Get This Great Lens for Over Half Off Today Only

Photographers who do not need an f/2.8 aperture or who want a light, portable lens they can drop in their bag and forget will certainly appreciate the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD, and today only, you can get it for more than half off, bringing the final price to just $379.

Today only, B&H is offering the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD lens for both Canon EF and Nikon F mounts for 53% off, bringing the price to just $379. The 70-210mm f/4 offers one of the most useful focal length ranges out there without the additional weight, size, and cost of an f/2.8 version, making it great for studio photographers, landscape shooters, or anyone else who doesn't need that extra-wide aperture. It comes with a range of useful features, including:

  • VC image stabilization with up to four stops of compensation
  • Ultrasonic Silent Drive autofocus motor and High-Speed Dual Micro-Processing Unit for faster focusing
  • Moisture-resistant construction
  • Fluorine protective coating on front element
  • Rounded nine-blade diaphragm for smoother bokeh

Altogether, the 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD is a portable and versatile lens at a great price. Get yours here.

Log in or register to post comments

14 Comments

Jorge Montalvo's picture

Regular price on Amazon from what I saw-$379

Tom Reichner's picture

Looks like a solid value, on a bang-for-the-buck basis.

I suspect that if someone clicks the links in the article, and buys one, that Fstoppers gets some of the money via the affiliate link program they have set up with B&H. Is this the case? I mean, I just like to know if Fstoppers is publishing this so that they can make a couple of extra dollars, or if they are only publishing this to help out their readership, with nothing in it for themselves.

Thatcher Freeman's picture

Looks like an affiliate link to me as the URL in the article has a bunch of parameters I don't get when I navigate to the page manually. Admittedly that doesn't change the cost for you and this is a pretty good price for a stabilized 70-200 lens.

Christian Fiore's picture

Do you even understand how a company works?

Tom Reichner's picture

Yes, of course I do. In fact, my comment shows that I understand about how a company works, with respect to income earned via affiliate links. Why would you ask me if I understand how a company works when the comment of mine that you are referring to clearly shows that I possess said understanding?

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

Sounds like you're having another one your inexpensive zoom lens rants. I mean, literally every single article they put out has an affiliate link to the products mentioned. So, why are you complaining now? Why this product specifically?

Tom Reichner's picture

I was not complaining. What did I say that sounded like a complaint to you?

Tom Reichner's picture

Black Eddie said,

"I mean, literally every single article they put out has an affiliate link to the products mentioned."

You are wrong. NOT every article that Fstoppers puts out has an affiliate link to the products mentioned.

Just yesterday, Jason Parnell-Brookes put out an article on image compositing. He mentioned a product, Photoshop CC, and yet there was no affiliate link.

I didn't have to go back far at all to find an article that proves you wrong. Could probably find dozens of others if I tried. And yet you said, "... literally ever single article ...". You should be more literal and accurate in the comments that you post.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

Sigh, me having to mansplain this to you. "Literally every single…" was more informal to denote a good portion or a majority or quite a bit. C'mon, man. You're old enough where other folks shouldn't have to hold your hand for everything.

Jason posted a recent article that has affiliate links on it. Are you going to ask the same scat brained question, "I just like to know if Fstoppers is publishing this so that they can make a couple of extra dollars, or if they are only publishing this to help out their readership, with nothing in it for themselves."

Tom Reichner's picture

Type precisely what you mean, Use your words in the most accurate sense possible. It is sloppy to overstate your point by using words in a way that is not consistent with their actual definitions.

Brian Cover's picture

The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of a cheap price is forgotten. The most expensive way to build your equipment collection is to keep buying the cheapest pieces. The good stuff costs more upfront, but costs less in the long term.

Stuart C's picture

You should head to the Fuji forums and explain this, where people spend all day crying about the price of Fujinon lenses and beg the likes of Tamron, Sigma and (insert Chinese brand here) to create lenses that ‘suit their budget more’

Tom Reichner's picture

What you say is correct. Poor quality lenses are not wise to buy. But this lens that Alex wrote about is not poor quality.

It used to be, in years gone by, that buying a high quality, well-built lens meant that you had to spend a lot of money. But over the past decade or so, many high quality lenses are being sold for very inexpensive prices. High quality and high price are no longer synonymous.

Which begs the question, did you somehow think that this Tamron 70-201mm lens is of poor quality, just because it is available at a low price? If so, are you not aware of the drastic changes in the marketplace over the past decade?

Steve Driver's picture

I bought it in November (pre-black Fri sale) for the same price now. Great value purchase. This is a $600-$700 lens. Very long and thin, so a little unwieldy on a D7200 but made some great images this summer swim season. Focuses very fast.