# Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2013)

Here's a thorough review of Tamron's new fast telephoto zoom for those of you that are interested. Once again I have tried to share an objective real world review of the lens and its features.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/07/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

Thanks to all of you who have viewed and supported my reviews in the past.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2013)

Here's one of the shots taken during the review process:


----------



## TonyMM (Jul 26, 2013)

Dustin: thanks for a once-again excellent, informative review - your reviews give me a much better feel for the real-life performance of equipment than the "by-the-numbers" reviews. I'm impressed by your willingness to sit down and compile your experiences with equipment - I know it takes effort and desire to share with us and I appreciate it. However, now I'm scratching my head as to whether I should sell my Canon 70-200 f4 for one of these .....

Tony M


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

TonyMM said:


> Dustin: thanks for a once-again excellent, informative review - your reviews give me a much better feel for the real-life performance of equipment than the "by-the-numbers" reviews. I'm impressed by your willingness to sit down and compile your experiences with equipment - I know it takes effort and desire to share with us and I appreciate it. However, now I'm scratching my head as to whether I should sell my Canon 70-200 f4 for one of these .....
> 
> Tony M



Tony, I think that really boils down to a weight issue. Length is very comparable. I think that I would choose this lens over either of the 70-200 f/4 variants for my type of work (I have owned multiple copies of each). You do have more weight, but image quality is great as is the VC on the new lens. If you catch a sale on the new Tamron it really represents a great value and isn't the optical compromise that the Sigma OS currently is.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...



At least old film cameras are usually cheap...it's just what you do with them that gets expensive!


----------



## Snook (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks Dustin! I found your 24-70 review very informative. This one just as good! Coincidentally, I started looking into this Tamron 70-200mm a few days ago.

Also, for those looking for more info, TNG is in the middle of doing a four part series comparing the f/2.8 70-200's from Tamron, Canon, and Nikon. I know whenever I'm about to make a purchase I feel like I read and watch every single review on the internet. Just fyi.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 27, 2013)

Good review - thanks.

Now Tamron could we please have a 400/5.6 VC because it appears that neither Canon or Nikon are interested and you would have the market to yourself.


----------



## BoneDoc (Jul 27, 2013)

Now that you've tested one, do you see yourself buying one of these in the future? I notice the only lens on your stable is the 70-300L, which is a different category altogether.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

Snook said:


> Thanks Dustin! I found your 24-70 review very informative. This one just as good! Coincidentally, I started looking into this Tamron 70-200mm a few days ago.
> 
> Also, for those looking for more info, TNG is in the middle of doing a four part series comparing the f/2.8 70-200's from Tamron, Canon, and Nikon. I know whenever I'm about to make a purchase I feel like I read and watch every single review on the internet. Just fyi.



I watched the first part the other day, too. I enjoy his review series. Thanks for the thumbs up, by the way


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Good review - thanks.
> 
> Now Tamron could we please have a 400/5.6 VC because it appears that neither Canon or Nikon are interested and you would have the market to yourself.



That could be an interesting lens, particularly if it was reasonably compact and would work with at least a 1.4x extender reasonably well (they all seem to work with varying degrees of success with the Kenko extenders).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Now that you've tested one, do you see yourself buying one of these in the future? I notice the only lens on your stable is the 70-300L, which is a different category altogether.



Aden Camera here in Canada actually had one on sale @ $1299 a few weeks ago, which I would have jumped on if not for the fact that I was buying a new car that week and poured all of my available assets into it. I do think that I will grab one at some point, particularly if I can get it at that price point, which makes it a major bargain.


----------



## BoneDoc (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks for the reply Suatin. It's great to have a man of God doing reviews as I know that we are accountable to a higher authority. My dad is a pastor as well for a non denominational church in California. 

Right now the lens cost 1499 with a 100 dollar rebate, so just 100 off your target price. You can get it from eBay for 1299, but then I wouldn't have as much option for return or exchange if I get a softer copy or one w a back focussing issue. 

Believe it or not, one of the big consideration for me is the fact that this lens is black instead of white. I'm stationed in England now, and visiting some of the European countries like Italy, Spain or Greece would make me nervous with a white "steal me" lens . Also we'll be visiting Indonesia for my relative's wedding, so again, a more discrete lens might be preferable. 

If money were not an issue (within reason), would you choose this or the Mk II Canon, and why?


Thanks again,

Josh


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Thanks for the reply Suatin. It's great to have a man of God doing reviews as I know that we are accountable to a higher authority. My dad is a pastor as well for a non denominational church in California.
> 
> Right now the lens cost 1499 with a 100 dollar rebate, so just 100 off your target price. You can get it from eBay for 1299, but then I wouldn't have as much option for return or exchange if I get a softer copy or one w a back focussing issue.
> 
> ...



I think that if cost was no object I would go for the Canon. It is a proven, capable performer. But cost is rarely no object for me. I try to be financially conservative, and I don't think that the Canon would be worth an additional $1000. It is similar to my rationale with the 24-70, and I have not at all regretted going with the Tamron over the Canon 24-70II at all.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 27, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks a ton Dustin! This lens has been on my mind lately. Still need to go out and buy the Tamron 24-70, so maybe I'll need to add the 70-200. *sigh* I need to stop buying old film cameras...
> ...




Cheap is relative. I've become a bit obsessed with 120 film cameras, and it doesn't help when I have a Marina RB67 and want to find a lens or accessories for it. Even though they're a lot cheaper than they were, it still is $75 here, $200 there. It all adds up! Plus of course my Polaroid Automatics and SX-70. And film and development costs. Yea... I've gone a bit off the deep end. It's so much fun =D


----------



## sdsr (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks, Dustin, for a useful (and attractive!) review. I'm especially grateful for your bokeh samples - very impressive performance by the lens. (Having bought a couple of Canon MkIIs and returned them because of decentering problems, I'm rather tempted to try one of these instead.)


----------



## Badger (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks Dustin,
As a prosumer who doesn't make a dime off of photography, and who was thinking about the MKII for Christmas, this might make more sense especially the part about taking the extra $1,000 and spending it on other lenses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Thanks, Dustin, for a useful (and attractive!) review. I'm especially grateful for your bokeh samples - very impressive performance by the lens. (Having bought a couple of Canon MkIIs and returned them because of decentering problems, I'm rather tempted to try one of these instead.)



If you have the opportunity to buy from a decent retailer, you could probably give it a spin for yourself and return if it wasn't up to snuff. Thanks for the kudos.



Badger said:


> Thanks Dustin,
> As a prosumer who doesn't make a dime off of photography, and who was thinking about the MKII for Christmas, this might make more sense especially the part about taking the extra $1,000 and spending it on other lenses.



For a prosumer I would call it an excellent choice, as it optically competes with the Canon MKII at a much lower price point.


----------



## drjlo (Jul 27, 2013)

A very helpful review for those who don't want to pay for that white f/2.8 II. 

"One thing I noticed over the trial is that while Tamron lenses typically tend towards warmer color rendering, this is not the case with this particular lens. It is more neutral, even slightly tending towards cooler rendering. Colors are very vivid and rich, though, while skin tones are very naturally produced. I have rarely seen better color rendering."

Interesting that not too many people talk about color differences among lens brands. Even when I had a third-party lens that was "better" than Canon in certain respects (certain Sigma sharper, Certain Zeiss bolder colors, etc), I preferred to keep my lens stable with that Canon color character so that I can keep my post-processing workflow constant, without having to do extra steps to adjust colors to where I wanted. 

For the photo's in your review, how much and what kind of post-processing was involved, especially for the colors?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2013)

drjlo said:


> A very helpful review for those who don't want to pay for that white f/2.8 II.
> 
> "One thing I noticed over the trial is that while Tamron lenses typically tend towards warmer color rendering, this is not the case with this particular lens. It is more neutral, even slightly tending towards cooler rendering. Colors are very vivid and rich, though, while skin tones are very naturally produced. I have rarely seen better color rendering."
> 
> ...



The majority of the photos in the review have very little pp. Some are labelled as having none other a standard RAW conversion. A few shots have been posted, and they will typically stand out as being either stylized or having a bit more pop. For a point of comparison, I would recommend you look at the series of photos that I took during the section that compares magnification. The Tamron is presented next to the 70-300L and the 135L, two lenses noted for having nice color rendering. The 135L tends to be a bit cooler than many Canons. All of those photos have no post processing and were taken in identical lighting conditions. I don't see hardly any color variation at all.


----------



## ilang (Jul 27, 2013)

Thanks for your review Dustin, 

I bought this lens this week but have only taken a few test shots and very impressed so far , most of my testing has been at f2.8. Sharpness and Bokeh is amazing. 

I have rented the Canon 70-300L before and was impressed with the lens how does the Tamron with a teleconverter compare on a practical basis , I do know you loose 20mm ? Do you know if Canon teleconverters will work on the Tamron?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 28, 2013)

ilang said:


> Thanks for your review Dustin,
> 
> I bought this lens this week but have only taken a few test shots and very impressed so far , most of my testing has been at f2.8. Sharpness and Bokeh is amazing.
> 
> I have rented the Canon 70-300L before and was impressed with the lens how does the Tamron with a teleconverter compare on a practical basis , I do know you loose 20mm ? Do you know if Canon teleconverters will work on the Tamron?



You'll have to give us your own feedback after you have a little more time with it. It's hard to compare the 70-300L; they really serve two very difference purposes. If you want to travel, the 70-300L is a much better choice as it is far more compact (particularly when fully retracted). It is an awesome lens, very sharp, great color, and surprisingly good bokeh for a variable aperture zoom. The Tamron, for me, serves a very different purpose. It is a perfect event tool and obviously serves the purpose of narrow aperture work.

I didn't test it with the my Canon teleconverter because it worked so well with the Kenko, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. I should have put it on, but I was traveling a lot during the period I was testing and had multiple events to cover during that time. I would have liked to have had more opportunity to just shoot random stuff, but part of the reason that we chose that time to do the review was specifically because I had multiple professional events to cover.


----------



## BoneDoc (Jul 28, 2013)

How's the sharpness on the 70-300L vs the Tamron? I have the non L 70-300 IS, and I can tell that it's quite soft at 300mm. In some ways, I'm sure I can get the same IQ with a 200mm lens that's sharper, and then crop it down.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> How's the sharpness on the 70-300L vs the Tamron? I have the non L 70-300 IS, and I can tell that it's quite soft at 300mm. In some ways, I'm sure I can get the same IQ with a 200mm lens that's sharper, and then crop it down.



That's a tough call. I have a really sharp copy of the 70-300L, but I didn't really compare IQ head to head much because the two lenses really don't compete in the same category. I only have two photos that compare the image quality from the two. Note that at 200mm the 70-300L is @ f/5, so that tells the story of the two different purposes of the lenses. That being said, I have included crops from the shots that I have. The Tamron is the first in both comparisons. My opinion is the 70-300L is sharper in the close focus shot; the second (at distance) is pretty much a wash.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2013)

Second Crops:


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2013)

You can tell from these images that the microcontrast with the 70-300L is better (it is one of the best lenses I have used in this area).

P.S. The non-L 70-300 doesn't hold a candle to the L. It is an optical beast.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2013)

I should add that the closer focus picture above was taken to demonstrate maximum magnification, not critical sharpness. I didn't use Live View for focus, just an AF focus point and then a timer. Said AF point may have been more accurate with one lens over another because the framing of the subject was different. There are certainly other examples I took similarly during the review process that show better sharpness.

My opinion is that sharpness would not be an issue with either of these lenses. They are both very sharp.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2013)

Here's another narrow depth of field shot that helps show what the lens is capable of:




Flowers for Mama by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 1, 2013)

Here's a Q @ A (somewhat) that I thought that I would share for others that might have the same question:

"Message Body:
Great review on what seens to be a nice alternative to a crowded and somewhat pricey market. I've personally been considering the Canon 70-200 f4.0 IS or 70-300 L but know would add this to the list. The question I'd have is if you'd recommend this or the 70-300 L (which you've also given a strong recommendation for)? I primarily use a Canon 6D and do mostly travel/landscape stuff for personal but have also recently started venturing into wedding/event stuff as a 2nd shooter."

---------(My Response)
Thanks for the nice feedback. Unfortunately your question is somewhat complicated by two divergent purposes. If your interest was only in the travel/landscape, I would definitely recommend the 70-300L. It is incredibly sharp and is fairly compact when not zoomed out.

If you are getting into doing some event work, however, the 70-200 VC becomes a more attractive option. The 70-300L will require 2-3 times more light, depending on focal length, although the 6D is very capable of providing that kind of light. What the 70-300L won't provide in the same way is the ability to blur out backgrounds and make your subject pop.

It's a tough call, and one that you will ultimately have to make for yourself. What will benefit you more - an event lens or a travel lens? What would get more use? 

______________________________________________________________


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 1, 2013)

What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.

Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel. But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.

Thoughts?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 1, 2013)

Also, here is one more shot from the Tamron 70-200 - a little more artistic...


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 1, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Also, here is one more shot from the Tamron 70-200 - a little more artistic...



Lovely Dustin.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 1, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.
> 
> Moving to a 70-200 f/2.8 variant changes the rules for travel. But as an experienced event photographer, I would certainly say in that arena a 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps the most valuable tool a photographer could have.
> 
> Thoughts?



If I could only have 1, then I'd have to choose the 70-200 II and live with its size and weight. The 70-300L is a very capable lens, but the 70-200 II focuses more accurately (especially on lower contrast targets) and tracks moving targets better and I find I like its colors better and requires less post-processing than the 70-300L. The larger aperture max aperture helps to diffuse the background an the vignetting wide open only helps to make the subject pop more. If sports and portraiture are your thing, then the 70-200 II is tough to beat. It also does better getting to 400mm with the 2x.

The 70-300L does well by achieving IQ close to the 70-200 II in a compact, lighter and less expensive package. It wins at the long end compared to the 70-200 II + 1.4x but loses a stop, but its biggest advantages are size and weight. It's a great travel lens. For those that are more concerned about weight and size of a 70-200 II, the 70-300L is an attractive option. I'd opt for a 70-300L over a 70-200 f/4 variant. The 70-300L is still a little shorter and more packable (fits bags vertically) than the slimmer but longer 70-200 f/4s and it has a longer native focal length range while losing a fraction of a stop.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 1, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > What would the opinion be amongst those of you who have (or have used) both the 70-300L and one of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants? This is, to me, a tough question. One of the things that I love about the 70-300L is that it can stand up in most camera bags and thus doesn't take up any more room for travel. I am about to leave on a cruise and will be packing the Tamron 24-70 VC + the 70-300L as it has become my go-to kit and can fit in a sling bag.
> ...



That's a pretty fair summation that I think I pretty much agree with all around. Having owned the f/4 variants of the 70-200, I would choose the 70-300L over them every day. But the 70-200 f/2.8 is a different animal (either the Canon or the Tamron), and it is a more complicated decision.

My current solution is to use both the 70-300L and primes for my event work. I use my 135L quite a bit and am very pleased with the 135L + 1.4x combination. Great IQ and still very compact.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 6, 2013)

One review I read said that it's softer at 200mm. Did you notice this as well?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 11, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> One review I read said that it's softer at 200mm. Did you notice this as well?



I thought I saw that at first on a few shots (more like a soft haze at 100% that shows more of a lack of contrast), but after I dialed it in on AFMA I actually thought the sharpness was fine on the long end, even with an extender.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 13, 2013)

Looking at his sample, a haze is probably more like it. I've got one on order (along with a nearly new Canon Mk II for comparison ). Should be here in several days.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 13, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Looking at his sample, a haze is probably more like it. I've got one on order (along with a nearly new Canon Mk II for comparison ). Should be here in several days.



I'll be interested to read your head to head thoughts. I didn't have the opportunity to compare them head to head. I have been following a video series from "That Nikon Guy" and he is comparing those two + the Nikon right now. Three videos are up and are interesting and informative. Here is the first:

70-200 Showdown pt1 - Tamron vs Canon vs Nikon


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 13, 2013)

Here is the second in that series:

Stabilisation & Autofocus - 70-200 Showdown pt2 - Tamron vs Canon vs Nikon


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 13, 2013)

Here is the third (with one or two yet to come):

Image Quality, sharpness, bokeh, vignetting & contrast - 70-200 Showdown pt3


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 18, 2013)

Shot our championship softball team a few days ago. I'm very impressed of what this lens does. Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say  ). The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such. Here are some sample shots from the day.




IMG_1309 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1310 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1169 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1294 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1254 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1157 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1204 by BoneDC, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 18, 2013)

Bone-Doc - that is a really nice series of pictures. You are using the lens well. That's a great addition to this thread, because I didn't cover any kind of sports or faster motion use in my review. Bravo on your new lens!


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 18, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Shot our championship softball team a few days ago. I'm very impressed of what this lens does. Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say  ). The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such. Here are some sample shots from the day.



Nice shots! How well does the AF work for sports? Can you compare it with the Canon Mk I and Mk II at all? I have the Mk I and am looking to upgrade, and I find the Tamron tempting, but pretty much shoot sports exclusively. Thanks!


----------



## Ravengod (Aug 19, 2013)

Thanks for sharing your nice web page.ergrege


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2013)

Ravengod said:


> Thanks for sharing your nice web page.ergrege



My pleasure!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> BoneDoc said:
> 
> 
> > Shot our championship softball team a few days ago. I'm very impressed of what this lens does. Sharpness is on par with my 24-70 Mk II, and the VC is bang on brilliant (as folks over here would say  ). The VC also does automatic panning, so no need to switch levers and such. Here are some sample shots from the day.
> ...



You might want to check out the video links that I posted earlier in the thread. They definitely address AF speed.


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 19, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > BoneDoc said:
> ...



Haha! Thanks--I'll do that. I didn't have the opportunity to do that last time thru, but I'll give 'em a look. Thanks!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 19, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



Just out of curiosity: what is the primary body that you will use the lens on? With a good AF system (5DIII or better) I don't think you will have any kind of issue. My 6D bodies aren't the best for sports work, so I don't really feel qualified to make that judgment call. Matt Granger (that Nikon Guy) seems to find the AF basically on par with the Canon MKII, so, in other words, excellent!


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 19, 2013)

Ok, got my Mk II this afternoon and started playing with it. Other than the notable weight difference, it's rather hard to distinguish between the two. I have to keep reminding myself which lens I'm working with in order to keep a mental note of the difference. chimping at the LCD, the results appear similar also under my (rudimentary) test conditions. Shot all these in RAW, and I'll try to upload it later tonight / early tomorrow.

It's entirely possible that better photographers would notice the difference immediately, but I think unless you're paying very close attention, it's quite similar .


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 21, 2013)

As you may imagine, shooting your kids / wife makes it difficult to get super consistent setting. However, IMHO, this is useful, as most of us do not live in this idealized setting where we have infinite amount of time to tinker with every aspect of our shots.

This is SOOC posted straight from Aperture's Raw files. Can you tell which is which? This will be full size 20MP images. Click on the images themselves to see which one is made by which lens.




IMG_1641 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1637 by BoneDC, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 21, 2013)

I think the most telling piece of evidence will be which lens you keep and which one you return, Joshua. Be sure to let us know!


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 21, 2013)

lol... too much pressure .

The closest analogy I can come up with is like driving a Honda vs driving a Mercedes. Both will get you there. The speed and ride quality might even be similar. But there's something a little extra with the Merc. There's a feeling of luxury to it. Other than the obvious color difference in the lens (great marketing move by Canon btw), it's hard to quantify.

Here's what I gather so far:
- The MkII focuses just a tick faster. It's barely noticeable, and for most of us should not affect how our picture should turn out. The difference, subjectively is between "one one t" and "one one tho" ... if you're counting "one one thousand"
- IQ is nearly / practically identical. If you shoot test charts and have your camera in an 8 pound tripod all the time, then you might see a difference. But for me, hand held, trying to hit moving subjects (somewhat), the variance I induce into the system is bigger than the shot to shot difference between the two. Also the variance that the camera will induce (in Av mode where I mostly live), is bigger than the variance between the lens.
- Though just lighter by a few ounces, it's perceptibly different, so much so that the canon feels quite a bit heavier than the Tamron. At first it almost seem "unbearable", especially when you're holding it with one hand all the time. However, as I hold the MkII longer, the difference seem to fade. You do feel the slightly bigger heft
- The TStop (MkII at 3.6, and Tamron at 3.3) feels identical in real world condition. What do I mean by this? Pictures in similar / identical condition shot with identical setting (iso, aperture, and shutter speed), will look equally bright. I thought that the Tamron would carry a bit of an advantage, but not so. Maybe the vignetting made it all move even. 
- The vignetting FWIW is not at noticable to me, but maybe it's because I tend to like that look, and often add vignetting in PP anyway.
- Sharpness is identical (again, within real world condition). I don't go off measuring corners (which Tamron is supposed to be slightly better at). Around the center, Canon is supposed to be better, but I have found the difference to be negligible or imperceptible. I like to shoot people, and I can resolve every single skin pore already on a 1/2 body shot with either lens, so I don't think my wife, or anyone would want anymore detail than that. I can count every single eyelash also (as long as neither myself, or my subjects induce motion... and in many respect, even if we do that, I can still count eyelashes, just not as clear ). 
- If you often shoot with the hood in the reversed position, good luck trying to zoom with the Tamron. The hood blocks most of the zoom ring, making is a real pain. However, that aside, holding the lens toward the end probably makes it feel more stable, and could contribute to the fact that the Tamron feels lighter. With the tripod colar on, zooming with the MkII is a real pain as well since your finger is blocked by the zoom ring. You almost have to turn it upside down completely to keep it from blocking you. But you can easily zoom with the hood in the reversed position.

Here's where I think Canon has the "Luxury" aspect covered:
- The zoom ring has a slightly heftier feel to it... a little more solid. Also when you hit the end of the zoom rage, it has a more solid "tick" instead of the more plasticky "tack" that I get on the Tamron.
- The extra heft does translate into a more solid-feeling package. It's akin to car buyers, talking about a solid "thud" when they close the door (hardly a measure of performance and reliability), but adds a certain touch of luxury to it.
- The IS / VC, while equivalent in their effectiveness, feels more luxurious with the Canon. It comes on notably faster. You would have IS on and ready the moment focus is acquired. On the Tamron, it may lag, especially in bright condition and when the focusing distance is near (when AF is near instant). In addition, while the Tamron makes a circkety sound, the Canon makes a more satisfying high-pitch grit to it. Both are about as quiet though, so I don't want people to get the wrong idea about it. The Canon stays on longer after you let go of the shutter button. The Tamron comes off probably within 1/2 sec or so. Again, this gives a feel of luxury on the Canon, though in the end, it's no more / less effective.
- The finish is a touch better, since the Canon is slightly less plasticky. Don't get me wrong, the Tamron, also feels very good and very highly made. This difference is probably more akin to Infinity (Nisan's luxury line for our international friends) vs. a Mercedes / other German luxury car. From the silver label in front of the red line, to the off-white finish, the Canon exudes Luxury. Now this might be a moot point for those of us who regularly beat our equipment since all that is just a ding away from not making a difference.


In the end, here's where I struggle with the decision.
- While $1,400 (1,500 minus 100 rebate right now), is at least 800 cheaper than the 2,200 (or actually 2,500 right now without the rebate) for the Canon, it's not exactly cheap either. There's someting about the 1,500 mark that is a mental block for me. While I feel blessed, and make enough, I work for the military, so my salary is roughly 1/3 of what my civilian colleagues make. So, while I can afford either, it's not a decision I take lightly.

- I've learned over time that you're better off buying the best, because you'll eventually would want that as your skill progress. I'm probably a self-described mid/advanced amateur. There are lots I need to learn, but I've got a good grasp of the basics. Will I notice the difference more as I get better? Maybe, though it shouldn't be a crippling issue. The Canon is definitely the better product, but now not so much because of the IQ alone. It's more about the "intangibles" that makes the difference. Is it $800 better? That's a personal decision. It's $10,000 worth the difference between the new Honda Accord vs The Merc C Class / BMW 3 Series?

- The jury is still out on the reliablity / durability / weather seal-ability (if that's even a word ) of the Tamron. More recently, they've upped their game. So in some ways, it's almost like a Hyunday comparison. They have a new Luxury car series (like the Genesis), but (at least to someone who do not follow automotive as closely like myself), they don't have the track record yet. If I know that they're as good as Honda / Toyota is in the automotive world, I would pick the Tamron for sure.... but I don't know. They do carry a 6 year warranty, but do they nickel / dime you to death with that warranty? Are their customer service as good as the Apple Store?


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 22, 2013)

To continue  ...

Part of the dilemma of being early adopters is that we are the guinea pigs . Some have a riskier penchant for that. I'm more of the tried and true, though I will have to pay the difference. With time, this will sort itself out, as people would find out how good / reliable / durable / tough / weatherproof the Tamron really is. The Canon is well proven I think, and time will only tell.

I am currently stationed in England. While traveling around England, or most of Europe, I would feel fine, there are certain countries (like Italy / Spain / farther out around Turkey / middle east), where I would like to travel to. A White (albeit mostly brownish off-white) lens would surely make me a bigger target. However, in the past 2 days, I'm not sure how big of a deal that is. Simply put, when you're carrying a full-frame camera with a 3 pound lens, you ARE a target, even though they can't see the brand of your camera and lens. I would think any thief worth their salt would know the difference between the dinky, smaller DSLR vs the full frame (albeit a "budget" full frame) I carry. I can cover all the marking with a gaff, but I'm not convinced it would make a difference.

What I also didn't realize is that a camera / lens combo of this size can appear quite intimidating to people. I've found that some of my work colleagues seem to be a tad intimidated by the sheer size of the lens, whether it's WHITE or BLACK . So, I'm not convinced that having a black lens will make it better either. This is especially true with the hood on, since it makes the combo look like a bazooka. 



As for resale value, the MkII holds its value well. However, it's been unchallenged in the IQ dept until now. Now that 3rd party manufacturers are churning out great products, will Canon have to lower the price of its L glass to compete? If they do, then that's a moot point. However, I realize that even with the proliferation of knock offs, Louis Vuitton is still able to sell well. So Canon might be able to continue with that. I think trying to predict this is about as futile as trying to game the market / stocks.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 22, 2013)

One more note, related to the sense of Luxury, and please keep in mind that this has NOTHING to do with IQ or the overall function of the lens. 

Tamron completely, massively missed the boat when it comes to the packaging of this lens. This lens was packaged with regular plastic, protected only by cardboard protector. While I realize that this is more "earth friendly", it totally makes it feel cheap. Compare this with the canon, which include its own carrying case (solidly built, worthy of the glass it's trying to protect). They should learn a thing or two from Apple on how to package a product.

One more aspect to consider. The MkII definitely works well with the 1.4x extender, so that will give me the flexibility of going that route, should I choose to. We have limited data on the Tamron, at least with regards to the pixel peeping folks .


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 24, 2013)

Back to the "Which lens shot this picture" 




IMG_1908 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_1909 by BoneDC, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 24, 2013)

Here's the conclusions drawn by Matt Granger (that Nikon Guy) - another interesting watch:

BEST 70-200mm f2.8 lens


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 24, 2013)

BoneDoc - I actually reversed them because I assumed from the distance that the focus breathing would make the Tamron image the smaller (subject) of the two.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 25, 2013)

Having had both lens for almost a week, I'd have to agree with Matt Granger's conclusion (at least when it comes to the Canon vs Tamron). Again, the Canon has a slightly more "luxurious" feel to it. The IS comes a hair faster than the VC, as well as the autofocus (just barely though on the AF). IQ is pretty much equal. I can have less than perfect shots with either (only noticed when pixel peeping), but the rate of "perfect" (focus / exposure, etc) pictures is roughly about the same. The only problem is that when the lens are this good, you realized how far you are from "perfection".... Makes for a nice theological concept right? 

I think I'm going to stick with the Tamron. The main reason I think (aside from price), is the fact that I can hopefully be less conspicuous with a black lens instead of a white lens. I think as a PRO a white lens may help telling other people that you are a Pro, and that alone, might worth the extra cost (think of it as a marketing tool). I would rather NOT market that I have an expensive glass with me when I'm traveling .


----------



## silvestography (Aug 25, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Having had both lens for almost a week, I'd have to agree with Matt Granger's conclusion (at least when it comes to the Canon vs Tamron). Again, the Canon has a slightly more "luxurious" feel to it. The IS comes a hair faster than the VC, as well as the autofocus (just barely though on the AF). IQ is pretty much equal. I can have less than perfect shots with either (only noticed when pixel peeping), but the rate of "perfect" (focus / exposure, etc) pictures is roughly about the same. The only problem is that when the lens are this good, you realized how far you are from "perfection".... Makes for a nice theological concept right?
> 
> I think I'm going to stick with the Tamron. The main reason I think (aside from price), is the fact that I can hopefully be less conspicuous with a black lens instead of a white lens. I think as a PRO a white lens may help telling other people that you are a Pro, and that alone, might worth the extra cost (think of it as a marketing tool). I would rather NOT market that I have an expensive glass with me when I'm traveling .



One other minor point a lot of people don't bring up is CPS points. Sure, the Tamron gives you a great warranty, but the Canon will give you 12 CPS points: enough to get most people a gold membership with whatever camera body they have. For a lot of people, this could be a major asset.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 25, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> Having had both lens for almost a week, I'd have to agree with Matt Granger's conclusion (at least when it comes to the Canon vs Tamron). Again, the Canon has a slightly more "luxurious" feel to it. The IS comes a hair faster than the VC, as well as the autofocus (just barely though on the AF). IQ is pretty much equal. I can have less than perfect shots with either (only noticed when pixel peeping), but the rate of "perfect" (focus / exposure, etc) pictures is roughly about the same. The only problem is that when the lens are this good, you realized how far you are from "perfection".... Makes for a nice theological concept right?
> 
> I think I'm going to stick with the Tamron. The main reason I think (aside from price), is the fact that I can hopefully be less conspicuous with a black lens instead of a white lens. I think as a PRO a white lens may help telling other people that you are a Pro, and that alone, might worth the extra cost (think of it as a marketing tool). I would rather NOT market that I have an expensive glass with me when I'm traveling .



I find Matt's assessments typically pretty good, so I'm not surprised at your findings. At the end of the day that extra thousand makes you feel like there should be more separation between the lenses than there is.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 25, 2013)

BoneDoc said:


> One more note, related to the sense of Luxury, and please keep in mind that this has NOTHING to do with IQ or the overall function of the lens.
> 
> Tamron completely, massively missed the boat when it comes to the packaging of this lens. This lens was packaged with regular plastic, protected only by cardboard protector. While I realize that this is more "earth friendly", it totally makes it feel cheap. Compare this with the canon, which include its own carrying case (solidly built, worthy of the glass it's trying to protect). They should learn a thing or two from Apple on how to package a product.
> 
> One more aspect to consider. The MkII definitely works well with the 1.4x extender, so that will give me the flexibility of going that route, should I choose to. We have limited data on the Tamron, at least with regards to the pixel peeping folks .



The point about the packaging is a good one. In fact, the previous Tamron 70-200 that cost almost half as much came with a decent padded bag that the new lens doesn't. That is one area that Sigma does nicely.

Unfortunately, for me, while I like having those things (like the dumb little "L" series bag/pouch), I don't actually use them. I have padded bags/backpacks etc... that I store gear in - the included bags, pouches, and cases typically end up in the original packaging.


----------



## Shield (Aug 28, 2013)

I shoot with the 70-200 Canon MK II, and sometimes with the 1.4x tele. I just adore this lens; it's easily the best lens I've ever owned for any camera system.

When I bought it the new Tamron wasn't out yet else I'd seriously have considered it - my other workhorse is my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. You can't go wrong either way; I'd say the Canon would hold it's resale better.
Competition is a good thing! Great review by the way, but I'd have liked to seen more about the sports shooting aspect as many of us shoot action with these 70-200 2.8's.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 29, 2013)

Excellent review and pictures (as always) Dustin! If I didn't already own a Canon 70-200 2.8 II I would be looking to buy this lens! When I view your photographs it makes me realize how much improvement I need to make in my composition and photographic creativity.

Somewhat off topic: How do you carry your 6D + 70-200 when away from your studio? Black Rapid strap? Cotton Carrier?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 29, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Excellent review and pictures (as always) Dustin! If I didn't already own a Canon 70-200 2.8 II I would be looking to buy this lens! When I view your photographs it makes me realize how much improvement I need to make in my composition and photographic creativity.
> 
> Somewhat off topic: How do you carry your 6D + 70-200 when away from your studio? Black Rapid strap? Cotton Carrier?



I have both type systems and use depending on need. When shooting a wedding I use a Cotton Carrier type harness system with one camera and big lens in chest harness with another body with something like a 24-70mm at the hip.

I certainly wouldn't sell a Canon 70-200II to buy it, but if I were considering lenses straight up, I would have to look pretty long at the Tamron.

P.S. Thanks for the Kudos. I am just signing a contract to start blogging for PhotoNewsFlash (a new endeavor from PhotoNews Magazine) and in conjunction with Tamron of Canada (I guess they liked the review, too), so you will be seeing more of my reviews in the future.


----------



## silvestography (Sep 3, 2013)

I was making the decision between the tamron and canon 70-200s and decided to go with the canon because of performance with teleconverters. I'm used to a 70-300, and especially once I go full frame, I know I'll miss my long end from time to time, and the canon with mark 3 TC's seems to perform much better than the tamron with 3rd party TC's.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 4, 2013)

silvestography said:


> I was making the decision between the tamron and canon 70-200s and decided to go with the canon because of performance with teleconverters. I'm used to a 70-300, and especially once I go full frame, I know I'll miss my long end from time to time, and the canon with mark 3 TC's seems to perform much better than the tamron with 3rd party TC's.



Very true. I find the Tamron works fine with the Kenko, but one definite advantages of using a Canon lens/Canon tele combo is that the new Canon bodies allow you to set a separate AFMA for the combination.


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2014)

Well due to issues with Servo and tele end sharpness I have decided to take advantage of the recent rebates and sell my Tammy for the Canon Mk2. I have done very well with One Shot but tracking AF just fails over and over.


----------



## spiderweb (Jan 15, 2014)

I bit the bullet and went ahead bought a gray market Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and 70-20mm f/2.8 VC for Canon (6d) from Hong Kong online shop (buybuybox.com). I took this risk because the difference in cost is almost huge, though I might not get a warranty, but my case I will be moving to another country, so the US warranty anyway is useless for me. Even if you have US warranty, Tamron looking for some opportunity to screw you up.

Check out the cost saving.

1)	Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD For Canon (A007E) (Black)	$798.00
http://buybuybox.com/11646.html

2)	Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Canon) (A009E) (Black) $980.00 
http://buybuybox.com/photography/lenses/11652.html

With free shipping from Hong Kong. 

For total of ~$1800.00, I’m damn happy that I made a right decision. Yes, it’s gray market lens, but so what? It works.

I didn’t trust the seller so I did my transaction through PayPal and I let the seller knows that I don’t have much faith that he can complete the deal. He replied immediately with great communication. Holy surprise! Within 1 ½ weeks, I got my shipment in my doorstep. Perfect pieces, tested and everything perfect. 
I’m not affiliated with buybuybox.com anyway. I’m really excited and surprised the whole deal went through without any issue! That’s what I’m sharing my view. 


I bought it on Jan 4th 2014 and received the shipment on Jan 14th .

Thanks,
-Aru


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 16, 2014)

Congrats on your excellent price and getting the lenses. Enjoy!


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 19, 2014)

do not waste your money on this crappy lens , it is a good lens optically but its mechanical quality is very bad.
it is cheap and there are many reasons for it.
my 24-70VC and 90 macro broke up into many pieces just after a few months of light use.
and , I sold them and decided never get Tamron, Samyong and Tokina.
I think Sigmas primes are fine but Sigma zooms are also as fragile as Tamrons'.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 19, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> do not waste your money on this crappy lens , it is a good lens optically but its mechanical quality is very bad.
> it is cheap and there are many reasons for it.
> my 24-70VC and 90 macro broke up into many pieces just after a few months of light use.
> and , I sold them and decided never get Tamron, Samyong and Tokina.
> I think Sigmas primes are fine but Sigma zooms are also as fragile as Tamrons'.



With all due respect, do you have any supporting evidence to this claim? "Broke up into many pieces" seems unlikely. I have used the 24-70 VC for close to ten thousand frames in countries around the world in all kinds of weather conditions without any issue.


----------

