Tamron 70-200mm F2.8

Ptyler22 · Aug 1, 2008

I was thinking about saving up for a 70-200mm F2.8 and the Canon is $1700 with IS, $1200 without, Sigma has one for $799, and the Tamron 70-200mm F 2.8 is $699. Does anyone here have the Tamron, what do you think of it? My question is, Do you think that the Tamron will have comparable image quality and focus speed to the Sigma and Canon? Is it worth it to spend the extra $$ on the Canon or is the Sigma, in the sweet spot for bang for the buck? Or should I sacrifice the 2.8 for more zoom and just get the Canon 75-300mm (non IS) for $200?

Thanks.

reg · Aug 1, 2008

Should you sacrifice the 2.8 for more zoom in a far cheaper, far worse lens?

That's up to you to decide. If you don't *need* 2.8 though, why even bother buying one?

maulrat · Aug 1, 2008

A friend of mine turned me on the this site a few days ago while I was looking at lenses. I really like their in-depth reviews. My friend is a pretty reputable photographer and a mentor of mine. If you haven't seen this yet, here is a great review of the lens I believe that you are referring to and how it compares to other lenses:
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro

My friend also has had a few 3rd party lenses but after he purchased the http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM, he swears up and down that it is worth every bit of the extra $1000 price tag.

reg · Aug 1, 2008

maulrat said:
My friend also has had a few 3rd party lenses but after he purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM, he swears up and down that it is worth every bit of the extra $1000 price tag.

Only if you have an extra grand laying around to lose.

icassell · Aug 1, 2008

Not sure about that one, but my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an outstanding lens. The downside is that it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor. My Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is also great and it DOES have an ultrasonic motor. 3rd party lenses are not all bad.

icassell · Aug 1, 2008

reg said:
Only if you have an extra grand laying around to lose.

Or justifying the extra expense to himself.

More money isn't always better. I did a side to side with my Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22 (I could afford either). I liked the Sigma better.

D40 · Aug 1, 2008

I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro lens and would not get rid of it for anything but the Nikon version! Honestly for the money it is a supper lens! Haveing a constant Aperture lens is so important, I love it!!!

prodigy2k7 · Aug 1, 2008

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/page2.asp

uplander · Aug 1, 2008

I have 1 Tamron lens and it is my least favorite lens and will be the first to go down the road. The first and most glaring sore point is the lack of fast focus ( no USM or HSM). I'm not rich but I believe in quality in things I own. Canon lenses may be expensive but they do the job no questions asked. I would much rather wait and save up the money for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM ( which I did) than be disappointed with a lesser lens.
When it comes down to all the lenses I own, the 70-200 IS USM. is hands down the best and sharpest lens I own and I have a lens which cost 4 times as much.

Ptyler22 · Aug 1, 2008

So I think the Canon is too expensive, unless I want to wait 6 months, (which I don't). So what should I go with?
Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6 $200
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 $800
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 $700
Or should I get the canon 75-300mm now so that I have the extra zoom, and save up for the Canon 70-200mm F2.8?

reg · Aug 1, 2008

^ uplander, you have a Tamron 18-200, which is one of the worst lenses from any manufacturer, maybe only behind a 28-300 or an Opteka mirror lens. Try one of their pro lenses and you'd probably feel differently about 3rd party. Don't diss till you try it.

And, again, it's your money OP, we can't tell you what to get now. Do you NEED the extra zoom or the 2.8?? Either way I'd say go with the sigma because it has USM for only 100 more than the tamron.

Ptyler22 · Aug 1, 2008

Oh ya and there is also the sigma 75-300mm. which I belive is about the same price as the Canon 75-300mm, which is a better lens?

icassell · Aug 1, 2008

reg said:
^ uplander, you have a Tamron 18-200, which is one of the worst lenses from any manufacturer, maybe only behind a 28-300 or an Opteka mirror lens. Try one of their pro lenses and you'd probably feel differently about 3rd party. Don't diss till you try it.

And, again, it's your money OP, we can't tell you what to get now. Do you NEED the extra zoom or the 2.8?? Either way I'd say go with the sigma because it has USM for only 100 more than the tamron.

I would second that -- the ultrasonic motor is very nice.

Ptyler22 · Aug 1, 2008

reg said:
^ uplander, you have a Tamron 18-200, which is one of the worst lenses from any manufacturer, maybe only behind a 28-300 or an Opteka mirror lens. Try one of their pro lenses and you'd probably feel differently about 3rd party. Don't diss till you try it.

And, again, it's your money OP, we can't tell you what to get now. Do you NEED the extra zoom or the 2.8?? Either way I'd say go with the sigma because it has USM for only 100 more than the tamron.

That's the thing, I wish there was a 70-300mm F2.8. Because I already have the 28-135, so 200mm isn't thaat much more zoom, but it's aloot faster and better sport lens. I think maybe right now what I should do is get a 75-300 and then wait and get the 2.8 later. Or maybe get a combo and get an F4. Do you think that is worth it or should I just get one now and one later?