Tamron 70-210 mm f/4 Di VC USD
7. Coma, astigmatism and bokeh
Here the Tamron lags behind its rivals. The Tokina didn’t have any traces of coma at all and the Nikkor had just slight problems at the shortest focal length, definitely less noticeable than those of the Tamron.
| Center, 70 mm, f/4.0 | Corner APS-C, 70 mm, f/4.0 | Corner FF, 70 mm, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
| Center, 135 mm, f/4.0 | Corner APS-C, 135 mm, f/4.0 | Corner FF, 135 mm, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
| Center, 210 mm, f4.0 | Corner APS-C, 210 mm, f/4.0 | Corner FF, 210 mm, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tamron’s 70–210 mm VC astigmatism, understood as an average difference between horizontal and vertical MTF50 values, amounted to 6.9%. It is a quite sensible result. It’s worth adding that the biggest influence on its value has the 70 mm focal length as its astigmatism level is the highest, amounting to 8.0%.
In this category the Tamron performed better than the Tokina, tied with the Canon within margin of error but was noticeably weaker than the Nikkor.
When it comes to blurry, out-of-focus area we don’t have any reservations. Circles of light look nice, without any local extremes. Even the rim on the edge is not especially accented.
| Center, 135 mm, f/4.0 | Corner APS-C, 135 mm, f/4.0 | Corner FF, 135 mm, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
| Center, 135 mm, f/5.6 | Corner APS-C, 135 mm, f/5.6 | Corner FF, 135 mm, f/5.6 |
|
|
|
Center, 135 mm, f/8.0 | Corner APS-C, 135 mm, f/8.0 | Corner FF, 135 mm, f/8.0 |
|
|
|
