Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

[slclick]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

CA levels are ridiculous on the Canon. Before I said dirty UV filter. Hairspray on the UV filter? Just a touch?

Or a tele-extender. That's what it looks like.

I'm convinced the comparison is bogus, and that it does both the Tamron and the OP a disservice. I'll never take any of his future posts seriously unless he comes clean. Just my opinion.

Let me add some perspective. The 70-200L II is a high utilization lens with a complicated optical design. One misaligned element could cause issues. I've come a couple of unimpressive copies of the 70-200L II before, i.e. which had me scratching my head cos the Tamron (G1) was producing better IQ. Copy variation exists and it is fallacious to assume that Canon lenses are immune to it.

Happened to me.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

CA levels are ridiculous on the Canon. Before I said dirty UV filter. Hairspray on the UV filter? Just a touch?

Or a tele-extender. That's what it looks like.

I'm convinced the comparison is bogus, and that it does both the Tamron and the OP a disservice. I'll never take any of his future posts seriously unless he comes clean. Just my opinion.

Let me add some perspective. The 70-200L II is a high utilization lens with a complicated optical design. One misaligned element could cause issues. I've come a couple of unimpressive copies of the 70-200L II before, i.e. which had me scratching my head cos the Tamron (G1) was producing better IQ. Copy variation exists and it is fallacious to assume that Canon lenses are immune to it.

Happened to me.

True--but the OP seems to be claiming to be a pro photographer, has chosen this pairing to compare, and should therefore have the sense to see that something is wrong with the Canon he is using for the comparison.

Of course if an element gets misaligned there will be issues! Of course Canon has copy variations! Anybody reading CR and lensrental blogs must be well aware of this.

Which is why I cannot take THIS comparison seriously.

 

[slclick]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

CA levels are ridiculous on the Canon. Before I said dirty UV filter. Hairspray on the UV filter? Just a touch?

Or a tele-extender. That's what it looks like.

I'm convinced the comparison is bogus, and that it does both the Tamron and the OP a disservice. I'll never take any of his future posts seriously unless he comes clean. Just my opinion.

Let me add some perspective. The 70-200L II is a high utilization lens with a complicated optical design. One misaligned element could cause issues. I've come a couple of unimpressive copies of the 70-200L II before, i.e. which had me scratching my head cos the Tamron (G1) was producing better IQ. Copy variation exists and it is fallacious to assume that Canon lenses are immune to it.

Happened to me.

True--but the OP seems to be claiming to be a pro photographer, has chosen this pairing to compare, and should therefore have the sense to see that something is wrong with the Canon he is using for the comparison.

Of course if an element gets misaligned there will be issues! Of course Canon has copy variations! Anybody reading CR and lensrental blogs must be well aware of this.

Which is why I cannot take THIS comparison seriously.

+! Oh, me neither, I'm just stating the issue of copy variance

 

[malarcky]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Is it me, or didn't anyone notice the B&W filter on the Canon and no filter on the Tamron? I looked for a mention of it, but didn't see any admission of the filter. It is clearly (no pun) seen in the height comparison, and that's what got me to realize that the two lenses weren't being compared fairly.

I just bought a brand new copy of the Canon and it was very soft, so I sent it back for an exchange. I'll cross my fingers until the new one gets mounted on my cameras to do a comparison/lens test.

Will someone tell me that I'm not seeing things?

 

[michi]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Is it me, or didn't anyone notice the B&W filter on the Canon and no filter on the Tamron? I looked for a mention of it, but didn't see any admission of the filter. It is clearly (no pun) seen in the height comparison, and that's what got me to realize that the two lenses weren't being compared fairly.

I just bought a brand new copy of the Canon and it was very soft, so I sent it back for an exchange. I'll cross my fingers until the new one gets mounted on my cameras to do a comparison/lens test.

Will someone tell me that I'm not seeing things?

I noticed that also. Just thought I missed some comment about it in the comparison. I would assume it was taken off before the testing? Would be nice to know for sure.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Filter-gate.

 

[e_honda]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Tony Northrup says the new Tamron has even more severe focus breathing problems at 200mm than the previous version. Says he won't even bother with a full review on it because of this. Says the MK 1 seemed like it was at about 160mm while the MK II seemed to be at about 135mm.

Around 4:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5-e4Q01Ac&app=desktop

 

[slclick]

Re: Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2 & Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Tony Northrup says the new Tamron has even more severe focus breathing problems at 200mm than the previous version. Says he won't even bother with a full review on it because of this. Says the MK 1 seemed like it was at about 160mm while the MK II seemed to be at about 135mm.

Around 4:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5-e4Q01Ac&app=desktop

I got the memo, it said Tony is the new Ken.