Canon 70-200 f/2.L IS II vs Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC

And if your buying new then buy it and if you don't like it then return it. Simple choice. Last I checked most all shops had a return period.

KenjiS wrote in post #18184425
New, because in order to do this ASAP im using a store account and not cash. I was not expecting to get a new dog so soon, shes coming in the next few weeks. I do not wish to miss opportunities because I'm mucking around with my lenses.

I have enough to get either lens. Its going to hurt either way, the Tamron less so. I keep leaning towards the Canon because I know what I'm getting, plus I went on Flickr and started looking at the Canon's images and theres just a higher percentage of better shots, Not to mention the colour is typical Canon, nice and saturated and punchy. Tamron is not bad of course, but Canon's colour is something I've always loved

Its just twice the price of the Tamron, and everyone says "The Tamron is a really good lens" and maybe it is, I just personally dont have one to handle and use to see that, So all that sticks in my head is the multiple other Tamrons I've owned and their inability to focus on anything. All of which were "Really good lenses"

My original plan btw was wait for Sigma to releasew the A or S 70-200 f/2.8 OS we know they're probubly working on. However that could be 3 months or 3 years from now.

If you are questioning the Tamron here in your post, then you may be also after purchasing for years. If you have the money for the Canon, you can not beat it. Do you really need f/2.8? Does the weight difference bother you coming from the the f/4 L IS compared to the larger, heavier f/2.8 Mark II.
For me, I would forget the Tamron because of the uncertainty.

Nick5 wrote in post #18184979
If you are questioning the Tamron here in your post, then you may be also after purchasing for years. If you have the money for the Canon, you can not beat it. Do you really need f/2.8? Does the weight difference bother you coming from the the f/4 L IS compared to the larger, heavier f/2.8 Mark II.
For me, I would forget the Tamron because of the uncertainty.

Not really. its lighter than my 150-600 by a pound. Not only that its a lot shorter and the weight is concentrated and its shorter in physical length I handle the 150-600 fine. If I'm having a bad day even my 15-85 is too hard to use (and thats when i grab my GX8)

the f/4L IS was always nice but when i was taking photos of my old dog i always did wish for a bit more isolation. I also genuinely feel f/2.8 is "right" for where its going in my system

I feel I probubly ruled the Tamron out, the Flickr pool just fails to impress me most of the time, the Canon pool is more consistent, and the quality of body does not seem to matter (I see folks with Rebels taking sharper better photos with the Canon than folks running a D810 on the Tamron. I see many photographers running 70 or 80D bodies and the Canon and churning out excellent results. Those arent anything "special" or "wow" in terms of camera, and the handful of 5DsR shots i ran into were absolutely jaw dropping) I've found a few good photos sure, but on the whole theres a lot of soft, mushy "eh" photos, or photos showing poor bokeh.

I DID mull the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4, or replacing my 50mm f/1.4 EX DG with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L, but i know 50 is too short outdoors, and im uncertain the 85 can keep up with the activity (Not to mention the fixed focal length and the fact the Sigma's price is currently jacked due to availability). I made the mistake of playing with the 50mm f/1.2L in a store. Either way lens switching increases a lot AND i still really dont have the lens i -need- which is a flexible fast zoom. I already have a fast 50 to boot and the old Sigma isnt worth much.

If I get off my behind and sell off the stuff i have sitting around (namely my 7D + grip and my Tokina 11-16 plus some computer stuff) it will cut down the cost a bit

Do it. The minimal editing required to the Canon RAW files is worth it alone.

It gets tedious editing and creating actions to make third party 70-200 files look as good as Canon SOOC.

Entirely predictable results from the lens every time.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18184537
I mean MK II is so good that even those on the dark side (Nikon) drool over it.

Not really. The only area the VR2 is soundly beaten by the IS II is for MFD maximum magnification (where the VR2 shortens dramatically). The VR2 is just about as good as the IS II in every other manner - you wouldn't pick a difference that was due to only the lens and not the body used.

I don't really understand that phenomenon. Is the lack of magnification for the Tamron only an issue at minimum focus? I guess what I am saying is, would they perform the same at, for example, a hockey rink?

wisv1k wrote in post #18185977
I don't really understand that phenomenon. Is the lack of magnification for the Tamron only an issue at minimum focus? I guess what I am saying is, would they perform the same at, for example, a hockey rink?

at closer distances like half body and generally within 20 feet and less. Further away, they behave the same.

I have a review I did a few years back: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1384687

wisv1k wrote in post #18185977
I don't really understand that phenomenon. Is the lack of magnification for the Tamron only an issue at minimum focus? I guess what I am saying is, would they perform the same at, for example, a hockey rink?

A lot of lenses will change their focal length as they focus closer to MFD - the printed focal length of the lens is calculated when focussing at infinity, not MFD. I can't talk to the Tamron but the Nikon VR2 is an extreme case of what I've read called focus breathing.

I don't expect to use it near minimum focus so that seems to tip the scales in the favor of the Tamron for me. The $700.000 difference is nothing to sneeze at.

By the way, thanks for the review. It was very helpful.

wisv1k wrote in post #18185977
I don't really understand that phenomenon.

Due to the lens design, the Tamron lens changes the effective focal length at close distance, so it becomes a 160-ish lens even if it is set at 200mm.
Therefore, it not only has a much lower magnification, but also a different perspective (wider FOV) which is not what some of us desire for close portraits.

Even many macro lenses will shorten as they get closer to MFD

I had the Sigma OS. Excellent lens. Super-snappy, accurate AF, even in Servo. It was excellent wide open from 70-180. At the long end, f/3.2 was noticeably better than 2.8. At f/3.5 it was as good as it got, which was extremely good. Why sell? It was huge and weighed 3 pounds (my general feeling about any/all f/2.8 zooms). I much prefer my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18187677
Due to the lens design, the Tamron lens changes the effective focal length at close distance, so it becomes a 160-ish lens even if it is set at 200mm.
Therefore, it not only has a much lower magnification, but also a different perspective (wider FOV) which is not what some of us desire for close portraits.

Most, if not all, lenses do this. It is called focus breathing.

Talley wrote in post #18183882
Mine is rock solid... never had an issue and is very sharp... and I mean very sharp. It's very close to the 200 F2 IS and you really have to pixel peep hard before you really see major differences. Compared to the 70-200 2.8 II it focuses just as fast and the VC works great. I've been very happy with the two times now I've owned the Tamron. The canon is the best and carries a better magnification will will give the appearance of the tamron only being a 187mm lens because it has less magnification but at infinity the Tamron is a true 200mm while the canon is say 195mm. Not much of a difference but it's there.

Not sure where the Tamron falls but the Canon actually increases in focal length to ~230mm near MFD.