Low budget decision: 70-200 4.0 L | Tamron 70-200 2.8 | Tamron 200-500 5.0-6.3

themuffinmaker · Aug 10, 2013

Hi. I'm currently walking the lands that lead to full time photography, extending the network and landing projects here and there, and want to improve my equipment as it goes.

My current state is: 5D Mark II, 50mm F1.8, 24-105mm F4 L, (and nothing on the long end yet).

My final (reasonable) state would be: 5D Mark II + 7D, (whatever short lens improvements), 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM, 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS USM (or other top end super tele).

I expect to reach that final state in between 1.5 and 3 years. I am based in Poland, so I have to be very budget-conscious and carefully plan the steps to that final point.

I land projects including weddings, concerts, and some minor studio sessions (the latter covered just fine by my short lenses). In these projects, and when travelling, I also like to take candid portraits, for which I (will eventually) need a longer-than-200 tele.

Now I need to purchase a tele lens for an event in three weeks, and my budget can extend to a maximum of 750$. The final teles are way out of my reach, so after researching around and reading opinons (mostly here) I've come down to these (used) alternatives:

-Canon 70-200 mm f/4.0L EF USM

-Tamron 70-200 mm f/2.8 SP AF Di LD IF

-Tamron 200-500/5.0-6.3 SP AF Di LD IF

* I am also considering to buy a Kenko 1.4x PRO 300 DGX.

From what I have read around:

The Canon offers L grade quality, and value over time - so when I get the bucks to improve that range I can expect to get good money back for it. I just feel weird buying it with a future 2.8 in mind.

The medium Tamron offers very good, but not L, quality, coupled with speed that can be useful for weddings and concerts. The quality worries me though - is it enough for magazine works?

The long Tamron offers an incredible range for little money. However I am not sure it is comfortable to have such a lens before having two bodies. And how usable it is for someone that needs to handhold his shots.

Now, my question is: what would you recommend me to buy out of those three? Other suggestions are of course welcome.

Thanks in advance!

vwworld · Aug 10, 2013

I have used Canon 70-200 4.0 L for 6 years. Never used the two Tamron lenses.

One thing I can say is that you cannot go wrong with the Canon 70-200 4.0 L, which might hold the highest performance/price ratio ever. The sharpness from corner to corner and in all focus length is just excellent. For No-IS part, it didn't bother me that much, since I put it on tripod on those important occasions. I hand held it when use it outdoor with sunshine since speed could be set high.

I also have used 24-105 L for many years, which is a good lens but just one notch down than the 70-200 4.0L. So if you like your 24-105L, then 70-200 4.0 L will make your happier.

So my recommendation for you is to go for Canon 70-200 mm.

BCDragon · Aug 11, 2013

For weddings, I don't think the 200-500 would be too useful. Sure, maybe you'll get the chance to use it every now and then, but that sort of focal range is mainly for sports (from the sidelines) and wildlife, not to mention that it's the slowest lens of the three. Skip it.

As for the other two, you've pretty much nailed the pros of each. I have the 70-200 f4 L, and it's easily the sharpest lens I have. That being said, it's also rather slow, which may be bad if you're shooting weddings in a dimly-lit church, for example. I haven't tried it with a Speedlite, so I don't know if that will balance out the speed.

I haven't used the Tamron 70-200 2.8, so I can't speak for the image quality (though I'd expect the Canon to be better). That being said, it's also a full stop faster than the Canon, so it would definitely be good for indoor/low-light shots. However, since none of these lenses have IS/VC, I'd say go for the Tamron, assuming the IQ drop is what you'd consider to be reasonable. With no image stabilization, you'll be relying on faster shutter speeds to get sharper pictures, so the Tamron is best suited for this.

As a side note, if you had an extra $250 you could get a used Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS; Ebay and most camera stores tend to sell them around the $1K mark.

themuffinmaker · Aug 11, 2013

Thanks guys for sharing your thoughts.

With the search reduced to the two 70-200, the decission starts to get easier: I'm falling towards the Canon.

AF: Whilst the F2.8 of the Tamron would be helpful in a variety of situations, I have found many people reports its AF to be really slow and, even worse, suffer from focus hunting in low light situations - effectively destroying the advantage of the extra light step. I would rather use the Canon F4, push the ISO up and deal with the (possible) noise, than have a less noisy shot with the Tamron, but only taken 50% of the times.

Owners' satisfaction: Another point is that whilst each 1 out of 4 owners of the Tamron sound dissatisfied with it for one reason or another, I am yet to find an unhappy owner of the Canon F4. The Tamron's feedback-ratio is not bad at all, but the Canon's is close to unreal.

24-105L comparison: I am very, very satisfied with the 24-105L, even more considering what I paid. AF, sharpness, feel, and overall results are great. And yet, many people report the 70-200 as one clear step further. Well, I want that.

I am limited to buying from Allegro.pl, the alternative to eBay in Poland (with which eBay can't actually compete at this moment), as international postage is very seldom offered in second hand lenses. The good is delivery is faster. The bad is very rare items are not easy to get across, as allegro's market is much smaller than ebay.com or ebay.co.uk.

I will still be checking around for a few days, so please do say your bit if you feel like!

mu55 · Aug 11, 2013

I'm in a similar boat, I went for the 70-200 F4 IS, i have used both of those tamrons - i found the 200-500 very disapointing at the long end and the 70-200 2.8 was amazingly sharp but vignetted like crazy (which you may like)

I went with the f4 over a 2.8 because of the weight, shooting conferences especially i was generally trying to shoot at f4 or 5.6 anyway so that the text projection and any signage in the background would be readable, so if i'm generally stopped down any way why carry an extra kilo around.

I have been very happy with it, one of the guys i work with has the 70-200 f4 that your looking at (non-IS) and is very happy with it, his images stand up to 100% veiwing, mine are only slightly better, not worth the extra cost in terms of image quality alone i don't think - i do like the IS though

I've never been a longer than 300mm guy, and 200mm is generally too long for me too

themuffinmaker · Aug 13, 2013

Thank you guys again for your thoughts. I have decided I am going to start with the Canon 70-200 F4. I have also found a very cheap second hand Kenko 1.4x, which will be of use as much now as when I can expand the equipment to get more reach.

The lack of IS and speed of the Tamron 200-500 discarded it for my uses, as I am mostly a handholding type of shooter. It would also be rather uncomfortable to use in any event until I have a second body, or I would be forced to switch lenses constantly.

The main defect of the Tamron 70-200 F2.8, the non-reliability of its AF in low light conditions, renders the advantage of the speed useless, as I would want it precisely for being able to shoot in low light situations.

And thus the Canon 70-200 F4 is left, which was getting ahead by itself as it seems everyone who's owned it was very happy with it - quite a mark. It has extra advantages: all sources assure it's very (as in very very) sharp; keeping value is almost guaranteed (if I find the money to replace it with an IS version, or the F2.8, I will be able to sell it without losing much); and it looks pro (whilst for travelling that might mean asking for trouble, pro-looking equipment is also a marketing machine when you work on events or weddings).

Will drop my thoughts on the couple Kenko + 70-200 after the event, in case someone is also considering this solution.

Cheers!

SpearChucker · May 4, 2014

My EF80-200 2.8 finally died after 20 years of faithful service and I decided to go with the 70-200 4.0L rather than a 2.8 at this time. I understand the reluctance of buying a lens with a view to replacing it in the future but this is an amazing lens at a great price, that is easily sold when the time comes. If you're shooting a ton of sports in very low-light situations then perhaps the 2.8 is worth it to you but unless you're disabled don't worry about the IS version as I have handheld My 80-200 down to 1/4 sec easily on many occasions. I vote F4 unless you really can't live without that extra speed. Cheers.

Search

Low budget decision: 70-200 4.0 L | Tamron 70-200 2.8 | Tamron 200-500 5.0-6.3

themuffinmaker

New member

vwworld

Member

BCDragon

Member

themuffinmaker

New member

mu55

Senior Member

themuffinmaker

New member

SpearChucker

New member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts