect. On the Sony cameras, Af is faster than the 7D, but compared to other A mount lenses, especially the ones with supersonic motor, it definitely isn’t fast. In good light, with motor speed set to high, it is perfectly usable, but I tend to blame the body for some variance in accuracy in any AF mode other than single AF, especially with the A77ii. If light is less than great, I definitely need to set the motor speed to slow, but there is still some hunting, and again, accuracy can be inconsistent. I’m pretty sure it’s NOT the lens fault since this is happening with any lens on my Sony cameras.
Overall, it’s a good neutral lens that you forget once it is mounted on the camera. The optics are great and neutral, the AF a bit slow, and that’s it. Seriously, if you can get one for cheap on the used market, it is really a great option.

You may also like

Shooting the Nikon D2Xs in 2022
During summer 2005, after a very long wait, the Nikon D2X was released. At the time my go to camera was the Minolta 7D that replaced my Nikon film cameras for my digital needs. I also shot the Nikon D70 but I prefered the Minolta. Both cameras were quite slow, and 6MP only. I wasn't really convinced by the Nikon D1/x/h/d2h. Soon after buying the D70, the D2X was announced, making me question that early GAS compulsive buy.
Shooting the Sony Alpha 77 mk II in 2022
I wrote about the A77. But what about the noticeably more expensive used A77m2? You’ll have to pay $600 to $800 to buy a used one in good condition. Is it worth it? The A77m2 came a few years after the A77. in my opinion, the improvements are mostly marketing stunts. Despite a lot more AF sensors, a so-called new AF system, better video and a bigger buffer, I keep thinking the A77m2 used isn’t a very good deal.
Can you take any photo with an outdated crappy camera?
A short essay I wrote back in 2019.
Nikon N50 / F50 shooting Kodak UltraMax 400
I didn't shoot film for years. Didn't really plan to. Not that I don't like it, because I love film, but I just didn't have an opportunity to do so. When I saw that Nikon F50 with a 35-80 for 20 bucks, I just bought it. Ordered a new battery on amazon and a couple rolls of Kodak Ultramax 400
Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF APO
How good can be a Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF lens from 1990? Simple answer: definitely worth 89 bucks BUT there are lots of BUT...
Birding with a cheap Sigma 135-400?
When it comes to birding, the common advice is to get a camera with low noise, fast AF, fast burst, big buffer and some long lens, preferably a super fast telephoto. It is indeed good advice, but you'll have to pay thousands of dollars to buy that gear, even on the used market. What if you want to shoot birds on a super tight budget? You'll still need some camera and lens. Maybe consider buying some older inexpensive gear?
Tokina 12-24 DX adapted on Micro 4/3
Some sample photos taken with the Tokina SD ATX pro 12-24 F/4 IF DX ASP Nikon F-Mount on the Olympus EM1.
Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022
If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.
Sony alpha A200: a Nikon D80 with IBIS
After Sony bought the Minolta photography department, they released the A100 in mid 2006, the A700 in mid 2007, and the A200/A300/A350 in early 2008. Two years after the Nikon D80, we find the same SONY ICX493AQA CCD sensor (wich is basically a slower ICX483AQA that was in the Nikon D200 released 3 years earlier) in what is basically a Minolta body with Sony branding imitating a Nikon D80..
Shooting the Sony Alpha 700 in 2022
I really never was really interested in Sony after they bought Minolta and started their "own" line of DSLRs. 15 years later, I buy a pristine Alpha A700 for peanuts and I quite like the Minolta DNA.
Back to Top