Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Choosing Between Canon 70-200 f/4 IS or Tamron F/2.8 VC G2?
Dec 3, 2019 13:51:56 #
I own the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, but would like to have that extra stop. Canon's II or III versions of the 2.8 are a little above my spending limit, so I've been considering the Tamron G2. I'd like to hear some opinions on my thinking. Going from a Canon f/4 to the Tamron 2.8 G2, would admittedly be a step down in build quality, but what of image quality? Should I be content with the f/4 Canon? Any opinions will be appreciated.
Dec 3, 2019 14:09:45 #
...Do you have a full frame or crop sensor camera...from what I have been reading the 70-200 on a full frame camera makes a great portrait lens...in which case you would want the 2.8...on a crop sensor camera the 70-200 makes a great landscape lens...in which case an f/4 would be fine...only you can decide what you need with the lens...
Dec 3, 2019 14:23:25 #
zcarxrg
Loc: Corpus Christi
IrishMike wrote:
I own the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, but would like to have that extra stop. Canon's II or III versions of the 2.8 are a little above my spending limit, so I've been considering the Tamron G2. I'd like to hear some opinions on my thinking. Going from a Canon f/4 to the Tamron 2.8 G2, would admittedly be a step down in build quality, but what of image quality? Should I be content with the f/4 Canon? Any opinions will be appreciated.
There are plenty of bloggers who felt that the differences between the Canon f4 and f 2.8 were small enough to just go with the f4 and save the money and deal with less weight. It would be good if a pro photographer would "weigh" in. The new Sigma 2.8 has been positively reviewed and should also be in the running.
I originally purchased the Canon f4 version before a saw a blog mentioning how well the Canon 70-200 F 2.8 (not the current one) worked with teleconverters, even the 2X teleconverter. At 320 MM equivalent and f4 a 2.8 lens can double as a wildlife/ birding lens for closer subjects. I can use that set up in a pinch when our Canon 100-400 is being used by someone else. So the 2.8 wins on versatility besides the low light capabilities for indoor concert or sporting event shooting.
It would be very helpful if you would mention what type of shooting you intend to do so you can get the most applicable information.
Are you finding the f 4 f-stop inhibits your shooting ? If not you might just have gear acquisition syndrome and might change your mind about the purchase in a few weeks.
Dec 3, 2019 14:37:53 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Well, the Tamron lens has quite good image quality. But so does the Canon f/4 IS... Compare for yourself:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
One thing I really like about the Tamron.... and wish Canon would do too.... is that they incorporate an Arca-Swiss compatible dovetail into the foot of the tripod mounting ring. It's nice you don't need to buy a separate mounting plate or have any worries about it loosening.
However, the Tamron is twice the weight and about 50% larger than the Canon f/4 lens.... The Tamron also requires 77mm filters, while the Canon uses 67mm. To be f/2.8 capable requires a lens to use larger lens elements and that leads to larger overall size. Compare:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_70-200mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_G2_Lens_for_Canon_EF/BHitems/457678-USA_1317271-REG
Personally I use the same Canon lens as you quite a bit, but don't have the Tamron. So I have no idea how they compare in terms of focus speed and accuracy, though both use fast "ultrasonic" focusing motors. At least theoretically, an f/2.8 lens should perform better since most Canon cameras have one or more AF points that are higher performance when used with f/2.8 or faster lenses, not quite as high performance with "slower" lenses.
I also have no idea how the two lenses' image stabilization compares. Canon claims three to four stops worth of assistance from their IS. Tamron claims their VC is good for "up to five stops".
The Tamron uses a number of extra low dispersion (XLD) and low dispersion (LD) lens elements to achieve high image quality and has a curved 9-blade aperture to produce good background blur effects. The Canon lens uses two UD (ultra low dispersion) and one fluorite (FL) elements for similar purpose. Fluorite is both lighter in weight than glass and particularly effective minimizing chromatic aberration. But it's more expensive and difficult to work with. Canon uses it in all but one of their current and recent 70-200s, as well as many other lenses. In the last couple years Nikon has updated a lot of telephotos to use it, too. I am not aware of any other manufacturers currently using it, especially not any of the 3rd party lens manufacturers. Most have experimented with using it in a lens or two at one time or another, but AFAIK Canon is the only manufacturer to use FL extensively in their lenses since the 1970s.
You might get more detailed info about some of these factors here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx
Versus: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You also might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM "II" (same price as the Tamron lens):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
The II has a 9-blade aperture, like the Tamron. And it's upgraded IS is claimed to be good for up to 5 stops. It has a number of other improvements. Announced at the same time as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "III", in his review above Bryan notes that the f/2.8 lens was more like a "refresh", while the f/4 lens got more of a true "upgrade".
Comparing the original Canon f/4 lens to the new "II" version, I don't see much difference in images quality (in fact, there's not much difference between them and the Tamron, either):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1198&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
So I think your decision is going to have to be based upon things other than IQ... size, weight and other performance factors. I'd also note that the Canon 70-200mm f/4 lenses don't come with a tripod mounting ring. It's sold separately and adds quite a bit to the cost... $149 for the OEM Canon ring for the first version lens, $165 for the new one that matches the color of the "II" lens. (They use the same "A-2" ring, but the color is different, to match the different colors of the lenses.) There are third party tripod rings for both that cost a lot less (around $50 for metal ones.... AVOID the cheaper plastic ones). How well those work, I dunno... I've used the OEM Canon ring on my lens.
I have an older version Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens that I used a lot for ten years or longer. It still works fine. I originally bought the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM as a backup. But now I find I actually use the f/4 lens far more often, primarily for it's smaller size and lighter weight. After all, I ain't gettin' any younger! I still get out the f/2.8 lens occasionally when shooting in low light conditions. But, for me it's become more of the backup lens.
I don't use teleconverters with either zoom. I have longer telephotos I use instead... both primes and zooms. I experimented with Canon EF 1.4X II and EF 2X II on the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM years ago. There was noticeable loss of IQ with the 1.4X, but images were mostly usable. The 2X, on the other hand, caused way too much loss of IQ. It was unusable on that zoom (though it was fine on 300mm and 500mm primes). I understand the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II and III work better with teleconverters, but haven't tried them. Some examples I saw with EF 2X III on the 70-200/2.8 II seemed "okay", mostly acceptable, but my 100-400mm II and 500mm lenses are better. The relatively inexpensive and moderate size/weight EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is also excellent (too bad it doesn't have IS!)
(The 100-400mm II works surprisingly well with teleconverters. I didn't even try it for the first year after I bought the lens, assuming there'd be some loss of IQ like with other zooms. But when I finally did some test shots with the older 1.4X II teleconverter on the 100-400 II, I was stunned to see there's virtually no loss of IQ at all. It's an amazingly good combo. My 500mm prime will probably see less use!)
The 70-200mm f/4L IS USM also works quite well for portraits. I rarely use f/2.8 due to the very shallow depth of field. Working at typical portrait distances, f/4 and even f/5.6 can cause strong background blur effects. The shot below was done with the f/4 lens wide open, at 93mm focal length:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
One thing I really like about the Tamron.... and wish Canon would do too.... is that they incorporate an Arca-Swiss compatible dovetail into the foot of the tripod mounting ring. It's nice you don't need to buy a separate mounting plate or have any worries about it loosening.
However, the Tamron is twice the weight and about 50% larger than the Canon f/4 lens.... The Tamron also requires 77mm filters, while the Canon uses 67mm. To be f/2.8 capable requires a lens to use larger lens elements and that leads to larger overall size. Compare:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_70-200mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_G2_Lens_for_Canon_EF/BHitems/457678-USA_1317271-REG
Personally I use the same Canon lens as you quite a bit, but don't have the Tamron. So I have no idea how they compare in terms of focus speed and accuracy, though both use fast "ultrasonic" focusing motors. At least theoretically, an f/2.8 lens should perform better since most Canon cameras have one or more AF points that are higher performance when used with f/2.8 or faster lenses, not quite as high performance with "slower" lenses.
I also have no idea how the two lenses' image stabilization compares. Canon claims three to four stops worth of assistance from their IS. Tamron claims their VC is good for "up to five stops".
The Tamron uses a number of extra low dispersion (XLD) and low dispersion (LD) lens elements to achieve high image quality and has a curved 9-blade aperture to produce good background blur effects. The Canon lens uses two UD (ultra low dispersion) and one fluorite (FL) elements for similar purpose. Fluorite is both lighter in weight than glass and particularly effective minimizing chromatic aberration. But it's more expensive and difficult to work with. Canon uses it in all but one of their current and recent 70-200s, as well as many other lenses. In the last couple years Nikon has updated a lot of telephotos to use it, too. I am not aware of any other manufacturers currently using it, especially not any of the 3rd party lens manufacturers. Most have experimented with using it in a lens or two at one time or another, but AFAIK Canon is the only manufacturer to use FL extensively in their lenses since the 1970s.
You might get more detailed info about some of these factors here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx
Versus: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You also might want to consider the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM "II" (same price as the Tamron lens):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx
The II has a 9-blade aperture, like the Tamron. And it's upgraded IS is claimed to be good for up to 5 stops. It has a number of other improvements. Announced at the same time as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "III", in his review above Bryan notes that the f/2.8 lens was more like a "refresh", while the f/4 lens got more of a true "upgrade".
Comparing the original Canon f/4 lens to the new "II" version, I don't see much difference in images quality (in fact, there's not much difference between them and the Tamron, either):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1198&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
So I think your decision is going to have to be based upon things other than IQ... size, weight and other performance factors. I'd also note that the Canon 70-200mm f/4 lenses don't come with a tripod mounting ring. It's sold separately and adds quite a bit to the cost... $149 for the OEM Canon ring for the first version lens, $165 for the new one that matches the color of the "II" lens. (They use the same "A-2" ring, but the color is different, to match the different colors of the lenses.) There are third party tripod rings for both that cost a lot less (around $50 for metal ones.... AVOID the cheaper plastic ones). How well those work, I dunno... I've used the OEM Canon ring on my lens.
I have an older version Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens that I used a lot for ten years or longer. It still works fine. I originally bought the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM as a backup. But now I find I actually use the f/4 lens far more often, primarily for it's smaller size and lighter weight. After all, I ain't gettin' any younger! I still get out the f/2.8 lens occasionally when shooting in low light conditions. But, for me it's become more of the backup lens.
I don't use teleconverters with either zoom. I have longer telephotos I use instead... both primes and zooms. I experimented with Canon EF 1.4X II and EF 2X II on the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM years ago. There was noticeable loss of IQ with the 1.4X, but images were mostly usable. The 2X, on the other hand, caused way too much loss of IQ. It was unusable on that zoom (though it was fine on 300mm and 500mm primes). I understand the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II and III work better with teleconverters, but haven't tried them. Some examples I saw with EF 2X III on the 70-200/2.8 II seemed "okay", mostly acceptable, but my 100-400mm II and 500mm lenses are better. The relatively inexpensive and moderate size/weight EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is also excellent (too bad it doesn't have IS!)
(The 100-400mm II works surprisingly well with teleconverters. I didn't even try it for the first year after I bought the lens, assuming there'd be some loss of IQ like with other zooms. But when I finally did some test shots with the older 1.4X II teleconverter on the 100-400 II, I was stunned to see there's virtually no loss of IQ at all. It's an amazingly good combo. My 500mm prime will probably see less use!)
The 70-200mm f/4L IS USM also works quite well for portraits. I rarely use f/2.8 due to the very shallow depth of field. Working at typical portrait distances, f/4 and even f/5.6 can cause strong background blur effects. The shot below was done with the f/4 lens wide open, at 93mm focal length:
Dec 3, 2019 14:41:14 #
I should have mentioned, initially I am a disabled veteran and unable to walk around much at all. This makes a zoom, especially a tele zoom very useful for me. Most of my shooting involves wildlife and some landscapes. The additional weight of a 2.8 isn't that important to me, since I'm not carrying it around, but holding it on my lap while moving about on my battery operated scooter.
I suppose to some extent my wish for a 2.8, is because I don't have one! Although at least one valid point would be using the 2.8, even with a 1.4 converter, I could still shoot at f/4.
I suppose to some extent my wish for a 2.8, is because I don't have one! Although at least one valid point would be using the 2.8, even with a 1.4 converter, I could still shoot at f/4.
Dec 3, 2019 20:04:34 #
67skylark27
Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI
I have used the Tamron G2 on my Nikon and it's excellent. The 2.8 is
really nice to have (mainly indoor sports usage), I also have used it with the 1.4 tele and that's great
also! Given that you already have a 70-200 covered have you thought
about going long and getting the G2 Tamron 150-600? Same price
and gives you reach for wildlife, then use what you already have
for landscapes - f4 is just fine for that.
really nice to have (mainly indoor sports usage), I also have used it with the 1.4 tele and that's great
also! Given that you already have a 70-200 covered have you thought
about going long and getting the G2 Tamron 150-600? Same price
and gives you reach for wildlife, then use what you already have
for landscapes - f4 is just fine for that.
Dec 3, 2019 20:19:37 #
IrishMike wrote:
I should have mentioned, initially I am a disabled... (show quote)
Mike, as others have noted, it would seem you need more reach rather than another 1-stop of low-light capability. The 70-200 zooms are great tools, but 200mm is rather short for wildlife. You didn't mention your EOS body. The higher ISO 'capable' bodies make f/2.8 less critical as well as higher resolution sensors make (maybe) shorter lenses less limiting. My suggestion is to consider the variety of options available.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 4, 2019 08:49:50 #
I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and shoot a lot with it. I also use it with the Canon 2.0 Extender. It is a nice combination. If you need reach for shooting you might also consider the Canon 100-400 I or II. The II will be similar in cost to the 70-200 new but a good condition I can probably be had in the $700-800 price range. The II is better but it comes at a price. Sometimes saving up a little longer is worth the wait though...
IrishMike wrote:
I should have mentioned, initially I am a disabled... (show quote)
Dec 4, 2019 09:07:34 #
IrishMike wrote:
I own the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, but would like to have that extra stop. Canon's II or III versions of the 2.8 are a little above my spending limit, so I've been considering the Tamron G2. I'd like to hear some opinions on my thinking. Going from a Canon f/4 to the Tamron 2.8 G2, would admittedly be a step down in build quality, but what of image quality? Should I be content with the f/4 Canon? Any opinions will be appreciated.
If you are photographing action, and AF speed and accuracy matter, I would lean towards the Canon lens in better light situations. In poorer light I would lean towards the Tammy. If not photographing action, then the Tammy again. IMO, AF performance would be a deciding factor between these two - assuming you can manage the extra size and weight of the Tammy.
.
Dec 4, 2019 09:39:37 #
Kozan
Loc: Trenton Tennessee
IrishMike wrote:
I own the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, but would like to have that extra stop. Canon's II or III versions of the 2.8 are a little above my spending limit, so I've been considering the Tamron G2. I'd like to hear some opinions on my thinking. Going from a Canon f/4 to the Tamron 2.8 G2, would admittedly be a step down in build quality, but what of image quality? Should I be content with the f/4 Canon? Any opinions will be appreciated.
By all means, get the Tamron. I use mine on a Nikon D500 to get some excellent baseball pictures. Images of the outfielders 400 feet away are tack sharp. It's my most used lens for sports.
Dec 4, 2019 09:55:30 #
If your primary subject is wildlife consider a long lens. I'm happy with the Tammy 150-600 G2.
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Dec 4, 2019 11:24:20 #
I have used both canon and tamron lens for indoor sports and the picture quality is basically the same but the canon is built a bit more durable. By saying that...I am very careful and take care of my equipment and switched to tamron and have seen no durability issues. The reason I switched was that the tamron really outperformed the canon in low light action shots in gyms and arenas with sharper pictures and a tad faster focus. Other than that both lenses are equal to my eye.
Dec 4, 2019 11:35:22 #
IrishMike wrote:
I own the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, but would like to have that extra stop. Canon's II or III versions of the 2.8 are a little above my spending limit, so I've been considering the Tamron G2. I'd like to hear some opinions on my thinking. Going from a Canon f/4 to the Tamron 2.8 G2, would admittedly be a step down in build quality, but what of image quality? Should I be content with the f/4 Canon? Any opinions will be appreciated.
I have two full frames 5D III and 6D II, as well as an APS C - 7D.
Dec 4, 2019 12:29:24 #
zcarxrg wrote:
There are plenty of bloggers who felt that the dif... (show quote)
A 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x Extender creates a 140-400mm f/5.6
Dec 4, 2019 12:33:36 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
Have the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 for Nikon. It is an excellent lens IQ wise and it has performed flawlessly for me. It is fast enough to use 1.4x, 1.7x, and even 2x teleconverters and still not bump up against the f/8 AF barrier on many cameras. It gets great reviews.
I've got quite a bit of experience with 3rd party glass as well as Nikon glass. FWIW, I do not recommend 3rd party glass unless you are willing to check AF accuracy and tune if necessary. If that's too much of a hassle, stay with Canon glass.
I've got quite a bit of experience with 3rd party glass as well as Nikon glass. FWIW, I do not recommend 3rd party glass unless you are willing to check AF accuracy and tune if necessary. If that's too much of a hassle, stay with Canon glass.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out People Photography section of our forum.