70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC

MTAtech wrote in post #11102190
THANKS!
As previously said, we don't know that for sure. However, in a few days I hope to answer that question in a scientific way, side-by-side comparisons.

I'm trying now to determine test methodology. This is what I've come up with so far and comments are welcome:

Test each lens as follows:
1) Sharpness Test on same subject - three images; 70mm, ~135mm, 200mm. Camera mounted on tripod at f/11 to illuminate any shake blur and depth of field blur that may be mistaken for 'softness.'

2) Hand-held test at 1/30 sec. at 200mm. This tests the advantage of Tamron's VC compared to Canon's lower f/4 (at 200mm, the Tam is likely to be f/5.6 min.)

Subjective tests: Speed at AF; feel; etc.

^^^^You beat me!!!

Why would you shoot at F11??

Shoot them both at F8...diffraction will affect the images at F11.

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

Nope....Maybe with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 12,800

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

Depends on a lot of things, but it could make some difference; 1/30 @ f/5.6 will almost certainly blur. 1/60 @ f/4 may not (or at least not be as noticeable).

MTAtech wrote in post #11102190
THANKS!
As previously said, we don't know that for sure. However, in a few days I hope to answer that question in a scientific way, side-by-side comparisons.

I'm trying now to determine test methodology. This is what I've come up with so far and comments are welcome:

Test each lens as follows:
1) Sharpness Test on same subject - three images; 70mm, ~135mm, 200mm. Camera mounted on tripod at f/11 to illuminate any shake blur and depth of field blur that may be mistaken for 'softness.'

2) Hand-held test at 1/30 sec. at 200mm. This tests the advantage of Tamron's VC compared to Canon's lower f/4 (at 200mm, the Tam is likely to be f/5.6 min.)

Subjective tests: Speed at AF; feel; etc.

Some tripod shots from the Tamron "wide open" and the F4 at the same f-stop, at overlapping focal lengths would be nice, too, so people can see what you get from each lens in the situations where that's needed.

bjyoder wrote in post #11102268
Depends on a lot of things, but it could make some difference; 1/30 @ f/5.6 will almost certainly blur. 1/60 @ f/4 may not (or at least not be as noticeable).

Ive never shot moving subjects with such a slow SS... usually atleast 1/160 for me

I tried using the 70-200 F4 IS L for dance and yeaaaaa.....didnt work out so well for me inside with my 7D. It focused, just couldnt get a high enough SS at ISO6400...12800 would have worked but the pics wouldnt have been as i wanted them. I know I wouldnt want to pay for ISO 12800 pics.

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

With moving targets the f/4 would let you have faster Shutter speeds then the Tamron . The VC won't be much help here.

I'd like to see some 55-250 IS vs 70-300 VC comparisons. The 70-200 is superior in some situations, but not a big fan of non-stabilized telephotos.

bjyoder wrote in post #11102230

Will cost you - after rebate - $400.00. Only!
[

I bought mine with a new DSLR and therefore my final cost should be $449.99 minus 10% Crutchfield discount (~$50) minus the new 10/11-12/31 rebate ($100) = $300!

New Tamron rebate: http://www.tamron-usa.com …ATqGHAYBwAAAAAA​AAp98CAA==

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11102292
Ive never shot moving subjects with such a slow SS... usually atleast 1/160 for me

I tried using the 70-200 F4 IS L for dance and yeaaaaa.....didnt work out so well for me inside with my 7D. It focused, just couldnt get a high enough SS at ISO6400...12800 would have worked but the pics wouldnt have been as i wanted them. I know I wouldnt want to pay for ISO 12800 pics.

Sometimes shooting concerts at, lets say "local" venues, 1/60 is about the best you can get sometimes. Careful timing wins, though there is normally still a lot of motion.

I'm not saying f/4 is ideal in low light, but better than f/5.6.

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11102253
Why would you shoot at F11??

Minimizes depth of field blur.

MTAtech wrote in post #11102420
Minimizes depth of field blur.

But is already limited by diffraction on 18mp @ APS-C.

I wouldn't go beyond f/8 for a sharpness test at that resolution and sensor size.

damn I just got my 70-200 f/4L too. Since having it sometimes I wish I had gone f/4L IS and I somewhat miss the extra 50mm from my old 55-250mm. This sounds like an interesting lens.

All I would need to see is shots at 70, 135, 200 and 300 at wide open and f8. Would also like some general feeling on AF speed and accuracy, but those are tough to test scientifically.

CountryBoy wrote in post #11102300
With moving targets the f/4 would let you have faster Shutter speeds then the Tamron . The VC won't be much help here.

That is true, but I guess I feel like if I am shooting in low light, f4 is pretty slow, too. I guess it would give me an extra 10 minutes as the sun goes down, but it is not a fast lens. I have a hard time using f2.8 indoors, so I know neither are acceptable there.

sth_ wrote in post #11102441
But is already limited by diffraction on 18mp @ APS-C.

I wouldn't go beyond f/8 for a sharpness test at that resolution and sensor size.

Yep yep!



If it was on a 5Dc or a 1dmk2 go to F11 all you want. But not on a 18mp crop sensor.

I mean its you test and do what you want. But when you post results people are going to be b**ch*** cause you shot at F11 vs F8. just trying to save you the...BLAH ness of everything