# Soon-To-Be-Released Tamron 70-200 2.8?



## Cory (Oct 20, 2012)

How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
Thanks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 20, 2012)

No. Tamron might be a good value for the occasional shooter, so I'm not knocking them, but the list of advantages the Canon L will have is long.


----------



## Radiating (Oct 20, 2012)

Cory said:


> How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
> Thanks.



You can expect half the price, half the quality.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 20, 2012)

Cory said:


> How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
> Thanks.



The price will be definitely around half. But that does not mean image quality will be half. Quality control may be an issue. So if you are not an early adopter and wait till all the initial issues are sorted out then it should be good, very good in fact. For non-earning (from Photography) photographers I believe this will give good value for money. There will of course be some compromise at either the 70 mm end or the 200mm end. But, if their 70-300 is something to go by, this lens should also be pretty good for non-earning photogs (again emphasis on non-earning)

Comparing canon Mark II with this lens is like comparing the First Class of a plane with its economy class. If the passenger wants the facilities of First Class he/she has to be ready to pay for it. Otherwise, economy class will also take the passenger to the destination just fine.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 20, 2012)

By the way the comparable Sigma is pretty fantastic (QC issues aside) too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 20, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> No. Tamron might be a good value for the occasional shooter, so I'm not knocking them, but the list of advantages the Canon L will have is long.



... starting with a strong reputation, so a unreleased lens like the 24-70ii is predicted to be THE lens without horrible onion bokeh a Canon would surely NEVER have ... while a Tamron unreleased 70-200 is not competitive for sure  



Radiating said:


> You can expect half the price, half the quality.



No, that's just it - price and quality don't scale linear, so half the price will be much more likely to be 2/3 or 3/4 the quality - look at the 24-70 Canon mk2 and Tamron. If you get a premium product, you're paying money just for having the best or pro gear.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

Cory said:


> How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
> Thanks.



We won't know until it's here.

From past history we might infere, well, nothing conclusive.
Tamron's made some good lenses and then updates to them have made them optically better or worse.
You can bet Canon's build quality is superior, that's the majority of what you're paying for with their L series lenses. But if you don't need that ruggedness then the other mfrs offer functional and affordable options.

I'm hoping that Tamron's new VC version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 is at least as good as their current non-VC version which I have in F-mount. This lens is very pleasing for IQ, very sharp at both ends, a touch softer in the middle wide open but improves nicely when stopped down a bit. It's certainly much better optically than Canon's 70-200/2.8 L IS v1, not quite as sharp as the v2 but Tamron's bokeh is nicer. The Tamron doesn't AF quite as precisely as I'm used to with Canon Ls, and even MF, altho smooth, is too touchy with the short ring movement distance. Still, it's showing itself to be a very good lens even on the hi-res D800e. If they can maintain this level of optical performance while adding VC and an ultrasonic AF drive while keeping the price under 70% of the Canon or Nikon equivalents then it would be a no-brainer choice for non-pro use.

Just look at what they managed with their new 24-70/2.8 VC. Optically not quite as good as the v2 Canon but for the price, PLUS VC, I'll take the Tamron, thank-you. I think they even managed some weather sealing on it.

OTOH, their 17-50/2.8 crop lens without VC is a little better balanced lens than the later one with VC, the latter showing more de-centering issues altho better center sharpness at most settings.

Should be available in a few more months, then we'll know.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > No. Tamron might be a good value for the occasional shooter, so I'm not knocking them, but the list of advantages the Canon L will have is long.
> ...



Where did I predict the 24-70 MK II L was going to be "THE" lens?
You need to stop putting words in peoples mouth. :-X 
I stand by my prediction that the Tamron will not be the equal of the 70-200mmL MK II, but will be a good value for the price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Where did I predict the 24-70 MK II L was going to be "THE" lens?
> You need to stop putting words in peoples mouth. :-X



Where did I say *you* predicted the Canon to be "THE" lens? If I'd wanted to put these words into your mouth, I'd written it otherwise (or my English skills fail me again here, if so I'm sorry). The quote from you was intended as an example of L lenses having a strong reputation.


----------



## sanj (Oct 21, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
> ...



Agree.


----------



## DB (Oct 21, 2012)

Marsu42 is correct in stating that the IQ gain versus price is an exponential relationship (you pay a lot more money for some marginal, but often required improvement in quality).

But the one factor that most people forget about is the 'residual value' component of a Canon L lens - you pay a premium price for a product that will still be sought after when it is 3-4 years old and will still command a respectable 'used' price, so purchasing an L lens is like paying for the lens + an insurance premium that protects the 'used' value (akin to paying for an extended warranty for damage etc.).


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 21, 2012)

DB said:


> you pay a premium price for a product that will still be sought after when it is 3-4 years old and will still command a respectable 'used' price



... if you treat it really nicely that is and have a lens cap and hood that looks like new. And you have to take the repair prices into account, a damaged L lens will cost you much more than a non-L because spare prices scale accordingly. And then if you carry around thousands of $$$ gear you'd better insure it - add that to the purchase cost, too.

So for some applications it might be wiser to buy a Tamron 24-70 with 6 year warranty, either get it repaired simply buy a brand new one (if completely broken or stolen) and still be way below the price of one Canon mk2.


----------



## traveller (Oct 21, 2012)

I used to own the earlier Tamron 70-200 and I rate it as sharper than the first two Canon 70-200mm f/2.8s. I picked mine up new for a very cheap price and traded it in to a dealer for nearly the same amount against a Canon 70-200 f/2.8. Mine had an aperture fault that affected the camera in cold weather, so that might be something to bear in mind. In general, build quality was fine for me, more plastic than the Canons, but very good plastic. Its biggest flaw was its AF motor, which was slow and inaccurate. If Tamron can keep the optical quality of the original and the price reasonable, whilst improving the AF, I would certainly not discount this lens. My Canon replacement is better built and has better AF, but I still think that the Tamron was sharper, when it worked and when it hit correct focus!


----------



## Cory (Oct 21, 2012)

Thanks for all the insight. I'm weighing this, one of the consumer 70-300's or a Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I don't think I can ever beat my 135 with anything at any price for indoor sports, but see how a 2.8 stabilized zoom would be GREAT for indoor events and outdoor sports. A 70-300 might be "better" for outdoor sports, but the 2.8'er more versatile overall.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 21, 2012)

Cory said:


> Thanks for all the insight. I'm weighing this, one of the consumer 70-300's or a Canon 70-200 f4 IS. I don't think I can ever beat my 135 with anything at any price for indoor sports, but see how a 2.8 stabilized zoom would be GREAT for indoor events and outdoor sports. A 70-300 might be "better" for outdoor sports, but the 2.8'er more versatile overall.



Keep in mind: 1 The non-L Canon 70-300 has just micro usm, so you'll be better off with a 70-200/4L no to speak of the better build quality. 2. The depth of field with 300mm is very thin, so imho f2.8 is great for fast af but not for the actual shot, I even stop down my 70-300L a bit in good light.


----------



## Cory (Oct 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Keep in mind: 1 The non-L Canon 70-300 has just micro usm, so you'll be better off with a 70-200/4L no to speak of the better build quality. 2. The depth of field with 300mm is very thin, so imho f2.8 is great for fast af but not for the actual shot, I even stop down my 70-300L a bit in good light.


Given all that I think it's gonna come down to (keeping the 135 f2, of course) the new 2.8 Tamron or the f4 IS Canon.


----------

