Canon 70-200 f4 vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8

explore.thru.lens

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Dear community members,

I would like to get your opinions on the following 2 lenses:
Canon 70-200 f4
Tamron 70-200 f2.8
Both of them are non image stabilised lenses and broadly fall in the same price range. As an amateur hobby photographer, looking for general purpose/kids indoor/outdoor photos, which one would be a better choice.

Thanks in advance.
 
Well I can't speak for the Canon but the Tamron non VC version of the 2.8 lens isn't really well regarded. It got a lot of so-so reviews, apparently it has problems focusing in low light situations and had a lot of front focusing issues on many copies.

I had pretty good luck with the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for Nikon, was a very nice lens. Used it till I upgraded to the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VRI. For me the upgrade was well worth the price difference. You might want to check the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 non-OS version for the Canon as opposed to the Tamron non-VC version.

FYI the VC version is very highly regarded, however it's a lot more expensive and harder to find used.
 
Well I can't speak for the Canon but the Tamron non VC version of the 2.8 lens isn't really well regarded. It got a lot of so-so reviews, apparently it has problems focusing in low light situations and had a lot of front focusing issues on many copies.

I had pretty good luck with the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for Nikon, was a very nice lens. Used it till I upgraded to the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VRI. For me the upgrade was well worth the price difference. You might want to check the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 non-OS version for the Canon as opposed to the Tamron non-VC version.

FYI the VC version is very highly regarded, however it's a lot more expensive and harder to find used.
Indeed the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 non VC isn't recommended, I too heard the AF on it isn't good in low light, lots of hunting.
I have experience with the older NON OS Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and I loved it, it was very sharp and very affordable for a used lens.
I would rather get a f2.8 over f4 lens!!!
 
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a well regarded lens and quite capable.

The VC version of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or f2.8II is impossible to find since Canon has IS lenses not VC lenses. :lol:
 
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a well regarded lens and quite capable.

The VC version of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or f2.8II is impossible to find since Canon has IS lenses not VC lenses. [emoji38]
I was referring to the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 with VC in the Canon mount. Thought that was fairly clear

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
 
Dear community members,

I would like to get your opinions on the following 2 lenses:
Canon 70-200 f4
Tamron 70-200 f2.8
Both of them are non image stabilised lenses and broadly fall in the same price range. As an amateur hobby photographer, looking for general purpose/kids indoor/outdoor photos, which one would be a better choice.

Thanks in advance.


from that list I'd pick the Canon 70-200 f4
 
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a well regarded lens and quite capable.

The VC version of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or f2.8II is impossible to find since Canon has IS lenses not VC lenses. [emoji38]
I was referring to the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 with VC in the Canon mount. Thought that was fairly clear

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Tomato - Tohmato it's all the same thing. They all have to have their little marketing catch words.
 
I use the tests and reviews a Photozone.de. I find them quite useful, if brutally honest. I believe the Tamron has been tested, and of course, the Canon has. I own a Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. It's my all-time favorite lens, and I've shot landscape with it. I fired 400 shots in a couple hours at Bryce Canyon a few years ago with the non-IS version (while everyone around me was shooting with their phones!). Totally satisfied with the results. I upgraded this year to the IS version...now my favorite

I tried the f/2.8 IS version...the size and mass outweighed (sorry!) the large aperture advantage. I chose the f/4, but I'm not shooting sports. I also rent lenses before I buy them. A weekend test-drive tells all, usually.
 
An f/4 lens is MUCH smaller and lighter than a comparable f/2.8 model. The "newish" Canon IS f/4 is a sweet lens, no doubt about it. The choice depends on how you want to work...f/2.8 looks impressive, but carries a size/weight penalty, but also offers more ultimate capability.
 
I have the Canon 70-200 F/4 non-IS lens. It is surprisingly good. Very sharp lens and light!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top