Tamron Lenses ?

freehockey

I'm looking at the Tamrom SP 70-200mm 2.8 lens as a substitute for the Canon 70-200 lens. I've rented the Canon lenses many times, and love them.

I'm considering purchasing a new lens, and the Tamron lens runs about $1,700 less.

Has anyone used the Tamron lens, and is there really a $1,700 difference in performance between the 2 lenses?

ziggy53

Best review for the Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Short story; the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM is sharper wide open, much faster to focus, more accurate to focus and better build. The Canon is around $1400USD vs the Tamron at $770USD:

http://www.adorama.com/CA70200AFL.html
http://www.adorama.com/TM70200EOS.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

The IS version of the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L is considerably more expensive and slightly better image quality. I am perfectly happy with the non-IS Canon version for my applications which include sports and event/wedding, as well as some portraiture.

time2smile

I use Nikon, but have the Tamron 70-200 newest version no VC, its a bit slow to focus, does some hunting on low contrast, especially outside trying to do birds and things. it is very sharp, once it locks on.
best thing would be to rent or try one on your body before you buy.
You can't beat the price,

good luck

cab.in.boston

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC version) and am very happy with it. It's not as robust as the pro glass from Nikon or Canon, but for my uses the 1/3 price difference was well worth it. I don't think my photos would be 3x better had I ponied up for the Nikon version. So as a statement on Tamron lenses in general, I can say they're fine, especially considering the price. But I cannot speak to the 70-200 f/2.8 lens in particular.

ThatCanonGuy

I faced this same decision, except the Canon 2.8 was out of the question. My 3 choices were: Tamron 70-200 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8, or Canon 70-200 f4. They're all around $600-$700. Of these 3 lenses, I think the Tamron is the least value for money. The Sigma version has faster AF since it has Sigma's AF motor. The Tamron does not have an AF motor. The Canon 70-200 f4 was my choice, because of the fastest AF of the three (it beats Sigma's, but not by that much). Plus the Canon has the best image quality (arguably, of course, but most of the reviews I read said so). The Canon is also the cheapest of the three at $650 new (I got mine for $600 refurb), but it's around $500 used. Keep in mind the white color draws a lot of attention.

I'd get the Sigma or the Canon. Advantages: Sigma: 2.8, black. Canon: slightly faster AF, slightly better IQ.

ziggy53

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

... The Sigma version has faster AF since it has Sigma's AF motor. The Tamron does not have an AF motor. ...

Just a minor correction needed here.

All autofocus (AF) lenses designed for use on Canon EOS system cameras have an AF motor in the lens.

The current Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 does use a micro-motor type AF motor, rendering it slower to focus than the current Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 HSM which uses a ring ultrasonic AF motor which has much better torque and braking qualities than the micro-motor technology.

Richard

ThatCanonGuy raises a good alternative. If you don't need the extra stop, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is an excellent value. It's sharp, fast and quiet to focus, and it's quite a bit lighter than its 2.8 brethren.