Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM: I have a Tamaron 18-270 which I am not satisfied with and have a chance to buy or trade plus cash for the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM. I am wanting a sharper...

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I have a Tamaron 18-270 which I am not satisfied with and have a chance to buy or trade plus cash for the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM. I am wanting a sharper lens and to do some studio work with, also as well as walk around lens. With out the IS I do not see where there would be any advantage as what I want is faster lens and one that focus faster. In my opinion the Tamaron is over rated to say the least. I
I would appreciate opinions and feed back from some one who has used both.
My biggest complaint is the lack of fast focus in lot on instances.

Iduno Loc: Near Tampa Florida

Can't say about the Tamron 18-270 but I do own the Canon EF 70-200 f4. It's a big lens and not one I would consider as a walk around. For studio work, using a tripod, it should provide everything you need as long as the 70 end of the lens isn't too long for your studio.

redpepper Loc: Central NY

I own the 70-200 with IS. I mostly shoot my kids sports events and the focus is fast and.right on. I set the focus mode to panning and I get a higher percentage of keepers. I've played around with it for outside portraits bit find it a.bit long at the 70mm for indoor portraits. I have it mounted on crop sensor camera, so it would be perfect at 70mm on FF in a studio.

wmpark

I have the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens and it is one of the best lenses that you can buy. I regularly use it with a 1.4 extender and the quality is still great. Check with any lens review on this lens and you will see that it scores very highly. It is one lens that I do not want to be without.
Bill P

johnatredcar

I own both these lenses. Since getting the Canon 70-200 F4 I have decided to sell the Tamron. There is no comparison in quality. The Canon is crisp, fast and everything you could hope for. The Tamron is an awesome piece of kit, but not quality. It takes great holiday "snaps" but not quality portraits and sports shots like the Canon. Spend the extra on the Canon, you won't regret it.

Artic1

Well i wish i hadn't read this now,the wife bought me a 70 - 200 F4 but not the IS version,for this christmas,she's got it now under lock and key , so i can't even take a peek at it,but from what you fine fellows have said about it,it's going to be a long month,she bought me the Canon 600d for my birthday,anybody tried this combination out,so i can have an idea what to expect,been using the standard kit lenses that came with it up to yet,18 - 55 & 75 - 300,

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

I would think that if you're doing portraits that an 85mm prime might be a better choice --- much sharper and no distortion of facial features --- just a thought.

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

Thanks for the feed back. I do not do a lot of portrait and only for family and friends not professorially. Landscape and nature is my passion and that is the reason I considering this lens. I have the 300L lens and that is what made sick of the Tamaron lens. The Canon makes it look bad. I might have like the the Tamaron better if I had not bought the 300 prime. I have the nifty fifty and and micro lens in the 30 85 so I am cover there as well as the kit lens which I never use.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Artic1 wrote:

Well i wish i hadn't read this now,the wife bought me a 70 - 200 F4 but not the IS version,for this christmas,she's got it now under lock and key , so i can't even take a peek at it,but from what you fine fellows have said about it,it's going to be a long month,she bought me the Canon 600d for my birthday,anybody tried this combination out,so i can have an idea what to expect,been using the standard kit lenses that came with it up to yet,18 - 55 & 75 - 300,

Don't fret about the non-IS version of this lens. You will be so happy with it, you won't even care about some (very few) of it's weaknesses. Your kit lenses will seem like crap next to this.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I have one I purchased used and can't foresee getting rid of it. Great for outdoor sports, have used it outdoors at weddings for B&G shots.
I think the 70-200 L lenses have become standard fare for both wedding, portrait, and some event photographers. In fairness, most opt for the IS version for that type of work. Love using mine on a tripod. For portraits, and some wedding scenarios, IS will not be missed. In others, IS is a worthy option. Enjoy, and stop shaking the packages in the closet! Lol

paulbseymour

I own a Canon 70-200 l usm. It is a sweet lens however, if you can afford the IS version I highly recommend it. I have used my lens with a 1.4 converter with good results. That said I would have many more "keepers" if it were an IS USM.

Fkaufman3 Loc: Florida, LA ie lower Alabama

The 70-200 f4 is a great lens and real light compared to the 70-200 f2.8, I have both and use the f4 as walk around butf2.8 for indoor arena rodeos, the f4 works great outdoors for sports

johnatredcar

Sorry! I should have said my 70-200 is IS. I would go for that every time. The IS makes a huge difference when I take shots of racehorses. It's a fabulous lens for that type of fast action.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

johnatredcar wrote:

Sorry! I should have said my 70-200 is IS. I would go for that every time. The IS makes a huge difference when I take shots of racehorses. It's a fabulous lens for that type of fast action.

I think the IS is a bit overrated, especially outdoors where light isn't an issue. Speed comes from your shutter. If you are shooting race horses, I'd guess you are shooting above 1/500, which makes the IS less important. Just my opinion.

johnatredcar

I agree with that, but I am shooting in Northern England with big light problems in winter. It's usually about 1/100 with iso 400 to 800. I use a canon d7.