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

To the OP, another option is to pick up a used Tamron to test out. I see there's at least one copy over in the FS section with an $800 asking price.

raptor3x wrote in post #18189633
Not sure where the Tamron falls but the Canon actually increases in focal length to ~230mm near MFD.

Calling BS. Source, please.

EDIT:
BS call retracted. See below.

Bassat wrote in post #18189641
Calling BS. Source, please.

That it increases in focal length or that it hits ~230mm? Below image shows the lens at the same distance from the target but focused at infinity (left) and MFD (right) stopped down to f/32 so you can make out the target.

I deleted my first response to your examples. Total mis-read on my part.

Compelling evidence, I must say. How does this work, especially when most other lenses go the opposite (shorter) direction? Do other Canon lenses do this? My 70-200 f/4L IS?

Bassat wrote in post #18189656
I deleted my first response to your examples. Total mis-read on my part.

Compelling evidence, I must say. How does this work, especially when most other lenses go the opposite (shorter) direction? Do other Canon lenses do this? My 70-200 f/4L IS?

I honestly don't know enough about optics to say why it works this way. As for the 70-200 f/4 IS, I don't remember how it behaves but it should be pretty obvious if it behaves the same way. The magnification ratio and MFD suggests it should but it should be easier to confirm if you have the lens on hand.

BTW, probably wasn't a misread, I forgot to add that both shots were at the same distance when I initially posted and only added that in an edit.

Now I am totally confused. My EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM does the same thing. I just shot from 8' to subject (thanks for the f/32 tip) at both MFD and infinity. The subject in the MFD shot is 20-30% larger. I retract my BS call.

I remember trying the same thing a few years ago with my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM. I could swear that one got shorter at MFD, not longer like the Canons. Anyone have an explanation a normal person could understand?

EDIT:
Figured I'd add my shots to the mix/proof. EXIF on-screen. First is at MFD. Second is at infinity. Both shots taken from the exact same location about 8' from Bob.

Bassat wrote in post #18189656
Compelling evidence, I must say. How does this work, especially when most other lenses go the opposite (shorter) direction? Do other Canon lenses do this? My 70-200 f/4L IS?

My educated guess is that Canon uses an extra compensating group they also use to boost maximum magnification.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18189840
My educated guess is that Canon uses an extra compensating group they also use to boost maximum magnification.

Probubly. and for me MM is important due to some things id use it for (butterflies came to mind as another example, You dont always need a macro lens, butterflies are larger insects in some cases and skittish meaning my 100mm macro isnt quite long enough, in fact the couple butterfly shots i have were done with the 70-200 f/4L IS)

Luna had to come home a little sooner than expected. So for now im making due with the 50mm f/1.4 because well.... you'll see her lol. I also met her family. Corgis are definitely faster than one would expect

One reason for the 70-200 is becoming obvious, i can stay farther away from her so she wont nom on the lens hood -_- of course the 50mm f/1.4 is a great indoor lens! But the moment i got outside yeah, its painfully obvious its not the right lens for the job outside as i suspected from the start

The 7DII is definitely the right camera tho. Silent continuous seems like a godsend right about now

Canon V3 is coming soon...

I sold the Tamron recently. Great lens... lost alot of money on that one and the buyer got a killer deal.

Talley wrote in post #18194296
Canon V3 is coming soon...

What makes you so sure ?

Agree with Talley there. There is a CR2 rumor already, Nikon is already out and Canon will not be left behind, especially now that they know they can sell the lens for 3K. Its a bread and butter lens and there is boatloads of money to be made there.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18194336
Agree with Talley there. There is a CR2 rumor already, Nikon is already out and Canon will not be left behind, especially now that they know they can sell the lens for 3K. Its a bread and butter lens and there is boatloads of money to be made there.

Don't be so sure.... canon is left behind long ago for a stabilized 2.8 24-70

CheshireCat wrote in post #18194316
What makes you so sure ?

Just a hunch

dochollidayda wrote in post #18194336
Agree with Talley there. There is a CR2 rumor already, Nikon is already out and Canon will not be left behind, especially now that they know they can sell the lens for 3K. Its a bread and butter lens and there is boatloads of money to be made there.

Don't hold your breath. Rumors are always spread (on purpose) when competitors are announcing a new lens. This is part of the marketing war.

Nikon came up with the new lens to catch up with the current Canon lens, and the Canon lens is so good that I don't see any reason for a minor improvement at +50% price boost. Pro photographers won't update unless there is a strong reason for it, so what would that reason be ?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18194382
Don't hold your breath. Rumors are always spread (on purpose) when competitors are announcing a new lens. This is part of the marketing war.

Nikon came up with the new lens to catch up with the current Canon lens, and the Canon lens is so good that I don't see any reason for a minor improvement at +50% price boost. Pro photographers won't update unless there is a strong reason for it, so what would that reason be ?

This. The Canon was already so far ahead of the Nikon it wasnt funny. The new Nikon is nice, but its also $2800

Even IF the Canon came out Feburary, id suspect at least 2800, if not 3000 price tag, im choking on the $1950 i just spent...Welcome to my most expensive lens...

The IS II will still be a great lens, with a lot of users on here

In other news after trying to "make do" repeatedly with the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100L I said to heck with this and ordered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

The 100L just isnt made to focus and track this way, its fast sure, and its a darn good lens, but its not for this. The FL is either too short, or a bit too long outside

The 50mm is too slow focusing, its great for still subjects, indoors, when shes sedate, produces excellent images, but its a bit short outside most of the time


Problem with both primes of course is that i have to plant myself in just the right spot and i get a very narrow "area" where i can nail her before shes too close.

The 70-200 i should be able to anchor myself farther back and swing from 200-70 as she runs towards me and get a lovely series of images and the AF motor should easily handle her, I remember the same problems with Skye and the 70-200 f/4L fixed those issues, the f/2.8L is even better