Canon 70-200 f/2.L IS II vs Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC

See the title. This is somewhat a continuation of an earlier thread now that I ruled myself down to "I want a 70-200" to bolt onto my EOS 7D Mark II. I own a 15-85 IS, the Sigma 150-600 C, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX and the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro

Intended uses are pretty simple, top of the list is the new puppy thats coming in a few weeks, but also larger flower specimens and er.. anything else that requires a 70-200, the list of things is very long in my book (I'm a heavy telephoto shooter) the 150-600 is a bit cumbersome to work with sometimes for some subjects, and at the wide end its quite slow at f/5, The reproduction ratio is meh and its just ungainly to use for flowers, its a bird and wildlife lens, purely, this is a more general purpose telephoto

I'm not big on Tamron lenses, Every single one has been a complete turd for me, but they were earlier non-USD lenses, That fact and the MFD are giving me a lot of pause as the 1:8 reproduction ratio is honestly a lot higher than i would like (I genuinely prefer 1:5, and not messing with extension tubes) but its been a while and maybe, just maybe, im being too critical of it.. Then again, when i ignore my "rules" i tend to end up selling or returning a lens (and then having someone here joke about the amount of gear i've owned..)

The Canon is..white and expensive, Im not huge on the white paint to be honest, and the price makes me twitch and gag (It will easily be the priciest lens i've ever bought) but...well.. is there really anything bad about it?

I had a 70-200 f/4L IS before, Lovely lens and worked great for my old dog before she passed, which is why im deciding to stick with what worked. Yes I would prefer a zoom for rapid composition changes, For more sedate portraits, i have my 50mm f/1.4.

Why did you unload the 70-200 f/4 L IS?
Do you need f/2.8? If so, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II is top shelf.
I have both the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Both are soooooooo nice. Why carry the extra weight when f/2.8 is not needed.

Price is the big issue. The Canon is unquestionably the best. Is it worth it to you?

It's fairly straightforward. The Canon lacks for nothing optically and is in the group of newer Canon zooms that outperform everything else when it comes to AF accuracy and repeatability (the 24-70II and 100-400II are the others). If you are picky and can afford the Canon, that's what you get.

Mine is rock solid... never had an issue and is very sharp... and I mean very sharp. It's very close to the 200 F2 IS and you really have to pixel peep hard before you really see major differences. Compared to the 70-200 2.8 II it focuses just as fast and the VC works great. I've been very happy with the two times now I've owned the Tamron. The canon is the best and carries a better magnification will will give the appearance of the tamron only being a 187mm lens because it has less magnification but at infinity the Tamron is a true 200mm while the canon is say 195mm. Not much of a difference but it's there.

Used prices on the tamron are in the 900 range... still makes it a great buy vs a used II. Ironically mine is available. Compared to the 70-200 F4 IS the Tamron is much sharper overall.

Honesty the only reason I do have my for sale is just the fact I bought the 200 F2 IS and wouldn't mind freeing up the funds to be invested elsewhere.

Actually the MM at the MFD is one of my big concerns given one of my uses for it (Larger flower specimens) where the MM is important. I'd also be using it for indoor studio type things for when i want more compression. Basically its that plus the AF accuracy that has me wobbling.

The question is more can i really afford the Canon, the Canon is admittedly a bit of a stretch financially, I can do it, but its pretty much Christmas and my birthday come early for me

KenjiS wrote in post #18184084
Actually the MM at the MFD is one of my big concerns given one of my uses for it (Larger flower specimens) where the MM is important. I'd also be using it for indoor studio type things for when i want more compression. Basically its that plus the AF accuracy that has me wobbling.

The question is more can i really afford the Canon, the Canon is admittedly a bit of a stretch financially, I can do it, but its pretty much Christmas and my birthday come early for me

I have a few examples of MFD from the 70-200 2.8 II vs the Tamron. It does make a pretty good difference at that close range.... remember it's not MM it's magnification is key. see the image below (thanks to The Digital Picture) and you'll see the Canon has a greater magnification.

If your going to be shooting flowers at MFD then wouldn't you be fine with the 70-200 F4 IS?

Thats only PART of what ill use it for however, Some of it will be portraits of said new puppy and a lot of general purpose telephoto things, Honestly its just theres a huge list of things id use it for (I use telephoto a lot period), and i know from owning the f/4 I always preferred the isolation of f/2.8 in images i shot before (I had several portraits of my old dog shot at f/2.8 from my Macro and some from the 70-200 at around 100-127mm at f/4 and I really prefer the seperation on the f/2.8 ones) Its supposed to be a faster alternative to the 150-600, thats also a bit smaller and handier for when i just dont need a 600mm lens (Not to mention its just unwieldy for some subjects, Its a dedicated birding and shy wildlife lens) basically I want f/2.8 because to me its flexible, I can stop it down if i need to for depth of field, I cant suddenly make the f/4 f/2.8 however. I also would like to use it in lower light situations, indoors, etc.

I only bought the f/4L IS the first time because the Tamron was not available, the Sigma OS wasnt very good and the Canon IS II was $2500 still. Dont misunderstand, im not knocking it, its a great lens, sharp as a tack and fantastic all around, I knew I could resell it down the line and get the f/2.8 without losing much on top of it. Because Canon resale value.

And yes i know its the MM that causes a headache

I ended up doing something I probubly should have done to start and went on Flickr and started looking through the images with the Tamron, I see a LOT of action, dogs and puppies charging the camera, horses, motorbikes, larger flower specimens and etc, Basically i just kept seeing well..exactly what i want to use it for.

However I'm still uncertain on it. Its likely past experience giving me a lot of pause, I'm not kidding when I say I've hated every "highly regarded" Tamron lens i've owned. I've had better luck with Sigma (Just about every Sigma lens I've absolutely adored) Its not helped by most pro reviewers focusing ENTIRELY on portrait use, and even THEY said they had issues with AF "slipping" Then again several of them are using EOS 6D and 5D Mark IIs for their reviews, understandable, but evaluating AF performance with those bodies is... maybe not wise

But the Canon is significantly more expensive. Which is entirely why I still consider the Tamron. Then again I know 100% the Canon is going to be a fantastic lens. eating a 15% restocking fee on the Tamron is kind of a poor idea. Unfortunately I believe no place here has the Tamron in stock to give it a whirl...

I have been mulling over other options, of course, but I keep coming back to I want a zoom, i think that zoom should be 70-200 (Giving a decent overlap between my 15-85 and 150-600) and I'd really prefer the f/2.8 aperture. I think the non-IS 70-200 is a bit pricey for what it is, the Sigma OS is sadly not very good (If Sigma had an Art, Sports or Contemporary 70-200 f/2.8 this discussion would be simple, I'd probubly buy the Sigma) so that, to my knowledge, leaves me down to the IS II and the VC.

VC is a stellar alternative to the canon. I owned two copies now and as of today JUST sold my 2nd copy for $915. I used it like 4 times since I bought it... the buyer is getting a fantastic deal. Why not buy used like that? I always buy used as much as I can but bought the Tamron because I wanted new for some dump reason and now I'm eating alot of it.

I was hung up on the 2.8 zooms for too long. Then I met the 85 1.4 and I never used the 70-200 after.... I later bought the 120-300 for long needs and then later picked up my second 70-200 VC just as a lighter option to the 120-300 but then I got the 200 F2 and now I don't use either zooms.

The 85 1.4 gives as much and/or better isolation than 200mm 2.8 so it's my lens of choice but I'm not trying to change your mind. The VC is a good lens and I doubt you'll have much issues.

Where you planning on buying new or used? If I were to rebuy now I would buy a used 70-200 2.8 II over a new VC but thats just me.

New, because in order to do this ASAP im using a store account and not cash. I was not expecting to get a new dog so soon, shes coming in the next few weeks. I do not wish to miss opportunities because I'm mucking around with my lenses.

I have enough to get either lens. Its going to hurt either way, the Tamron less so. I keep leaning towards the Canon because I know what I'm getting, plus I went on Flickr and started looking at the Canon's images and theres just a higher percentage of better shots, Not to mention the colour is typical Canon, nice and saturated and punchy. Tamron is not bad of course, but Canon's colour is something I've always loved

Its just twice the price of the Tamron, and everyone says "The Tamron is a really good lens" and maybe it is, I just personally dont have one to handle and use to see that, So all that sticks in my head is the multiple other Tamrons I've owned and their inability to focus on anything. All of which were "Really good lenses"

My original plan btw was wait for Sigma to releasew the A or S 70-200 f/2.8 OS we know they're probubly working on. However that could be 3 months or 3 years from now.

KenjiS wrote in post #18184425
New, because in order to do this ASAP im using a store account and not cash. I was not expecting to get a new dog so soon, shes coming in the next few weeks. I do not wish to miss opportunities because I'm mucking around with my lenses.

I have enough to get either lens. Its going to hurt either way, the Tamron less so. I keep leaning towards the Canon because I know what I'm getting, plus I went on Flickr and started looking at the Canon's images and theres just a higher percentage of better shots, Not to mention the colour is typical Canon, nice and saturated and punchy. Tamron is not bad of course, but Canon's colour is something I've always loved

Its just twice the price of the Tamron, and everyone says "The Tamron is a really good lens" and maybe it is, I just personally dont have one to handle and use to see that, So all that sticks in my head is the multiple other Tamrons I've owned and their inability to focus on anything. All of which were "Really good lenses"

I can only comment on my two copies. Both were 95% of a 70-200 2.8 II in fact my second copy that I currently have until it ships out tomorrow is very close to the 200 F2 IS, I an provide some samples if you wish. The AF has been very good for my needs as well. I've never put it up to NFL sports or anything but it has kept up with all my kids stuff.

One thing to consider when using Flickr to see samples is that the big whites are mounted to good cameras and are backed by really good photographers that makes the difference and typically those photographers has better editing skill sets.

The Tamrons on the other hand will be in less peoples hands that are that capable because they will typically go the Canon route.

There is a color tone difference...the Tamron being warmer. Do you want me to dropbox some raw's for you to see?

Talley wrote in post #18184442
I can only comment on my two copies. Both were 95% of a 70-200 2.8 II in fact my second copy that I currently have until it ships out tomorrow is very close to the 200 F2 IS, I an provide some samples if you wish. The AF has been very good for my needs as well. I've never put it up to NFL sports or anything but it has kept up with all my kids stuff.

One thing to consider when using Flickr to see samples is that the big whites are mounted to good cameras and are backed by really good photographers that makes the difference and typically those photographers has better editing skill sets.

The Tamrons on the other hand will be in less peoples hands that are that capable because they will typically go the Canon route.

There is a color tone difference...the Tamron being warmer. Do you want me to dropbox some raw's for you to see?

No its ok

Also i saw the Canon bolted on 5D Mark IIIs, 6Ds, 7D Mark IIs, 70Ds, 80Ds, a 550D (yes seriously) 1DX Mark IIs...the gamut of Canon bodies was huge. The Tamron I saw a lot on Nikon bodies but i also saw a gamut of "better" Canon bodies mixed in...and overall a lot of the shots just didnt look right to me, Soft, whether out of focus, heavily cropped or just otherwise flubbed (all i can do is look at shutter speed) the overall Canon was just leaving a better impression to me.. I dont know why

Im not knocking the Tamron. If I dig and dig I find the really great well done images.. If it was a Sigma and not a Tamron I'd probubly buy it with no hesitation, its just every Tamron I had was so bad its made me extremely nervous

Tamron might be a very good lens, and I have little doubt that it is, but you are comparing it to perhaps the best known/acclaimed/worshi​pped/admired/recommend​ed/add to this whatever complicated verb you can think of in Canon's lineup. I mean MK II is so good that even those on the dark side (Nikon) drool over it. I have seen newbies mounting it on their Rebel bodies and slinging it like the pros

Obviously the photo pool is going to be stacked in its favour. I played with Tamron 24-70 variant and it was pretty good, maybe not very sharp compared to some primes in that range (and I was familiar with) but it focused quickly and accurately.

Good luck with your decision, I will be watching you closely . Ironically speaking, I recently damaged my beloved F4L IS as well, it works but focus gets stuck and then slowly locks on (sometimes takes 10 seconds ). I have been contemplating a repair or a purchase. Its a must have focal length for me, so I am sitting on the fence a little confused as well.

Recently, I have switched to a 2 lens setup from 3 so the added weight of MK II isn't that big a factor at present.

If you're even hesitant on the tamron, then get the canon, no need to discuss any further