Does new Tamron 70-200 2.8 look sharper than Canon's on TDP?

[ScottyP]

Just looked at Bryan's new image quality results. Looks to me like wide open at 70 and 135 Tammy beats the Canon at the edges and beats or ties Canon everywhere else at. Canon seems to pull ahead in the center at 200 but is still softer in the edges.

Is it just me?

 

[ScottyP]

Link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=20280&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

[[email protected]]

This is just anecdotal, as Bryan's method uses just a single lens for each, but that said, I think the Tammy beats the Canon noticeably pretty much everywhere but at 200mm. The Tamron falls apart with the teleconverters, but that's not a normal use case for most. Pretty impressive.

 

[BeenThere]

Using the TDP charts, to my eye, the Canon is sharper and more contrast in the center from 70 - 200mm, but the Tamron is sharper and more contrast in the corner over the same zoom range; all at f/2.8. It's all qualitative though. Also, this is but one factor to compare.

 

[nighthawk82]

Honestly, while the Tamron DOES look a tiny bit sharper, the price is right up there with a Canon, and we still don't have detailed reviews of AF performance etc. For such a similar price I'd rather get the Canon, tried and tested and almost legendary in status. The first version of the Tamron was slightly inferior to the Canon, but cost significantly less. That IMO is a much better deal if you don't afford the Canon price.

If the G2 was $200-$300 cheaper than it is, then it would sell like crazy.

 

[IglooEater]

That's incredible. While the Canon holds the edge in the center, the Tamron looks better around the edges at almost all focal lengths. I say almost all because of this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2 Without a longer lense, I use my 70-200 this way quite a bit.

 

[Maximilian]

This is just anecdotal, as Bryan's method uses just a single lens for each, but that said, I think the Tammy beats the Canon noticeably pretty much everywhere but at 200mm. The Tamron falls apart with the teleconverters, but that's not a normal use case for most. Pretty impressive.

Similar experience was posted here by Dustin Abbott here in one of the the threads about the Tamron 70-200G2.
Tamy better on the short end Canon better on the long.

And that seems to be the reason why Canon is already thinking about a 70-200III and why we had some replacement threads here.

I think it is fascinating to see how development can really improve things that were stated to be the best ever and hard to improve for years. Competition is good. The "old" 70-200II is still good. And it is good to know that even this one can be made better.
For me the longer end (135 to 200mm) is more important, so personally I don't care

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Yes it is true. Dustin Abott Reporter the Same in his Channel.

 

[TommyLee]

I remember my 70-200 II did well on TCs, especially the 2x mk III (400mm)
notice the sigma falls behind the Canon here...

I got rid of 70-200 III because of weight... but it was a great lens...still is.

And the other mfgrs chasing Canon...help us ALL get better lenses.
....AND better Canon lenses....
the Canon 35 f1.4L mkI, Sigma 35 f1.4 Art and then 35f1.4L II - a good example
(I had all three as they kept leapfrogging improvement)

now it is time for Canon's stunning new 85 f1.4 I.S. AND 135 f2 I.S.

 

[[email protected]]

In response to a few posts:

- Tamron is listed at $550 cheaper than the Canon. I think an earlier poster mistakenly thought that they were closer in price.

- I agree that the contrast is better on the Canon.

- Weight is identical, but the Tamron is a little smaller (negligibly).

- I'll keep my Canon primarily because of its performance on the teleconverters, which I do use sometimes. I wonder if TDP did its tests with Tamron or Canon teleconverters. I'd love to see a comparison of the Tammy on both sets to see which work better, and if using its own, native teleconverter might even up the performance. If, however, I were buying new, I think the price would push me to Tamron.

 

[nighthawk82]

I shall elaborate... the Tamron is the same price as a used (MINT CONDITION) Canon 70-200
And only around $100 cheaper than a brand new Canon on ebay.

I understand that list price on the high street is probably a different story, but all my lens shopping is done on ebay to avoid the extortionate list price.