Tamron Vs Tamron

Hi,
atm i have only a 35f2 and need to buy a tele for portraiture and reportage (no sports) as i don't like the wide angles a lot.
i have enough money for:
-Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or
-Tamron 70-300 VC + Canon 85 f1.8
what would you chose?
thanks

The Tamron 70-200 is a great lens optically, and I think that for portraiture it would be fine. But if you use it for anything that is remotely critical (reportage?), I think the focus might leave you wanting.

The 70-300 VC USD gets good reviews but speedwise you take a hit.

How about a 70-200 f4L and a 85mm f1.8?

70-300 seems to be good in reviews, but it doesn't look compact, plus it is extending...
You could find 70-200F4 used for 500$, something more reasonable, IMO, for reportage.
And 85 1.8 for portraits, but L will take them also very good.

the 70-200 canon is not an option because it's not fast enough and it has no IS.
i usually shot a lot during the last hour of the day and light available is not very much

How is the AF of the tamron 70-200 compared with the 35f2 or the 28-75?

If it were me I would go with the Tamron 70-300 VC + Canon 85 f1.8 because.

1. The Canon 85 f1.8 is a great lens that I know I would want to keep.
2. I know that no matter what I would want to upgrade the Tamron zoom to a Canon 70-200 lens in the future and I would be out less money in the future buying the cheaper Tamron now.

Vote 70-300vc and 85 1.8 as well. The 70-300 is a great lens (not very compact) but the VC is outstanding. The 85 is a tried and true winner.

javig999 wrote in post #15113584
The Tamron 70-200 is a great lens optically, and I think that for portraiture it would be fine. But if you use it for anything that is remotely critical (reportage?), I think the focus might leave you wanting.

The 70-300 VC USD gets good reviews but speedwise you take a hit.

How about a 70-200 f4L and a 85mm f1.8?

I would choose the 70-200f/4L and 85f/1.8 as well. Both Tamrons are not as good as this suggestion. If you had to go with a 70-200 f/2.8, a compareable priced one would be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex dg hsm II. When I shot sports and events it was the one I used.

How about 85 f/1.8 + 135 f/2.8? Classic portrait lenses for FF.

Not sure you will need 300mm for your shooting requirement. 200mm might be even unnecessary.

I have the 70-300 VC USD that I love, but I typically don't use teles very much...I also have the Canon 100 f2 (the cooler, but neglected big brother to the 85 1.8)..I love both lenses.

Personally, I would wait for the tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD.

Sirrith wrote in post #15115188
Personally, I would wait for the tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD.

Only problem is that it will probably be around $1300.

GregoryF wrote in post #15115241
Only problem is that it will probably be around $1300.

Oh? I didn't see that a price had been set yet.

No a price has not been announced for the 70-200mm VC, but most guesses are that it will be priced somewhere in the neighborhood of the 24-70mm and Sigma's OS version. That is why I said around $1,300.

A.D.P. wrote in post #15113710
the 70-200 canon is not an option because it's not fast enough and it has no IS.
i usually shot a lot during the last hour of the day and light available is not very much

I'm afraid, 2.8 is not going to give you enough light on 5Dc to avoid motion blur under low light, because you'll need at least 1/125 on 200mm without IS. And IS (VC) with f5.6 will make it even worst. For reportage. You'll get something like 1/60 at f5.6. It is critical if people are moving.
But, for portraits f4 works at open space at last hour.