70-200: Tamron f2.8 or Canon f4L?

minicoop1985 · Nov 18, 2014

Title says it all. They're about the same price, so I figure this is a good comparison. Looking for one for weddings (need some reach so I don't get in the way) and some racing coverage. So far all I know is Tamron has this annoying push pull AF selection, and the Canon is... white. HALP

Braineack · Nov 19, 2014

So you're not looking at the SP 70-200 2.8 VC?

D-B-J · Nov 19, 2014

Braineack said:
So you're not looking at the SP 70-200 2.8 VC?

Yeah, if you can, look at this one. It's a BEAST. The VC is incredible, and it's really quite a sharp lens. Not clinically sharp, but still impressive. Well worth every single penny. [emoji106]

Mr.Photo · Nov 19, 2014

Which Tamron 70-200 are you looking at? Tamron has two versions of 70-200 currently. The older model is non stabilized, and has the "push pull" clutch mechanism to change from auto to manual focus. The newer Tamron 70-200 VC (Vibration Compensation) lens has conventional switches on the side to switch from auto to manual focus as well as a full time manual focus override.

In my opinion I would take a 2.8 lens every time. You will come to appreciate it when/if you have to shoot in a low light situation.

runnah · Nov 19, 2014

Tamron = Extrastops
Canon = Better IQ.

Take your pick.

Mr.Photo · Nov 19, 2014

runnah said:
Tamron = Extrastops
Canon = Better IQ.

Take your pick.

This is not entirely true. I've seen several reviews pitting the Tamron against the best that both Nikon and Canon have to offer, and the Tamron is nearly as good in every way. I've taken some sample shots comparing the older Tamron 70-200 along side a Nikon 70-200 VRII and I see virtually no difference in image quality other than the contrast of the Nikon seemed slightly better (likely due to their coatings). However I don't think contrast alone is worth over $1000 in price difference between the Tarmon vs Nikon.

runnah · Nov 19, 2014

Mr.Photo said:
This is not entirely true. I've seen several reviews pitting the Tamron against the best that both Nikon and Canon have to offer, and the Tamron is nearly as good in every way. I've taken some sample shots comparing the older Tamron 70-200 along side a Nikon 70-200 VRII and I see virtually no difference in image quality other than the contrast of the Nikon seemed slightly better (likely due to their coatings). However I don't think contrast alone is worth over $1000 in price difference between the Tarmon vs Nikon.

Well when comparing Nikon glass to Tamron of course the quality is going to be just as poor!

In all seriousness I have done a bunch of Canon/Tamron comparisons and Tamron always loses. Not by much, but always does. In the end you are paying a bit more for the name and quality.

Braineack · Nov 19, 2014

runnah said:
Tamron = Extrastops
Canon = Better IQ.

If you compare to the SP version, the Tamron beats it out on paper. It's probably at least on par in regards.

minicoop1985 · Nov 19, 2014

Thanks, everyone. I would consider the VC if it weren't twice as much and out of my budget.

Mr.Photo · Nov 19, 2014

While image stabilization can be nice at times, I find I don't need it very often.

I shoot with an older Nikon 80-200 2.8 zoom lens without any built in stabilization. With proper technique, and using appropriate shutter speeds for the focal length of the lens I consistently can get good sharp shots. If light is low you would benefit more from using flash rather than relying on image stabilization because unless your subject stays perfectly still shooting at anything less than 1/125 is going to produce some kind of motion blur which stabilization is not going to help.

I own a couple of stabilized lenses, and when using those I have it turned OFF probably 98% of the time.

D-B-J · Nov 19, 2014

Mr.Photo said:
While image stabilization can be nice at times, I find I don't need it very often.

I shoot with an older Nikon 80-200 2.8 zoom lens without any built in stabilization. With proper technique, and using appropriate shutter speeds for the focal length of the lens I consistently can get good sharp shots. If light is low you would benefit more from using flash rather than relying on image stabilization because unless your subject stays perfectly still shooting at anything less than 1/125 is going to produce some kind of motion blur which stabilization is not going to help.

I own a couple of stabilized lenses, and when using those I have it turned OFF probably 98% of the time.

To each his own. I've taken many shots between 1/20th and 1/50th with the 70-200 that I WOULD NOT have been able to take without the vibration control. I've found it IMMENSELY useful on many occasions. [emoji106]