Canon 70-200 f4 IS vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC

[davidrf]

Hi,
I have the opportunity to sell my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L at a fair price. I was thinking about selling it and buy a new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.

I know the Tamron is bigger and quite heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. My doubts are:

1) Image quality: I don't think the Tamron is as good as the Canon
2) Colors: I don't know about the 70-200, but I have a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and though it's very sharp and has a great stabilizer, it has bland colors. I also have a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and the colors, compared to the Tamron 24-70, are immensely better, richer, brighter.

Any advice? Thanks!

 

[Chisox2335]

Hi,
I have the opportunity to sell my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L at a fair price. I was thinking about selling it and buy a new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.

I know the Tamron is bigger and quite heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. My doubts are:

1) Image quality: I don't think the Tamron is as good as the Canon
2) Colors: I don't know about the 70-200, but I have a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and though it's very sharp and has a great stabilizer, it has bland colors. I also have a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and the colors, compared to the Tamron 24-70, are immensely better, richer, brighter.

Any advice? Thanks!

I absolutely love my tamron. I can post some pictures when I get home. It's not perfect, it's a little soft at 200mm. I usually go to 200 them pull it back just a hair.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I've played with the Tamron and still have my Canon 70-200F4IS. You pretty much answered your questions with your inhibitions. All I can really add is that the Canon also focuses a little faster.

 

[WRiGHT]

I'm looking for 70-200 lens and borrowed tamron 70-200 2.8 vc from my friend for testing. Unfortunately, I cannot compare with any canon same format but I can say that:
1) Tamron hunts in low light about 20% out of focus.
2) My Canon 15-85 significantly sharper.

 

[davidrf]

2) My Canon 15-85 significantly sharper.

Wow... I had the 15-85, and the 70-200 L is way way sharper and has better colors that that...

By the way I decided to keep my Canon 70-200 L... the IQ is just unparalleled.

 

[NancyP]

The only reason to give up the 70-200 f/4L IS is to get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II specifically to gain f/2.8 capacity. The 70-200 f/4 L IS is a really good lens, color, contrast, sharpness, balance/handling, light weight.... If I wanted a PJ or action zoom, I'd go for the f/2.8. Otherwise, f/4.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi,
I have the opportunity to sell my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L at a fair price. I was thinking about selling it and buy a new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.

I know the Tamron is bigger and quite heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. My doubts are:

1) Image quality: I don't think the Tamron is as good as the Canon
2) Colors: I don't know about the 70-200, but I have a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and though it's very sharp and has a great stabilizer, it has bland colors. I also have a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and the colors, compared to the Tamron 24-70, are immensely better, richer, brighter.

Any advice? Thanks!

If you really need the f2.8 (i.e. bokeh, freeze action) go for it but, the Canon EF-70-200 f4L IS is sharper and I like more the contrast and color rendition. Tamron is and excellent lens though.

 

[aj1575]

As said by other before; the question is, do you need f2.8. The question you are askingyourself is, should I buy a better speced lens, because I got the money for it. This is actually the "wrong" question.

 

[Gert Arijs]

I bought the 24-70 VC. It's a bit softer when I stop down to f/9 or so. But my main concern was the direction of zooming. It's the opposite to the Canon-zoom-direction! The Nikon way of zooming. It's just a habit and I got used to it. When I use a Canon zoom lens, It's very difficult to use because of zooming the other way. I missed shots. So I decided to buy the Tamron 70-200 VC instead of a used Canon 70-200 II. Zoom direction is the same as the 24-70 VC. I do not miss shots any more as I got used to it instead of confusing myself.
The Tamron 70-200 VC is very sharp. Also at 200mm and 2,8. VC works great. Good balance. I'm very happy with it!
About color: easy fixed in post. Just make an import preset in LR and it's never an issue. Although I've not seen poor color on my copies.

 

[Hannes]

How does the tamron compare to the canon 2.8 v1? The tamron is meant to be sharper but how is af and accuracy in comparison?

 

[Gert Arijs]

I've had de 70-200 L IS (version I) for about two weeks. I needed it for an assignment. I used a 7D back then (now 5D3), but found the AF not very consistent on that body. My Tamron is definetly more consistent on my 5D3.

 

[scottkinfw]

The Canon lens is an excellent lens. As you point out, it produces excellent images (color, contrast, sharpness, brightness, basically, just about anything you could ask for, tracks fast, light, small, easy to carry and use). What will the Tammy do better?

I love my Canon. I also have the 70-200 2.8 is II and for travel, the f4 is is way easier to manage, especially with multiple bodies and other big L's.

Think hard before you give up this gem of a lens.

sek

Hi,
I have the opportunity to sell my Canon 70-200 f4 IS L at a fair price. I was thinking about selling it and buy a new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC.

I know the Tamron is bigger and quite heavier, but that wouldn't be a problem. My doubts are:

1) Image quality: I don't think the Tamron is as good as the Canon
2) Colors: I don't know about the 70-200, but I have a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and though it's very sharp and has a great stabilizer, it has bland colors. I also have a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and the colors, compared to the Tamron 24-70, are immensely better, richer, brighter.

Any advice? Thanks!

 

[mackguyver]

I can't help with the Tamron as I haven't used it, but the Canon is an amazing lens, certainly one of my favorites, and one of Canon's very best. I regret selling it when I bought the f/2.8 II IS. It's small, sharp as hell with great color and contrast, the IS works great, and it takes the 1.4x extremely well.