Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 looks dawn good

[guillermovilas]

My next buy will be a 70-200mm range lens and my first thought were to go for the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS.
But now i'm not so sure anymore , i've just noticed that the Tamron seems to deliver just as good results , looks like it's even better then Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 & 70-200nn f/4 IS.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0&FLI=0&API=2

Do my reactions seem correct or am i leaving something out ?

[Rooz]

not in the same league. theres more to a lens than purely its resolution.

[Rhys]

I agree with Rooz. I would never by a non-Canon lens for Canon. Why?

1. Canon knows how its software works and can ensure that all older lenses will work on newer bodies. Nobody else can - this is why Sigma had to re-chip a load of older lenses.
2. Canon glass is usually higher quality. L will be higher than anybody else is capable of making. The independents are usually a fraction better than the worst of Canon's consumer lenses.

Look at the price. With optics you get what you pay for. Pay cheap, get poor. Pay through the nose and get the best. If you can't afford the best then make do with what you have and don't throw your money away on rubbish.

[nism]

i haven't used third party equipment before,
though i used to work with repairers who did tell of significant variability in the quality of such third party lenses,
tamron being the worst of those available
for me personally, you pay for what you get. there's a reason why good glass is expensive and holds its value

[michaelb]

...
2. Canon glass is usually higher quality. L will be higher than anybody else is capable of making. The independents are usually a fraction better than the worst of Canon's consumer lenses.

Look at the price. With optics you get what you pay for. Pay cheap, get poor. Pay through the nose and get the best. If you can't afford the best then make do with what you have and don't throw your money away on rubbish.

Now, come on Rhys, you can't actually believe this. Nothing in life is this black and white. There are some third party lenses which are excellent optically, sometimes better than their Canon equivalents, such as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8...
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/28...report--review

The Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, Sigma 150 and 50mm macros, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 30 1.4 are all examples of lenses that are optically up to par with their Canon counterparts.

Now, you many choose an L because its faster focusing or you like the build better, but optically many 3rd party lenses are as good or better than their Canon counterparts, for a much lower cost.

[michaelb]

Here's another example: Sigma 30 1.4 vs the Canon 35 1.4L...

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

[Rhys]

Optically perhaps but functionally?

I had a Tamron 70-300 and it shot very nice, crisp images. I could hardly use the darned thing though as it kept throwing ERR99 on my camera.

I replaced it with a Canon 70-300 which is optically perhaps not so good but has IS and does not throw errors all the time.

This is the other side of the equation!

[adam75south]

now THIS is a discussion.

for the OP, i'd be more curious about AF speed/accuracy, and performance at f/2.8. if that's quick and reliable, then i say go for it. i'd definitely buy a 2.8 before i'd get the f/4 IS any day of the week.

as far as buying 3rd party lenses....it's kinda ignorant to just ignore 3rd party lenses "just because"......especially when some of them are TOP performers out there...i'm EXTREMELY happy with my sigma 30mm f/1.4...and my next lens will more than likely be the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. it's the only(as far as i know) ultrawide with a constant 2.8 for a crop sensor..and the reviews show it's a bad sumbitch....(bad meaning good).

so you're REALLY holding yourself back if you don't explore every avenue. seriously, with the money you save, you could also buy a sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and have a pretty solid full 18-200mm with a constant 2.8. meanwhile someone else with the same budget buys the canon f/4 IS and is stuck with a single lens..and has only one dimension in his photography...it's a great one dimension...but one dimension nonetheless.

AAAAAND, the great thing about lenses is they hold value..you can always sell them and buy a better one later.

[Nickcanada]

Rhys, a lot of the problems with 3rd party stuff can be fixed by sending the stuff into the manufacture... and lets not forget that a lot of Canon's "L"s need to be sent in.... and lets not even talk about the 1D Mk III.

[michaelb]

... and lets not forget that a lot of Canon's "L"s need to be sent in....

I'm about to send my 17-40"L "to Canon due to significant left sided softness and its the first lens I've ever had any real problems with.