Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

70-200mm f/2.8 IS Question

O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
cocky jeremy said:
I've seen comparisons, and the Tamron doesn't touch the Canon.
Click to expand...
The non-VC version of the Tamron is optically comparable to Canon's Mark I 70-200 mm lens. The successor to Tamron's lens not only has VC (vibration compensation, IS in Canon parlance), it also has an ultrasonic motor.

Also dxomark puts the Tamron squarely in the same league as both Canon lenses. Resolution-wise, it sits right between the Mark I and Mark II. The Tamron even has the highest final score -- although I'd be very reluctant to boil down optical performance to one single number. There are other aspects (AF speed, efficacy of the image stabilization, quality control) which are not reflected in the score.

Photozone, ranks the non-VC predecessor lower than the Mark I and Mark II, but they have yet to test the successor.

Before people here start a brouhaha, I'm not arguing the Tamron is better than the Canon's (that most likely depends on the definition of »better«), I'm merely refuting the claim that Canon's lenses are playing in an entirely different league than anyone else. Arguably, the Tamron has better price-performance (even though the VC version is markedly more expensive than its predecessor). They are not. Given the right budget, any of the big lens manufacturers can produce a great lens. There is no magic Leica or Canon L pixie dusts that circumvents the laws of physics and economics. Sigma and Tamron have been moving to the higher end of the market, the lenses they have released have higher price points than their predecessors.

Unless your needs are very particular and/or you are independently wealthy, it's usually much better to go for a cheaper option and a second lens/budget for other things rather than scraping every penny you own because of some perceived deal breaker a Mark I/third-party lens has over a Mark II.
 
cocky jeremy

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,104
6,343
OreoCookie said:
The non-VC version of the Tamron is optically comparable to Canon's Mark I 70-200 mm lens. The successor to Tamron's lens not only has VC (vibration compensation, IS in Canon parlance), it also has an ultrasonic motor.

Also dxomark puts the Tamron squarely in the same league as both Canon lenses. Resolution-wise, it sits right between the Mark I and Mark II. The Tamron even has the highest final score -- although I'd be very reluctant to boil down optical performance to one single number. There are other aspects (AF speed, efficacy of the image stabilization, quality control) which are not reflected in the score.

Photozone, ranks the non-VC predecessor lower than the Mark I and Mark II, but they have yet to test the successor.

Before people here start a brouhaha, I'm not arguing the Tamron is better than the Canon's (that most likely depends on the definition of »better«), I'm merely refuting the claim that Canon's lenses are playing in an entirely different league than anyone else. Arguably, the Tamron has better price-performance (even though the VC version is markedly more expensive than its predecessor). They are not. Given the right budget, any of the big lens manufacturers can produce a great lens. There is no magic Leica or Canon L pixie dusts that circumvents the laws of physics and economics. Sigma and Tamron have been moving to the higher end of the market, the lenses they have released have higher price points than their predecessors.

Unless your needs are very particular and/or you are independently wealthy, it's usually much better to go for a cheaper option and a second lens/budget for other things rather than scraping every penny you own because of some perceived deal breaker a Mark I/third-party lens has over a Mark II.
Click to expand...

I know there's nothing "magical" that makes Leica/L lenses better than other lenses, but they are generally much better compared to other lenses. Like I said, the tests I've seen, the Canon 70-200 blows the Tamron away. Maybe there's a newer version I haven't seen of the Tamron, I'd have to double check. As a matter of fact, the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows away the Canon 35L. I'm hoping Sigma updates their 50 f/1.4 with the same optics as the 35. It's as sharp at f/1.4 as the Canon stopped down several stops.

EDIT: After double checking, I'm a moron. The tests I read were the Sigma 70-200, not Tamron. Haha. Regardless, i've yet to see a Tamron lens that measures up to the L equivalent. I'm going to check up on the Tamron you mentioned though. :)
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
cocky jeremy said:
I know there's nothing "magical" that makes Leica/L lenses better than other lenses, but they are generally much better compared to other lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't think performance alone matters to the vast majority of people, it's price-performance. In real-world shots, the difference between stellar lenses and very, very good lenses are tiny, and nobody will notice them if the photo you've taken with it is good. So even with a sizable budget, I'd rather buy more tools for my shed than spend it on two, three very, very expensive ones. That's why I've bought all of my lenses used, and I own Nikon, Tokina and Sigma glass. My favorite one is my Nikon 80-200 mm, though.
 
cocky jeremy

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,104
6,343
OreoCookie said:
I don't think performance alone matters to the vast majority of people, it's price-performance. In real-world shots, the difference between stellar lenses and very, very good lenses are tiny, and nobody will notice them if the photo you've taken with it is good. So even with a sizable budget, I'd rather buy more tools for my shed than spend it on two, three very, very expensive ones. That's why I've bought all of my lenses used, and I own Nikon, Tokina and Sigma glass. My favorite one is my Nikon 80-200 mm, though.
Click to expand...

Different people have different preferences. I can see both sides of it. For me, I'd rather wait a little longer and get the very best, even if the differences are minimal. Plus, I like the build quality of of Canon's L lenses.
 
DesterWallaboo

DesterWallaboo

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2003
520
726
Western USA
cocky jeremy said:
Different people have different preferences. I can see both sides of it. For me, I'd rather wait a little longer and get the very best, even if the differences are minimal. Plus, I like the build quality of of Canon's L lenses.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.... and yes... you can clearly see the differences between a good lens and a stellar lens.
 
DesterWallaboo

DesterWallaboo

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2003
520
726
Western USA
OreoCookie said:
I did not write »good« lens, I wrote »very, very good« lens (think Mark I vs. Mark II, for instance), this distinction makes a big difference to my argument.
Click to expand...

I can see the difference between the 24-70 I vs II.... but the I is still an excellent lens.

However... I've never found a great Tamron lens.
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
DesterWallaboo said:
However... I've never found a great Tamron lens.
Click to expand...
You seem to base your judgement on gut feeling. That's probably due to your association of Tamron with cheap, plasticky $250 lenses and 12x zooms, and Tamron is working on overcoming this stigma. The various reviews state that the 70-200 mm is in the same ballpark as the Mark I and Mark II (or any other modern 70-200 mm zoom). There have always been a few highly regarded Tamron lenses. E. g. its 90 mm f/2.8 macro lens has had a reputation as an excellent portrait lens even in the film days. And now that Tamron and Sigma are moving into the territory of more expensive lenses, they can spend more on quality control and a robust enclosure.

Third-party lenses are particularly interesting if you look carefully which ones are worthwhile. For instance, when I bought my Nikon F80 in 2002, I also got a Tokina 28-70 mm f/2.8 Pro SV (the SV is important) with it. This lens was an absolute steal: the built quality was pro grade (full metal construction), the optics top notch, but at 1/4 the cost of a Nikkor/Canon L equivalent. I still regret selling that lens.

Moreover, Canon and Nikon have ginormous gaping holes in the lens line-ups, because they live in full frame denial. (The overwhelming share of dslrs sold have APS-C-sized sensors, but the lens line-ups don't reflect that at all.) For instance, neither has a fast, affordable faster than f/2 23 mm lens (~35 mm on full frame). Both have 24 mm f/1.4 full frame lenses, but these are heavy and hugely expensive. Third-party lens manufacturers are filling some of these holes (e. g. Sigma's new 18-35 mm f/1.8 zoom).
 
cocky jeremy

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,104
6,343
DesterWallaboo said:
I can see the difference between the 24-70 I vs II.... but the I is still an excellent lens.

However... I've never found a great Tamron lens.
Click to expand...

The difference between the Mark I and Mark II on the 24-70 is much larger than the 70-200. The 70-200 I was already very solid, the 24-70 I was rather soft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom