Help me decide on which 70-200 and why?

Hi guys,

So it’s getting close to upgrading lens time.. I won’t be able to do it till Jan, but I had a taste of my friends 70-200 2.8is canon version and can see how that improves my shots in the areas that im looking for improvement. Im basically only using my 50mm prime.. I also have my 55-250, but rarely use it and would sell it. After reading and watching reviews I have noticed that the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC holds its own very well. Especially with the savings I would get over the 2.8 Canon 70-200 I could invest that in other areas.

I have seen some inamges of the Tamron and they look respectably sharp. Am I missing something or is there a F4 Tamron? Also, I know others have said that the Canon 70-200 f4 IS is very sharp for what it is and that most don’t need 2.8. My biggest thing, just like everyone else, are sharpness (of course) and a shallow DOF.
So that’s where im at:

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or
Canon 70-200 f4 IS

I do like have a very shallow depth of field, but does anyone have a decent portrait example of the canon at f4? Also, I (may) be able to sell my 60D and pick up either a 6D or whatever FF is close enough and not too expensive.. Would going from the 60D to the 6D be a big enough improvement to warrant the change ro do I wait?

Thoughts?
Thanks!

You could also consider the Sigma 50-150 OS and 70-200 OS.

F2.8 is not just for a shallow DoF. For example, perhaps you do enough sports photography to justify needing F2.8 to help keep shutter speeds up.

I borrowed a friend's Canon 70-200 f2.8L on a trip to Colorado. I loved it, but it was heavy. I recently bought Canon's 70-200 f4L IS. I couldn't spend THAT much and didn't want the extra weight.

I would personally avoid the sigma. The picture quality is not that great.

Between the Tamron 2.8 and Canon f/4, it is all going to depend on your needs. If you are wanting to do portraits or low light shooting get the 2.8. If you mainly shoot things like sports, get the f/4.

What is it that you shoot?

You may also want to look at the 70-300L as well, granted it doesn't have the speed of the 70-200 2.8, but If sharpness is important, its a worthy contender as well.
Pricewise with the rebate it puts it pretty close to the 70-200 F4 IS.

Ratjack... I'm doing portraits right now. Will branch into maternity and newborn as well, although i would need a fast lens because i know some of those portraits will be of fast moving children. Bsmooth, I haven't enough good things about the 300, but perhaps I just read the wrong reviews.

If doing portraits I would go with the 2.8 Tamron. The 70-300L is a great lens, but it is a variable aperture from 4-5.6. It is great for wildlife and things, but I would personally choose the 2.8 zoom over the slower zooms.

If you do not need a zoom, the 135 f/2 is another awesome lens for portraits.

I've owned the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and still have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Though I can't speak to the Tamron I think the Canon f/4IS is a fantastic lens. For portraits the f/4 will do quite well unless you are putting a lot of distance between you and the subject. The AF is very quick and accurate and the lens is light enough to be hand-holdable for a much longer period of time than the f/2.8 choices. The picture quality from the Canon f/4IS is also amazing! It is razor sharp with excellent contrast. I don't recommend the Sigma based on my experience with it. I felt the AF was finicky and the image quality at f/2.8 was unusable.

Bob

Rush87 wrote in post #16430611
You could also consider the Sigma 50-150 OS and 70-200 OS.

The Σ50-150 is the same size as the 70-200 and won't work on FF. What's the point?

I have the Σ70-200 OS. Read Talley's review of the Tamron VC. You'll take the Sigma right off your list.

Hot Bob wrote in post #16430791
I've owned the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and still have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Though I can't speak to the Tamron I think the Canon f/4IS is a fantastic lens. For portraits the f/4 will do quite well unless you are putting a lot of distance between you and the subject. The AF is very quick and accurate and the lens is light enough to be hand-holdable for a much longer period of time than the f/2.8 choices. The picture quality from the Canon f/4IS is also amazing! It is razor sharp with excellent contrast. I don't recommend the Sigma based on my experience with it. I felt the AF was finicky and the image quality at f/2.8 was unusable.

Bob

I have had my Sigma 70-200 OS for about 18 months. I've never had AF issues. I agree that it is a bit soft at f/2.8 while at 200mm. Unusable is a bit harsh, but lenses vary, as do standards. I must either have a good lens, or low standards.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16431146
The Σ50-150 is the same size as the 70-200 and won't work on FF. What's the point?

Its sharp, great IQ, has beautiful bokeh, gives a 'FF 70-200mm field of view' to crop shooter, and is less expensive then any of the 70-200 f2.8 choices

As a crop shooter it is an amazing choice and one that shouldn't be over looked.

To the OP. Of the two choice you gave I'd go with the tamron. Its proving itself to be a great lens and when you need f2.8 it's there

digitalduck wrote in post #16430528
I do like have a very shallow depth of field, ......

Depending on what you mean by 'very,' an f/2.8 might not be enough for you; therefore, 135/2 could be a better option.

I have the tamron, a 60d and a 6d. I just got the 6d and haven't had much time to play with it yet. However, so far, I like my tamron much better on the 6d. I am not skilled enough assess whether it's the ff/crop difference or the aa filter differences. Doesn't really matter in the end. I just like the end result better.

As far as the overall performance of the Tamron...I LOVE it! quick af, nice colors rendition, stunning VC. But it is a beast of a heavy thing.

I have owned both. First I had the 70-200L F/4 IS, and I did love it with my crop. Color and contrast was outstanding, as was sharpness. After going FF, I discovered this lens was not long enough for wildlife and birding and I purchased the 100mm-400mm L and sold this lens.

However, I soon missed the aperture of this lens and found the new lens was too big and not fast enough for indoor events with the grandkids. I purchased the new Tamron 70-200 VC F/2.8 and absolutely love it. It is an outstanding lens. But it does weigh about 2 lbs. more than the Canon F4 IS. Results from either are fantastic and either one will be a great edition in your bag.

It coms down to weight over aperture, which would you rather have? In the future, I may end up selling the Tamron and going back to the Canon, if and when the Tamron becomes too heavy for me.

the tamron is way too heavy