Upgrade 70-200 F4 IS to tamron F2.8 VC?

dankabass3 wrote in post #16830184
Sorry to jump in your discussion - I own Canon 60D and 17-55 ( also 50 f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 macro). I only recently bought 17-55 as a part of my upgrade of 18-135. Now I am looking for the long side : undecided between:
Canon 70-200 f4L IS
Sigma 50-150 OS
Tamron 70-200 VC

Do you agree that Tamron would be my best bet? 1. f2.8, 2. new with warranty, 3. black colour - I can at least see those 3 advantages; the price should be the 4th one I think.
Do you have any photos taken by the Tamron please?

Thank you.

You can't go wrong here. The 50-70 wide end is nice for crop portrait range, the f4 is light weight, and the Tammy is 95% of the Canon 70-200/2.8 II for 2/3rds the cost. You need to prioritize your needs and pick one IMO.

The Tamron is excellent. It is also a heavy son of a gun. I've finally settled on the Canon, much because of the weight.

secretninja wrote in post #16830656
here you go. i was in the same boat and went with Tamron

https://photography-on-the.net …ghlight=tamron+​70&page=43

Thank you.
I think I am already on the Tamron side.
Now to find the best deal. I asked Panamoz when the lens is going to be available again as they seem to have the best deal but they are unsure.

Oldschool1948 wrote in post #16830908
The Tamron is excellent. It is also a heavy son of a gun. I've finally settled on the Canon, much because of the weight.

I also went with the 70-200 f4 IS for the same reason. I started out with a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS and just didn't like the size and weight of the lens. When I realized I was leaving it at home more often than not, just so I wouldn't have to carry it around, I sold it, got the f4 IS instead and never looked back. The f4 IS is an outstanding lens in every respect, and is small enough and light enough to carry everywhere. Unless you actually need the f2.8 capability (wedding photographer, lots of low-light shooting, etc.), it's a great choice.

Didn't get to use this lens as much as I would have liked during the first race due to it was very cold so, I left early and during the day I was using mostly my 100-400 to try that out on my new 7D but, Here is a few of the better shots from the evening with the tamron. Next race I will be sure to use it more long as its not freezing cold in the evening again.

IMAGE LINK: http://jmcphotography.​smugmug.com …568518&k=Z7zPjL​5&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://jmcphotography.​smugmug.com …567662&k=8W3nPx​q&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://jmcphotography.​smugmug.com …567770&k=4T4hbd​q&lb=1&s=A

wow...just picked up a minty fresh 70-200 f4IS after selling my f2.8 non-is...this lens is tiny and light compared to the f2.8...don't know how I like the weight...how does the Tammy compare in size to either of these? I think I prefer the heavier lens...

The Tammy is much, much heavier than the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. If you want weight, you won't be disappointed

Oldschool1948 wrote in post #16842125
The Tammy is much, much heavier than the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. If you want weight, you won't be disappointed

Nah... it's only twice the weight. and my 120-300 is twice the weight of the tammy

Before I sold the Tammy I said to myself.... why would I ever want this light weight lens. The Sigma 120-300 has definately changed my viewpoint of lightweight.

The damn camera feels like a point and shoot compared to it lol

I just got the Tammy 70-200 VC and couldn't be happier. The AF is fast, it's dead sharp in the center, and the VC is probably the best IMHO. I went from 135L, 70-200 OS Siggy, 70-200 f/4L.

I agree I owned the 70-200 F4L IS prior to the tamron, and the tamron is no slouch in weight (almost double the F4 IS) or build quality. I had mine out in light snow storms twice this winter with no rain cover and had no issues at all.