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.
Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
Radiating said:You can expect half the price, half the quality.
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.
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.
... 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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.