Betaa Loc: Australia, Victoria

Hi everyone!

I’m new to this website - sorry if this topic has been covered before :)

Can anyone find a reason to justify the $1,200 AUD difference between these two lenses? Even if you compare the Tamron to the ii version of the Canon it still seems like good value.

The Tamron seems like crazy good value for money compared to the Canon...

cochese

I had the Tamron mark I version for a while before I switched to m4/3. It is as sharp and the focus is just as fast. I found that the stabilization would take a second to settle sometimes causing you to miss that quick shot. I have no experience with the version II Tamron.

ELNikkor

Very few could tell the difference. The only reason to pay the extra would be that the money you make from photo sales will make up the difference...

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I use that lens on my d810 and find it to be very sharp and a fast focusing lens. I too opted for the lens over the nikkor version due to the cost.No regrets

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Just a quick - WELCOME TO UHH!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Honestly I think that the biggest difference would be in build quality and in resell, but I don't think that you could ever make up the difference in the initial investment in resale. I will say that I have the Canon Mk II of that lens and it is wonderful, I have never shot with the Tamron, but I bought my lens used from another photographer which could possibly be a consideration for you, I have had nothing but good experiences with used equipment and have saved thousands of dollars along the way.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I own the original Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and I have no complaints about the lens. I was originally going to buy the Canon lens but the store was sold out of the Canon's and had 1 Tamron left and I was leaving on a trip the very next morning. There are several aspects of the Canon lens that make it "better" than the Tamron but optically, they are extremely similar. The Canon's auto focus is quicker but not so much that it's really all that relevant. The Tamron lens is more compact than the Canon so it takes up a wee bit less room than the Canon. Build quality is good on both lenses but slightly better on the Canon. The Canon has better environmental sealing but the Tamron has a much better warranty.
Bottom line, the Canon is a better lens but, on a scale of 1 to 100, the Canon being 100, the Tamron is probably a 96.8 making it almost as good and a better buy than the Canon.
Of course that light grey paint and crimson band on the Canon puts it in an entirely different class.
If you can afford the Canon lens then it's definitely the one to buy. If the Canon is not in your budget, it's nice to know the Tamron is almost as good, will perform almost as well and will do pretty much what the Canon will do, but for far less money. It's truly a great alternative.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have same dilemma as the OP, but with choosing between the Canon 100mm f2.8L macro and offerings by Tamron (90mm) and Sigma (105mm). Your assessment imho is spot on.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I own the Canon 100/2.8L and not only is it a great macro lens, it's also an excellent portrait lens. It is well built, light weight and fairly small and for a quality L series lens, not too expensive. I'm sure both the Tamron and Sigma are good lenses but if you can afford the better of the three, get it. There's more to the Canon L series lenses than a crimson band.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If FOCUS speed and accuracy matters, if build quality and resale matters .....if the prestige/impressionism of a white lens matters .....
.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A friend bought the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 for Sports action on a Nikon DSLR. He paid $1400 for it Brand New. He loves it. Welcome to the forum too.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If people envy your gear, that's worth something, isn't it?

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I bought the Yongnuo 100mm f/2 also a MACRO lens - brand new for $169.69. It has Image Stablization just like the Canon lens, has 8 blades for "astral effect," and gold contacts - came out in 2015. What are your thoughts about this lens - please? I can't pass up a bargain since Canon wanted almost $500 for a similar lens!!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Yongnuo is NOT a macro lens - it is an exact copy of the Canon 100 f2 .....but I am also thinking of getting one ...
.

TonyBrown

I bought the 105 Sigma as a birthday present for my partner. She is blown away by the quality of the images.