Tamron 70-200f/2.8 VC Review really good

guys the sigma 70-200 is a nice lens but no where in comparison to the 70-200 is mkii (since you are paying a premium for 2.8 you would expect it to be sharp at 2.8 and the sigma at 2.8 between 70-200 is beaten comprehensively by the Canon. F4 onward its close and at f7/8 its very very close. At that comparison people should compare canon 70200 f4 is with the sigma 70-200.

the tamron looks good but tests need to highlight the performance soon.

Bakewell wrote in post #15319663
If the "Tamron proves worthy" like it's sibling the 24-70 2.8 VC, then there may be a substantial wait before any price drop. the Tamron 24-70 is approaching its one year birthday and most major sellers still offer it at it's introductory price of $1299.

While I agree, that's not exactly the same situation. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC has one significant feature that the Canon counterparts lack; stabilization or aperture, depending on the Canon model you're comparing it to (F4 IS or F2.8 non-IS). Neither of those are minor features, so that gives it a distinct advantage vs. the Canon offerings because it fills an obvious void (2.8 stabilized). This distinction may help justify its steady pricing. The Tamron 24-70 also has a significantly greater price difference between against the Canon 24-70 2.8 ($1299 vs $2299 at the moment).

In the case of the 70-200 2.8's, the Canon has a few features that the Tamron doesn't (focus limiter switch, 2 mode IS), while I don't see anything on the Tamron that's lacking on the Canon. This will force it to go more head on against the Canon because there's no clear distinction aside from price (and perhaps its slightly smaller size). At $1499 vs $2099 there's a smaller gap in price which, to me, means that it will have to work harder to prove it is worth the price.

Just to be clear, I'm not at all knocking either of the Tamron offerings, just explaining my opinion on how they compare. I'd love for the Tamron to equal the Canon for $600 less. Even if it doesn't, it may still be a great alternative. I'm also seriously interested in the Tamron 24-70, mainly due to its combination of 2.8 and VC, which Canon obviously chose not to offer.

Blubayou wrote in post #15320655
While I agree, that's not exactly the same situation. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC has one significant feature that the Canon counterparts lack; stabilization or aperture, depending on the Canon model you're comparing it to (F4 IS or F2.8 non-IS). Neither of those are minor features, so that gives it a distinct advantage vs. the Canon offerings because it fills an obvious void (2.8 stabilized). This distinction may help justify its steady pricing. The Tamron 24-70 also has a significantly greater price difference between against the Canon 24-70 2.8 ($1299 vs $2299 at the moment).

In the case of the 70-200 2.8's, the Canon has a few features that the Tamron doesn't (focus limiter switch, 2 mode IS), while I don't see anything on the Tamron that's lacking on the Canon. This will force it to go more head on against the Canon because there's no clear distinction aside from price (and perhaps its slightly smaller size). At $1499 vs $2099 there's a smaller gap in price which, to me, means that it will have to work harder to prove it is worth the price.

Just to be clear, I'm not at all knocking either of the Tamron offerings, just explaining my opinion on how they compare. I'd love for the Tamron to equal the Canon for $600 less. Even if it doesn't, it may still be a great alternative. I'm also seriously interested in the Tamron 24-70, mainly due to its combination of 2.8 and VC, which Canon obviously chose not to offer.

agreed completely.

I'de probably get the 70-200 mk2 from the refurb store than this, since it does have the reputation of golden standard..... If I were ever in the market for a 1.5 kilo lens (likely never)

KhaledA wrote in post #15320514
You do know that in the Canon you're paying the premium for the name, right?

By the statement apparently not. That aside, Canon is about big profits, and there's a huge markup in the gear, including lenses. Don't get me wrong, profit is good, but competition is even better. As Tamron and Sigma continue to get better, they will offer really good alternatives to paying for the Canon name, and the little red ring. However, grabbing a good portion of the L segment may be difficult because L lenses maintain their value much better than Tamron or Sigma.

I'm looking forward to seeing more reviews......

Bakewell wrote in post #15320388
Here's another very positive review...
http://www.photonews.c​a/?p=5849

Yup, though it is also worth calling attention to the following from that review:

"Ed Note: PHOTONews Canada is owned by Amplis Foto Inc. Amplis Foto Inc. is the distributor of Tamron lenses for Canada. The words are our own based on the lens we were provided by Tamron Japan"

While I'm not saying the review isn't accurate or saying that it is biased (simply because I haven't been able to try one myself to compare notes), I would want to see more objective tests and wouldn't base a purchase solely on their review.

davidc502 wrote in post #15320785
By the statement apparently not. That aside, Canon is about big profits, and there's a huge markup in the gear, including lenses. Don't get me wrong, profit is good, but competition is even better. As Tamron and Sigma continue to get better, they will offer really good alternatives to paying for the Canon name, and the little red ring. However, grabbing a good portion of the L segment may be difficult because L lenses maintain their value much better than Tamron or Sigma.

I'm looking forward to seeing more reviews......

Agreed.
That said, I still think one should buy lenses based on need and not based on what maintains value better.

Bakewell wrote in post #15319663
If the "Tamron proves worthy" like it's sibling the 24-70 2.8 VC, then there may be a substantial wait before any price drop. the Tamron 24-70 is approaching its one year birthday and most major sellers still offer it at it's introductory price of $1299.

It is because the 24-70L II costs a $1000 more and does not have VC. Besides in some consumer reviews quote that the Tamron is better performance compared to mkI.

tancanon58 wrote in post #15321344
It is because the 24-70L II costs a $1000 more and does not have VC. Besides in some consumer reviews quote that the Tamron is better performance compared to mkI.

There's one important area where it is lacking.... and that is Bokeh. It can get somewhat ugly, especially if there are distant lights that can create "Onion layers".

Besides, I'm not certain that the I.Q. is distinctly better than the mk1. I know ISO crop comparisons don't tell the entire story, but here's one comparison. The mk1 is certainly more "contrasty".

http://thedigitalpictu​re.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I see digitalrev has it for 1129.00

http://www.digitalrev.​com …-24-70mm-f/MTAwMDMyMw_A_A

davidc502 wrote in post #15321842
I see digitalrev has it for 1129.00

http://www.digitalrev.​com …-24-70mm-f/MTAwMDMyMw_A_A

Not a major reseller...sure you're going to see specials. My point is that the regular price has NOT been reduced because the lens is worth $1299. If you want to spend a $1000 more for a slightly better lens...be my guest! Canon needs your business! But lets face it...the Canon is way overpriced!

Bakewell wrote in post #15321917
Not a major reseller...sure you're going to see specials. My point is that the regular price has NOT been reduced because the lens is worth $1299. If you want to spend a $1000 more for a slightly better lens...be my guest! Canon needs your business! But lets face it...the Canon is way overpriced!

Oh, I agree Canon is way over-priced, and I won't be sending in my money if there are other lenses that are in the ballpark. The thing is I prefer Canon, and would rather own Canon gear......

Bakewell wrote in post #15320388
Here's another very positive review...
http://www.photonews.c​a/?p=5849

Oh no, if you scroll down you can see me commenting on it!

Seriously though, looks like a great lens, and I'm not the biggest Tamron fan

How heavy is the Tamron 70-200 VC? I have owned Canon 70-200 2.8L II and did not use it much due to its heaviness.

tancanon58 wrote in post #15323607
How heavy is the Tamron 70-200 VC? I have owned Canon 70-200 2.8L II and did not use it much due to its heaviness.

It's a similar weight; if you struggle with the 70-200/2.8 IS then you will not have much fun with the Tamron either haha