Will Canon 70-200 f2.8 III offer similar IQ to Canon 100-400 II? Better than Tamron G2?

I have both and they're each excellent lenses, but if I had to choose only one, it would be the 100-400L-II.

A slightly different slant. I own the EF 70-200L II f2.8 and a 2X Yongnuo converter which makes it an equivalent 140-400 f5.6 zoom.

For a brief period of a photo-safari in the Kruger National Park in South Africa, I also had a rented Canon 7DII with the EF 100-400.

I did a comparison shooting the photos you see with a large crop below:

Canon 7DII EF 100-400

Original full size photo:

What happens if you want 560mm or 800mm? I have both and both do different things at different times.

70-200 in low light and portraiture, 100-400 for wildlife and then 1.4x or 2x to really get that reach. I don't want to blow the entire wad of the 2x right out of the gate with the 70-200.

My personal choice is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 23 elements in 19 groups.
I looked at a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 iii display model and the zoom is silky smooth. I prefer the Canon zoom ring location more than Tamron.
The Canon 70-200mm f 2.8 plus 2x extender is almost like having a second lens.
Canon 70-200 f 2.8 iii Inner focusing system with USM. Full-time manual focus available.
The constant f/2.8 Maximum Aperture throughout Entire Zoom Range appeals to me. My photography sometimes involves occasional locations with less than ideal lighting. No flash allowed. I purchase fast lenses as needed.
Buy the lens you need and will use most of the time for your needs.
Canon 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 21 elements in 16 groups.
Both sporting / running event photos are fine quality in focus.
I'm not sure which sports / jogger photos I prefer. Both the Canon and Tamron photos are very good and yet different.
The Canon 100-400 is sharper in my opinion.
The canon 100-400 has more intense color when compared to the Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8
I'm guessing that sunlight and time of day may have had an effect on the overall color and why they appear so different.
An observation in reference to the bird photos above.
Both above bird photos are very nice and sharp. I think the bird taken with the 2x has better color too.
My eyes are middle aged so its my opinion only. My monitor is 1920x1080 LED Full HD
The sharpness of both photos is nearly identical and one photo almost appears a hair sharper. (Canon 70-200mm f 2.8) and that is with a third party 2x extender.
Owning the Tamron 150-600 F/5-6.3 G2 Weight 1,951g (68.8 oz) including detachable tripod mount. Diaphragm Blade 9 circular diaphragm.
I personally cannot justify duplicating a somewhat similar zoom range with an expensive Canon 100-400mm.
When it comes to a big price tag on a lens. The ultimate decision on a lens purchase is yours.

I'm not sure many replying actually read your post
(crib notes for those jumping to page 2, the OP is NOT going to trade his 100-400mm. He's asking if going from his Tamron 70-200mm to the Canon will offer a boost in IQ)

I did read it, but sadly I can't answer with authority as I haven't shot the Canon II or III 70-200 enough to really get a good feeling on how it stacks up with the 100-400mm in image "feel". Based on what I have seen though, I suspect it would not let you down.

That said, I am shooting the Tamron G2 alongside my 100-400mm as well, and have not been dissatisfied. Even your example images to my eyes are showing it as a great lens. I'd be curious to see if you decide to swap to the Canon if you feel it gives you that Canon "secret sauce" like the 100-400mm.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19143270
What happens if you want 560mm or 800mm? I have both and both do different things at different times.

70-200 in low light and portraiture, 100-400 for wildlife and then 1.4x or 2x to really get that reach. I don't want to blow the entire wad of the 2x right out of the gate with the 70-200.

f5.6 (for the 60D) or (f8 for the 7DII) is the limit, unless you shoot mirrorless! I don't...

I've shot the 7DII with the EF100-400 and the Canon 1.4 converter at f8.

I am not ready to ditch my present system for an R5/R6. For what I shoot, 60D/5DIII are good enough.

^ Whaaaa? Not dumping your system? What are you waiting for?

It is very nice though having a working 2x on the 100-400 and having focus just snap right on. It does change things a bit on lens lineup.

I also had the Sigma 150-600 and sometimes (rarely) miss it. I finally got rid of it when I compared 560mm (100-400 w/1.4) to 600 on the Sigma, and saw no real reason to keep both, EXCEPT that I could put the 2x on the Sigma and get 1200mm. I am unable to do that with my 100-400 and 2 TCs (my Canon TCs don't stack), nor would I really want two TCs in the mix at that point. So in rare cases, having a long lens that you can couple with a TC is superior to having a wider lens that you have to either use a more aggressive TC or two to get the same focal length.

---

Does the Canon 70-200 2.8 offer similar IQ to the 100-400? Most likely, as about any vs 2 and vs 3 EF lens are quite, quite good. As good as the Tamron? Perhaps very close, but you are not going to get the same AF performance from the Tamron as you would the Canon. There are just times that the AF systems on the aftermarkets lag behind, maybe on initial target acquisition, maybe when it loses AF and it racks and forth on you, vs the Canon equivalent just locking right back on, etc.

If one is not shooting sports, birds in flight, and other fast trackable action, the Tamron is a good way to reduce expenses rather than buying the Canon equiv. It should make for a great portrait lens if nothing else. I think I did a review of either the Tamron or the Sigma 70-200, I have to see if I can find it.

That is what I have been thinking. I shoot a meet with the Canon 100-400 and am continually impressed by the sharpness and color and start to think "maybe it is the Canon brand" but then I borrowed a Canon 70-200 II and could not really tell much difference when compared to my Tamron 70-200 G2. Probably overthinking it....

The Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 G2 has some very nice technology.
Some practice and experimenting with the camera settings should produce very nice results.
I found this review helpful and informative. https://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx
Heres the Canon. https://www.the-digital-picture.com …2.8L-IS-III-USM-Lens.aspx
Its the closest I could find so far. Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 and Canon II 70-200mm f 2.8
https://youtu.be/SePHv​cg_DpE
Heres a little extra searching I did for fun.
Tamron MTF https://tamron-usa.com …ct/lenses/a025.​html#canon
Canon MTF Be sure to click Resources to see the MTF https://www.usa.canon.​com …0-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm
Canon 70-200 Combined with its 8-blade circular aperture. Φ3.5 x 7.8 in., approx. 3.17 lbs. / Φ88.8 x 199mm, approx. 1440g Image Stabilizer system that provides shake reduction for up to 3.5 shutter speed stops
Tamron 70-200 9 circular diaphragm 1,500g (52.9 oz) 5 Stops (CIPA Standards Compliant) Using in VC MODE 3
"If I were a professional" taking once in a lifetime photos for someone and being paid to do so I would go with the Canon 70-200 2.8 iii.
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 iii display / rental model on a 5D IV locked focus instantly like magic. No AF lens hunting there.
Just my opinion. The best performing lens locking focus consistently should result in a longer shutter life and less battery drain.

I own both, and tried the 150-600 G2 lens before getting my 100-400 mk2. Was very happy with the tamron however, in the wind, even a medium speed the Tamron got whipped around with that huge hood. The other issue was its size, and that made it not very practical for my short-medium distance walks around town and trails. The 100-400 is just more practical for my needs, and I only use the 1.4x TC. I also use it on the 70-200 mk3 to get a little extra reach when the 100-400 might be a little too much. Plus I have a better F stop to use vs the variable range on the bigger lens.

Tamron 150-600 G2 is far from being a compact lens.
I knew that instantly when the salesman handed me a demo / rental model to look at.
I work out and perform horizontal dumbbell exercises that mimick holding a camera lens.
The weight and length hasn't been a major issue.
The 150-600 has reasonable reach for open areas with water or land between the subject and camera. Plus it saves me a few steps on foot.
Not really compact enough for typical narrow bicycle and jogging trails with tree branches everywhere.
Crowded sidewalks and stadium seating would be a less than ideal too.