# Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS II vs. Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 VC



## Nitoruu (Nov 30, 2012)

Will the Tamron be a good match for the Canon? Will it be comparable in quality?

What are some takes for you guys on the Canon 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200?


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 30, 2012)

My money is on the 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 30, 2012)

All I can predict is that a lot of people will answer who have never shot a Tamron, or possibly even this Canon, but who will confidently assert the Canon's clear, unmistakable superiority. And that FF sensors cost Canon $1000 to make. 

But then again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have only tried the previous Tamron version of 70-200 once, and it was in a camera store. All I could glean from that was the Tamron's AF was not quite as whisper-smooth as the Canon's, though not at all bad really. Photos of the inside of the store, viewed in the camera viewfinder, do not qualify me to tell you anything about IQ.

Presumably this new version is better somehow.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 30, 2012)

Considering the price difference I am sure you will see these reviews pop up in the next few months as folks get their hands on the tamron. If its anything like the tamron 24-70 they may have a winner on their hands. Granted for working pros or weekend warriors with red ring envy it will make no difference.


----------



## Enthusiast (Nov 30, 2012)

It´s worth a look, for the same price as a Canon 70-200 Mk II or a 24-70 Mk II you get both Tamrons, the new 70-200 and the 24-70. I expect that you will see this combo very often on 6Ds or D600s.
I had only experience with the 17-50 on my old crop body and it was a very nice lens. Let´s see if the new lenses have the must have appeal as the Canon L´s.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 30, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> My money is on the 70-200 2.8 II.



+1...it's very hard to be near or beat Canon 70-200.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm looking fwd to trying Tam's new 70-200/2.8 VC
I use the older non-VC on my D800e and it's VERY sharp and optically well-behaved, sharp enough to show fine moire problems on fine repetitive textures at times so that's a match to the hi-rez camera. AF is not quite as fast or precise as ultrasonic motored units but perfectly adequate for non-fast-action. Build Q is not up to Canon's L either but it's enough for my use.

I use Canon's EF 70-200/2.8 L ISv2 on 5D2 and it's amazingly sharp and handles well but it shows more CA than the old Tamron and also surprises me at times with horridly busy bokeh that I haven't yet suffered with the Tamron's shots. See the lens gallery for a sample of the ugly side of the Canon glass.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Dec 1, 2012)

Nitoruu said:


> Will the Tamron be a good match for the Canon? Will it be comparable in quality?
> 
> What are some takes for you guys on the Canon 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200?



The older 70-200 had very comparable IQ to Canon and Nikon offerings, but poor AF, etc. So far, it appears Tamron has upped their game in every respect which should make it a great value. I'm certainly interested.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 6, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> It´s worth a look, for the same price as a Canon 70-200 Mk II or a 24-70 Mk II you get both Tamrons, the new 70-200 and the 24-70. I expect that you will see this combo very often on 6Ds or D600s.
> I had only experience with the 17-50 on my old crop body and it was a very nice lens. Let´s see if the new lenses have the must have appeal as the Canon L´s.


+1


----------



## bchernicoff (Dec 6, 2012)

Roger says it's really only 175mm though: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s


----------



## Flea (Dec 7, 2012)

I had the chance to attach the 70-200 F2.8 lenses from Canon, Tamron and Sigma to my camera last weekend. While this was only at a trade show booth and a couple quick shots are not nearly enough to write anything even close to resembling a review, the one thing I did notice was that the AF on the Tamron seemed to be the slowest. They all seemed very similarly sharp though.


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 7, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Roger says it's really only 175mm though: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s


That's very interesting. Canon is better than Tamron @ 70mm, but Tamron is bettran Canon @ 200mm. For 70-200mm lens, 200mm is more important. That's really nice to see Tamron made another good lens. However, it's three year late for me. Since I have Canon 70-200mm already, I won't get this Tommy one.


----------



## Aglet (Dec 8, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > Roger says it's really only 175mm though: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s
> ...



just makes my decision for my next F-mount 70-200 harder... ???


----------



## sanj (Dec 8, 2012)

I have a different problem. I sent my gear and so Canon is for me. Tamron has no rental demand.

Also, when the time comes Canon will re sell much better.


----------



## lwestfall (Dec 11, 2012)

TDP just put their ISO 12233 images up. Looks like the Tamron (at least their copy) is inferior to the Canon Mark II where it counts at 200mm & f/2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Bummer, I was hoping to get 200mm at 2.8 with IS/VC at a bargain. If I needed 200mm at f/2.8 for mission-critical stuff and had the moneyI'd probably have to go for the Canon despite its insanely high price. I think I'll just get the superb Canon 70-200/4L IS used on eBay for $700 or so...


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

lwestfall said:


> TDP just put their ISO 12233 images up. Looks like the Tamron (at least their copy) is inferior to the Canon Mark II where it counts at 200mm & f/2.8:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
> Bummer, I was hoping to get 200mm at 2.8 with IS/VC at a bargain. If I needed 200mm at f/2.8 for mission-critical stuff and had the moneyI'd probably have to go for the Canon despite its insanely high price. I think I'll just get the superb Canon 70-200/4L IS used on eBay for $700 or so...



The Canon is the clear choice.


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2012)

Not familiar with Tamron lenses. All I know is that I sold my Canon 70-200mm I to buy the II....and ever since then....every time I shoot with it and pull the images up on screen...I say
.."This photo is so sharp, I can't believe this is a f*#king zoom lens!!!!!"
I think it has to do with the contrast, too. 
I can't say for sure as I have not tried the Tamron..but I will bet that it just does not have that WOW factor. My old version one did not have that WOW factor either.
Is the WOW factor necessary? No....but it is really nice to have!!!!!
I am sure that the Tamron is a very descent lens.


----------

