Looking for a lighter, long lens

Having nothing better to do on my day off, reading some of the back and forth between the Canon 70-200 L and the Tamron 70-300mm and owning both the Canon 70-200 L non IS and the Tamron 70-300 4-5.6, I went outside and took some shots of a craggy tree I sometimes use for tests. All shots were hand held with a 7D and the Tamron had the IS on. The images were shot in raw and converted to jpegs. No sharpening or processing was used except for resizing for the web, which, unfortunately did create some image degradation, and it seems to me reduced the actual differences between the images compared to how they look on my local machine in non-uploaded form. People can decide for themselves which lens they find superior and by how much.

First is the Canon at f/4 at 200mm and below it is a 100% crop. Following those two are the Tamron at f5.6 at 218 mm and below that is a 100% crop of that shot. The Tamron goes to 5.6 at that focal length, other wise I would have matched the f stops. Below that is the Canon at f5.6 at 200mm followed by a 100% crop. Following that is the Tamron at f/5.6 at 300 mm followed by a 100% crop of that. I also have images at 70mm and around 135 mm, but due to posting limits they weren't included. I think if someone asks to see them I may be allowed to post them.

Canon f/4 200mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/6​560849201/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/6​560849251/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/6​560850111/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64775760@N07/6​560850187/

^ your tamron is front focusing.

Cesium wrote in post #13591168
^ your tamron is front focusing.

What are you seeing that indicates that? Asking for educational purposes.

vorlon1 wrote in post #13591206
What are you seeing that indicates that? Asking for educational purposes.

Picture #7, look at the green leaves in the foreground. Especially noticeable in the full size on flickr.

Cesium wrote in post #13591235
Picture #7, look at the green leaves in the foreground. Especially noticeable in the full size on flickr.

Do you have a suggestion for a ballpark Micro adjustment that might fix/improve that?

Between +5 and +10 or so.

I've had that lens before and while it's not the sharpest (the 70-200s walk all over it honestly), it should be better than that.

Cesium wrote in post #13591307
Between +5 and +10 or so.

I've had that lens before and while it's not the sharpest (the 70-200s walk all over it honestly), it should be better than that.

Thanks, I'll try that adjustment.

I'd go back and get the 70-200 f/4 with IS you loved and then get the 135mm F/2 to go with it. You get a light zoom and a very fast prime that's light as well. And if you have the 1.4x converter even better.

I created this same problem. Went from f/4 to f/2.8 and the added weight just seems to get in the way a lot. Luckily I never sold my 135L so going back is easy. I also have 200mm f/2.8 II so I can go fast and long also. There are a lot of combos and yes you get FL duplication but you want to have the right tool.

swldstn wrote in post #13592465
I'd go back and get the 70-200 f/4 with IS you loved and then get the 135mm F/2 to go with it. You get a light zoom and a very fast prime that's light as well. And if you have the 1.4x converter even better.

I created this same problem. Went from f/4 to f/2.8 and the added weight just seems to get in the way a lot. Luckily I never sold my 135L so going back is easy. I also have 200mm f/2.8 II so I can go fast and long also. There are a lot of combos and yes you get FL duplication but you want to have the right tool.

I had the same long set as you, but then figured that as good as the ƒ4IS was, the 2.8II had to be even better. (I guess you did also.) The original 2.8 zoom didn't impress me like the 4IS. I agree completely that primes overlapping zooms is not a concern. (I've even got 2 expensive 50mm's I'm justifying.)

A few weeks into this thought, I'm aiming for a contax 180 2.8 w/exif and focus confirmation adapter. i only shoot long lenses wide open anyway. I'd take a Canon EF 200L for the $410 that went by on eBay, but i'm less interested in a II. but then now i'm also looking at new noises coming from my saab.

I stand by my choice of opting out of the 135L. Wish I had kept the 200L, but I kept a zoom over it! Rather than go back (at least right now) on lens choices, I will add the new 2.8II IS to the same category of "undecided relationship" lenses that my 2 other zooms are occupying.