Tamron 75-200 2.8

[Stormchase]

Just wondering if anyone has experience with this lens. I have been looking around and came across this and the price is right. Half of the cost of the Canon 200mm with the same options.
I'm pretty sure I know the Canon beats it but how might It compare?

 

[Stormchase]

Anyone use it?

 

[Munky]

Hope This Helps!

Juza Nature Photography

 

[Munky]

I'm Also in The Search of a 70-200 f2.8
But At the Moment Canon L is out of reach...

 

[Stormchase]

Good link and surprising results. Thanks for the information!

 

[Big Mike]

I don't have experience with this lens, but I do have the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.

In most cases like this, the 'off-brand' (Sigma/Tamron) lens is a good deal compared to the 'brand' lens (Canon/Nikon). However, the name brand lenses are usually the best quality ones.
You really have to take the comparison on a lens by lens basis, but what I generally say to people is that the off-brand lenses are around 80-90% as good as the Canon/Nikon equivalent, but at 50% of the price. So for many people, the off-brand lenses are a great deal, but for many other people, top quality is the most important, so it's worth the extra 50%.

 

[MGriff240]

Good link and surprising results. Thanks for the information!

Ditto, awesome link. I might have to go pick up the Sigma now.

 

[Big Mike]

I was surprised how poorly the Sigma tested compared to the others. It was OK in the centre but terrible in the corners. The Tamron, on the other hand, was actually sharper than the Canon, overall, which was surprising.

Just to add to this debate, Canon also has F4 versions of their 70-200mm L. Both with and without IS. The F4 is a newer design than the older F2.8, and is said to be sharper...and of course, it's a lot cheaper as well (more on par with the the Sigma/Tamron F2.8)
However, Canon has just released a 2nd version (II) of their 70-200mm F2.8 L IS and it's supposed to be sharper than the old version, although it looks to be about $500 more right now.

Also, Sigma does now have a 70-200mm with OS (their version of stabilization).
I don't know if Tamron has a VC version yet, but if not, I'd guess that it's in the works.

 

[mwcfarms]

This is depressing to hear about the Sigma's sharpness. I have my eye on it rather than Nikon's since the $$$ is much cheaper.

 

[Big Mike]

This is depressing to hear about the Sigma's sharpness. I have my eye on it rather than Nikon's since the $$$ is much cheaper.

Take note though, that the problems were mostly in the corners. And as such, the reviewer still recommended the Sigma for use on an APS-C sized sensor (like your D90). The reason being that your camera only 'sees' the middle of the lens's image, thus cropping off the worst areas.

 

[Munky]

At the moment i'm at this stage; Wanting a 70-200 but cant decide yet; f4 is newer sharper cheaper; but it's considered a 'daytime' lens; i dont wanna limit the potential of my camera with a lens that only serves it's best sometimes; so that's why i'm looking for 2.8 maybe IS; on the other hand it's not a lens i would use constantly for what i mostly shoot and make money of;my 17-50mm 2.8 does the work and pays a few bills; So i dont know if i wanna spend so much on 2.8L thats why i'm considerong Tamron or Sigma!

 

[Stormchase]

That is true about the crop sensor. It was tested on a 5D mkII. I'm sure It was to give the full range of each lens. I have a crop and will prob stick with a crop for some time or until I have the need for a FF.
Very impressed with the sharpness of the Tamron. As of now price is not so much of a big deal. I can save a month or so and afford the canon. I just want quality and clarity. I like the Canon still for the fack that It Is sealed and the new mkII seems like they stepped up the game a little.

 

[Big Mike]

At the moment i'm at this stage; Wanting a 70-200 but cant decide yet; f4 is newer sharper cheaper; but it's considered a 'daytime' lens; i dont wanna limit the potential of my camera with a lens that only serves it's best sometimes;

There is only one stop difference between F2.8 and F4. If it's 'nighttime, F2.8 isn't going to save you if F4 is unusable.
Sure, F2.8 is better, but the F2.8 lens is twice the price, 1.5 times the size and probably twice the weight. Just things to consider.