canon 70-200 2.8 mkii or tamron 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8

Charlie wrote in post #16143491
the 70-200's are virtually on the same level in terms of image quality. For being such a mediocre lens, it even scores higher in the Dxo mark, so that would make the 70-200 mkii a mediocre lens as well .

I'll take the two lenses easily.

I know you love aftermarket lenses and would take as many Tamrons and Sigmas as you can over an expensive Canon L glass, that goes without saying. What I don't understand is how you can say they are "virtuall on the same level", this does not look like same level:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

Not to mention, add an extender to the mix, and your "on the same level" Tamron looks worse than my Iphone 3G:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=1

Any comments?

If you really need this combo, then the trade sounds like a good deal. However, if I can't transfer the warranty, I would avoid it. I would personally buy the Tamron lenses new outright to get that 6 year warranty. The Canon 70-200 is a solid lens and if you need the absolute best for the work that you do, keep it.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16143731
I know you love aftermarket lenses and would take as many Tamrons and Sigmas as you can over an expensive Canon L glass, that goes without saying. What I don't understand is how you can say they are "virtuall on the same level", this does not look like same level:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

Not to mention, add an extender to the mix, and your "on the same level" Tamron looks worse than my Iphone 3G:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=1

Any comments?

Any comments? Sure!

As was said by a number of people, myself included, is that the Canon MKII is the best. Plus most of us said keep the MKII over the trade. That does not mean we thought the others were not necessarily a possible consideration. I definitely don’t think they are worth bashing. Which (not to mention) you’re doing again.

Using the The-Digital-Picture.com site that you provided! From 70mm to 135mm the Tamron is definitely within a similar level – enough so that some PP would bring it real close to the L in sharpness. (Hopefully we all know sharpness isn’t everything. Plus that is that site shows. It also is for one random copy.) Somewhere between 135mm and 200mm that Tamron drops. Well that is why the Canon is considered the best.

With the 2X, the Tamron looks bad there. It is worse than IMO it should be (it doesn’t quite make sense). It either doesn’t play well with 2X TCs more so than other lenses (IMO most non-super teles don’t play well with 2X TCs, some lenses less so than others), or something else is up. Case and Point - On that site the Tamron beats the Sigma OS version at every FL except with the 2X on it.

To add to that! Based on that site the Canon MKI is better at every FL (except possibly the center at 70mm) than the Sigma OS which just about everybody says is better than the MKI. I disagree but that is another story.

So from the site you posted (wide open), from 70-135mm they (f/2.8 stabilized) are all near enough to make top notch photos that with some PP, many would have trouble telling apart. Somewhere after 135mm the MKII starts to really shine.

I looked, couldn’t find the IPhone 3G lens in there to compare to the Tamron.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16143731
I know you love aftermarket lenses and would take as many Tamrons and Sigmas as you can over an expensive Canon L glass, that goes without saying. What I don't understand is how you can say they are "virtuall on the same level", this does not look like same level:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=1

Not to mention, add an extender to the mix, and your "on the same level" Tamron looks worse than my Iphone 3G:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=1

Any comments?

yeah, I must have missed it where TS mentioned extenders.... and the tamron is using a different extender on these crops.....

if you shoot in the 70-200 range, you'de be hard pressed to find IQ differences, especially if both images were treated in lightroom.

Thanks for all the input guy's and p.s the reason why I am consider in the trade is because at the end of the day I am still a broke college student learning photography. And this will mainly be for fashion and portraits. And I will end up saving an extra 1500 bucks!!

Plus I'm not all wrapped up into getting just canon and I know sharpness isn't everything. I seen people like Lindsay Adler and who only uses sigma lens and produces exceptional images as well as Brooke Shaden who only owns a sigma 50mm and a canon 28 and all of her images aware remarkable. IRather a decent lens with a great story and concept. Than a super sharp image that is horrible

My limited experience of Tamron has not been good, in fact it was catastrophic! I would not go near one ever again.

I admit it was years ago, but the lens was a joint birthday present from my wife's family so it was deeply embarrassing all round. It ended up (after several UG repairs) not having the full focus range!

I'm not a fan of Tamron either. Generally speaking the order goes Canon > Sigma > Tamron.

I just have no confidence with a Tamron, sure I'd have no trouble spending $250 on a 17-50 non-VC if someone points a gun to my head, but $1500 for any Tamron? That's a no from me...

This is such a hard desk ions especially when in some stores the sales people say the tamron is the better lens value wise and would do the trade. Smh this is the only thing I hate about photography lol. I'm also considering just switching to primes since I already have a 50 1.2 and a 85 1.8. I know how you guys feel about third party lens as well my sigma 85 1.4 was holy the 1st two weeks then after that it started to hunt for focus a lot