tarmon 70-200 f2.8 vs canon 70-200 f4 nonIS

I have a local guy selling a tamron 70-200 f2.8 for $450. I can also pick up a canon 70-200 f4 non IS for the same price. What would you go with. I read the tamron is a bit slow to focus. And even the seller of the tamron stated its slow to focus at anything closer then 5 feet. I have 70-210 f3.5-4.5 that one of these lenses will be replacing

As an owner of the tamron 70-200 f2.8, and a recent owner of the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, I can strongly recommend the tamron. So much so that I decided not to sell it when I got the canon. And, I even still pack it in the camera bag.

The Macro capabilities on that is very nice compared to any of the canon 70-200s.. It is slow to focus when it's dark. But, if its' bright and contrasty, the lens is gorgeous..

I think you are going to have to evaluate whether you need the faster focus, or faster aperture. Also keep in mind the size and weight differences.

What do you shoot?

i have a canon 70-200 f4.0 IS so i already know how the camera feels in hand. I'm looking to get a 2nd zoom in this range for my 2nd body as I usually pack my cameras in 2 separate bags and would grab 1 of the bags if I know I only need 1 camera. I shoot just about everything, outdoor and indoor stuff. I would say i do about 60% indoor (dinner events, family parties) so that's why I was considering the tamron for the 1 extra stop.

I thought his selling price was good at $450 so that's why i was considering it

Do you really want 2 70-200s? I might go with something like the 135L if I already had a 70-200L in my kit.

I think that $450 is really good.....
I might get it for that, haha

I have heard great things about this lens, Pop Photo rated it quite favorably.

tkbslc wrote in post #11253735
Do you really want 2 70-200s? I might go with something like the 135L if I already had a 70-200L in my kit.

i thought about getting a prime but sometimes during larger events, if I have my cousin to help me out, I'll give him my other camera bag so that he can roam around on his own without having to come back to me to switch out lenses. I have a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f.14 and at this point in time, I don't seem to use primes as much as i originally thought i would.

ronf119 wrote in post #11253613
I have a local guy selling a tamron 70-200 f2.8 for $450.

That would be a very good price (if in U.S. dollars) for a good lens, which produced the pictures below:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

DC Fan wrote in post #11254059
The price you noted for the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is around one-quarter the cost of the least expensive Canon equivalent. That's the sort of price you would pay for a used lens, but that would be a good deal - if it's legitimate and the lens is in good working order. Big ifs, though.

The tamron is a good bang for the buck right now, but I don't think your math is quite right. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 is only $1300 new and maybe $1100 used. Considering this Tamron lacks IS, that would be the Canon equivalent. So I would say it is just under HALF, not 1/4 the cost of a Canon lens. Keep in mind the Canon one has significantly faster AF.

well i emailed the guy that i want to take a closer look at it and I guess i'll take a few shots to see how slow the AF is. Is it slower/hunts for focus similar to the Tamron 28-75 as I have that lens. While annoying, I can live with it.