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

As the title suggests, I'm looking into my next lens purchase. I want a 70-200 but I'm up in the air between the Tammy 70-200 f/2.8 VC or the used Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkI (mk II is out of my price range). Any opinions on these 2? Good or bad.

I've had a Canon 70-200 MkI and found it to be very sharp by f4 but not too great wide open. I've now got the MkII and it's sharper wide open than the MkI at f4 and is excellent throughout. I've not used the Tamron 70-200 so I can't comment on it, but you should have a look at the Sigma 70-200 OS. I borrowed one for a day recently and found it to be between the Canon MkI and II for sharpness and handled very well.

Read this. Turns out the Tamron is really good, even compared to the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …-tests-on-two-new-70-200s

What will you be using it for? I trust Canon lenses better for AI-Servo tracking, so if it is sports only I'd go Canon.

In terms of best to worst of the 70-200 in my humble opinion

Canon MK II > (Sigma OS = Tamron) > Canon MK I > Canon Non-IS

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #15769205
In terms of best to worst of the 70-200 in my humble opinion

Canon MK II > (Sigma OS = Tamron) > Canon MK I > Canon Non-IS

This is pretty much what I came up with when researching my purchase of a 70-200 2.8, at least IQ wise.

I was strongly considering the Tamron, in real world photos you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ between it and the mkii and the less attention grabbing black would be nice for times when shooting out in the general public.

I had to go back to what was the main reasons I was shopping for a fast zoom in the first place and one of them was for motorsports in low available light. For that case AF speed is quite often very important as well. Maybe the Tamron's AF which leaps better would have been good enough but I've got too many would be great shots of fast moving subjects in the past that were OOF due to slow AF, so I decided to go with what would give me the best chance of this not happening again and so far the mkii has lived up to my expectations.

The new Tamron really seems to be a nice lens is should be considered even if budget isn't a real issue.

OP have you also looked into used mkii's? Granted used they still go for few bills more than the Tamron, so if the Tamron is at your max budget used is still out the window.

From looking at your site it looks like you mainly shoot portraits, so you'd probably be quite happy with the Tamron.

I am really happy with my Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS...it is a little less expensive than the Tamron.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #15769540
the less attention grabbing black would be nice for times when shooting out in the general public.

If I were in the market for a 70-200 zoom, I'de get the sigma or tamron. No thanks for the white lenses, people run away from the lens, and I like shooting in public.

really appreciate small primes for this reason, people arent dodging, and pretty much ignore me.

Thanks for the replies guys! I do like shooting portraits, and I'm trying to do more of it. I also like going out to my local airfield and chasing the planes that in the palnding pattern, though that's not as often because I'd rather be IN one of the planes in the landing pattern.

I looked at the Sigma, and yes it's less expensive than the Tamron, but I've heard too many horror stories about Sigma and don't know if I want to play the Sigma lottery. If budget wasn't a concern then my clear choice would be the Canon mkii, but I just can't justify that price tag (even used) to my wife.

rivas8409 wrote in post #15770285
I've heard too many horror stories about Sigma and don't know if I want to play the Sigma lottery.

Precisely what Canon and Nikon want you to believe.

rivas8409 wrote in post #15770285
I looked at the Sigma, and yes it's less expensive than the Tamron, but I've heard too many horror stories about Sigma and don't know if I want to play the Sigma lottery. If budget wasn't a concern then my clear choice would be the Canon mkii, but I just can't justify that price tag (even used) to my wife.

I didn't want to play any lotteries, either. So I found a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM used on CL. I tested it before buying. I got a mine for $750, complete, in excellent shape. To continue the lottery analogy, I've won.

because this thread has concluded that the tamron and sigma is > than the canon mk1 ...

can i jack the thread a bit by asking:

what about sigma vs tamron 70-200 2.8?

rivas8409 wrote in post #15770285
Thanks for the replies guys! I do like shooting portraits, and I'm trying to do more of it.

Since you are on APS-C, I'd also consider the 50-150 OS HSM. 50 is a much more useful starting point for portraiture.

TSchrief wrote in post #15770434
I didn't want to play any lotteries, either. So I found a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM used on CL. I tested it before buying. I got a mine for $750, complete, in excellent shape. To continue the lottery analogy, I've won.

Unfortunately CL around here isn't all that vast. I could probably find one but I'd either have to drive to go test it out or buy it blind which I'm not 100% comfortable with. Glad you won't the lottery.

tkbslc wrote in post #15770860
Since you are on APS-C, I'd also consider the 50-150 OS HSM. 50 is a much more useful starting point for portraiture.

My 85 is/will be getting the bulk of any portrait work. I know on a crop body it's a bit long, but compared to my 50 1.8 it's a "downside" I can live with. Not that my 50 1.8 is bad...but it just doesn't compare to the 85. For anything shorter I've got my Tamron 28-75 2.8, and I'm planning on picking up a short prime as well, somewhere in the 24-35 range, later on. Right now my focus is on the long end, hence the 70-200. I'm looking for something that will be compatible with a FF body as I'd like to go FF sometime in the future as well.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #15770615
because this thread has concluded that the tamron and sigma is > than the canon mk1 ...

can i jack the thread a bit by asking:

what about sigma vs tamron 70-200 2.8?

I haven't used either, but from what I read the Tamron seems to have a slight edge. Although it is pricier by $250.