Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di Macro sharper than Canon 70-200L USM?

I'm looking at the lens comparison here (obviously not the definitive comparison of both) and the Tamron is quite noticeably sharper:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=470

I apologize if this has already been discussed on here, but I'm wondering if this is actually a well-known fact or if this is a case of it just being sharper in this optimal situation that you may never encounter other than in a test chart. Perhaps the Tamron is sharper because of the focus distance being used for these test charts and it being a macro lens?

Fligi7 wrote in post #11592923
I'm looking at the lens comparison here (obviously not the definitive comparison of both) and the Tamron is quite noticeably sharper:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=470

I apologize if this has already been discussed on here, but I'm wondering if this is actually a well-known fact or if this is a case of it just being sharper in this optimal situation that you may never encounter other than in a test chart. Perhaps the Tamron is sharper because of the focus distance being used for these test charts and it being a macro lens?

The Tamron is known to be VERY sharp and is probably right up there with the non-IS 70-200 from Canon. I've heard a couple of reports that it may be sharper. I don't think that it is in the league of the 70-200 IS II or 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is definitely a fantastic lens optically.

I've been reading about it's less than stellar focusing, though, which could nix it completely as it would be used for fast sports.

Had this lens for a while, and it was indeed sharp. For me the 70-200 lenses are just so big that I did not really break it out often enough. When I did, I was pleasantly reminded of why I had the lens, and for the money, you cannot go wrong if you are not a sports shooter, and do not mind a slow buzzing sound on focus. For some family shots here and there it served me just fine...

Once I got the 85mm 1.8 USM - and felt was USM was like, I was hooked. The 70-200 went, and I moved over to primes in order to keep my back from going out, and to have that fast focus.

Hope this helps...

Fligi7 wrote in post #11592987
I've been reading about it's less than stellar focusing, though, which could nix it completely as it would be used for fast sports.

Look at the Sigma for sports. Not quite as sharp, but much better autofocusing.

I've owned both lenses as well (70-200 2.8L and Tamron's 2.8 zoom). I found that in most every situation I was using, my images were definitively sharper and crisper on the Tamron lens. While I had the 2.8L, I noticed in many images where I was using a lower aperture, the images would consistently turn out less sharp right up until I got to 2.8 and then I just thought the focal point was off. After using the Tamron lens for a few months, I was very pleased thru all apertures on the lens. Although, like it's been mentioned.. the focusing is nothing comparable to Canon's fine work (but that's not what this thread is about, is it? )

Just my two cents, I agree that if you're not going for constant sports shooting, or anything related, the Tamron is a fine choice, especially for the price. But overall, it's always preference.

Tamron don't tend to muck around. I expect (and hope) that a 70-200 of the same great sharpness will be around shortly with USD + VC *fingers crossed*

Nothing like a bit more competition. The Canon mk2 version is way out of my price range at the moment, the Tamron lenses seem to be fractions of the cost of Canon equivalents generally.

Actual pictures from a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and a T2i:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I've been quite pleased with mine for image quality. Used in in a couple weddings and for other situations. Even done some t-ball and pee-wee football with it and got acceptable results. Have a Canon 70-200 2.8 L (Non IS0) at work and it is clearly faster on focusing but image quality is about even.

It's such a close race. I suppose I'll have to rent both and see the keeper ratio for each to help me decide.

price vs af speed...

both equally as sharp and real close.

canons af is faster and quiet. but thats anywhere from 300-600 price difference depending on whether its used or new.

i would go with the tamron personally for my use. i dont use it for action. so i have all the time i need to frame and focus. and another thing about af speed is that it is slow but 90% of the time you never go from MFD to infinity.

ive had the canon 24-70L before and the tamron 28-75 now. both sharp. but the AF speed and sound doesnt bother me with the tamron so i picked that and saved myself $700 that could go towards something else

40Driggs wrote in post #11595387
Look at the Sigma for sports. Not quite as sharp, but much better autofocusing.

This^^^

Comparing anything Tamron has ever even dreamed of making to the Canon 70-200L lineup (any of them) is a serious stretch, IMHO. The Canon lenses have great optics ANY focus fast and accurately. Their build level is fantastic too.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11601074
Comparing anything Tamron has ever even dreamed of making to the Canon 70-200L lineup (any of them) is a serious stretch, IMHO. The Canon lenses have great optics ANY focus fast and accurately. Their build level is fantastic too.

I would thought the same until I saw the optics comparison in my original post. It just got me to thinking.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11601074
Comparing anything Tamron has ever even dreamed of making to the Canon 70-200L lineup (any of them) is a serious stretch, IMHO. The Canon lenses have great optics ANY focus fast and accurately. Their build level is fantastic too.

Except the 70-200 IS II, the Tamron 70-200 can compete against other Canon 70-200 2.8 version in optical quality aspect. In fact, wide open it beats the IS MK I version.
And from my own experience, it's sharper than the 2.8 non-IS L although not by much.