#1-- Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS version 2 is expensive but reading a lot of good reviews.
#2-- Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS version 1 and good reviews.
#3-- Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD and good reviews.
When I check in DPC image gallery for all above I see #1 and #2 pop out and at the same time I do not see anyone who has #3.
I would look very carefully at the reviews and make sure that for the Tamron they are testing it on the FF (35mm) format camera. My concerns would be performance in the corners wide open and AF speed.
I would look very carefully at the reviews and make sure that for the Tamron they are testing it on the FF (35mm) format camera. My concerns would be performance in the corners wide open and AF speed.
I agree, that is why I am leaning more towards Canon but it is becoming more pricey and I want to think twice :)
Sort of what I would have expected... the Tamron has quite a bit of green-magenta CA in the corners, and the MTF is going to be quite a bit lower there as well. There is not nearly so much difference in the center of the frame, with the Canon having a *little* more resolving power. All in all, if I had to base a purchase decision on that test, the Canon is the clear winner.
Not necessarily a clear winner given the significant price difference.
Meh. The Tammy is currently going for $1400. While the Canon is ostensibly $2300, if I were upgrading I'd wait for a refurb to become available, and currently that would cost $1839. I still get a 1-year warranty and now the price difference is not so much an issue.
Not necessarily a clear winner given the significant price difference.
Meh. The Tammy is currently going for $1400. While the Canon is ostensibly $2300, if I were upgrading I'd wait for a refurb to become available, and currently that would cost $1839. I still get a 1-year warranty and now the price difference is not so much an issue.
Yes but it seems like it does not come with what it would come with the new lens. I didn't see anything mentioned with included accessories.
Fritz, you live in a different world than I where an extra $400 is not such an issue.
Ha, don't get me wrong, I'm all about good value, that is, performance per dollar. It's just that if the performance isn't there, no reduction in the dollars is going to make a difference. To me.
Fritz, you live in a different world than I where an extra $400 is not such an issue.
Ha, don't get me wrong, I'm all about good value, that is, performance per dollar. It's just that if the performance isn't there, no reduction in the dollars is going to make a difference. To me.
The resale on the Canon will also be better. It looks like he already has a 70-200 f/4, so I suspect he'd be disappointed by the Tamron. If it were me, I'd either be looking for a Canon, either on the used market, or a refurb.
Fritz, you live in a different world than I where an extra $400 is not such an issue.
Ha, don't get me wrong, I'm all about good value, that is, performance per dollar. It's just that if the performance isn't there, no reduction in the dollars is going to make a difference. To me.
The resale on the Canon will also be better. It looks like he already has a 70-200 f/4, so I suspect he'd be disappointed by the Tamron. If it were me, I'd either be looking for a Canon, either on the used market, or a refurb.
I am going to sell my f4 to get some money from there along with 10-20mm wide angle and rest saved from the photoshoots. But before doing any of these things I want to make sure I an buying what will help me on long run!
Fritz, you live in a different world than I where an extra $400 is not such an issue.
Ha, don't get me wrong, I'm all about good value, that is, performance per dollar. It's just that if the performance isn't there, no reduction in the dollars is going to make a difference. To me.
The resale on the Canon will also be better. It looks like he already has a 70-200 f/4, so I suspect he'd be disappointed by the Tamron. If it were me, I'd either be looking for a Canon, either on the used market, or a refurb.
I am going to sell my f4 to get some money from there along with 10-20mm wide angle and rest saved from the photoshoots. But before doing any of these things I want to make sure I an buying what will help me on long run!
One buys a 2.8 presumably to use it wide open or not far from it. So, with a 2.8, just how important is the IS?
at 200mm, you'd be surprised how important is.
Indeed. The 1st-generation Canon 70-200/2.8 was the first IS lens I owned. At that focal length, you really want it. It will enable you to reliably get the shot in situations where you otherwise would never get it.
