Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

Started Feb 19, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
PK8 New Member • Posts: 4
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

Using a Canon T4i to shoot my kids' sports and other events (basketball, football, concerts and plays) and for general/everyday purposes. Photos are for personal (not professional) use, but I would like reasonably high quality. Of course, low light performance is important for my use, which is why I'd like to go to an f/2.8 (currently using Canon's new 18-135 STM and its "standard" 55-250).

Better to go with the new Tamron with VC (which I understand has much faster AF than its prior version) or the Canon without IS?

Both cost nearly the same (approx. $1,400). I do not use a tripod for basketball, but I do at least sometimes for football and concerts. Many people suggest that IS is not needed for action photography. How much would the non-IS Canon struggle in non-action settings (concerts and plays) if not a tripod? Would love Canon's newer version with IS, but not sure I can justify the $2,200-$2,500 price tag.

Posted this question in another section of the forum, but thought this section might be more appropriate.

Thanks!!!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EOS Rebel T4i (EOS 650D / EOS Kiss X6i) Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
William DIllard Senior Member • Posts: 2,483
Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

PK8 wrote:

Using a Canon T4i to shoot my kids' sports and other events (basketball, football, concerts and plays) and for general/everyday purposes. Photos are for personal (not professional) use, but I would like reasonably high quality. Of course, low light performance is important for my use, which is why I'd like to go to an f/2.8 (currently using Canon's new 18-135 STM and its "standard" 55-250).

Better to go with the new Tamron with VC (which I understand has much faster AF than its prior version) or the Canon without IS?

Both cost nearly the same (approx. $1,400). I do not use a tripod for basketball, but I do at least sometimes for football and concerts. Many people suggest that IS is not needed for action photography. How much would the non-IS Canon struggle in non-action settings (concerts and plays) if not a tripod? Would love Canon's newer version with IS, but not sure I can justify the $2,200-$2,500 price tag.

Posted this question in another section of the forum, but thought this section might be more appropriate.

Thanks!!!

I think the Tamron is a much better lens. It has IS, it is sharp and has great bokeh (9 blades) !

 William DIllard's gear list:William DIllard's gear list
Tokina AF-X Pro 16-50mm f/2.8 DX
OhioBob Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

I would go for the Tamron with VS over the non IS Canon. When you do plays and concerts it hard to use a mono pod when your in the audience. I shoot a recital and used ISO 3200-5000 and was only getting SS of 1/50. This is not even fast enough for musician as they play they still tend to move hands and heads and most shoots did not come out because of motion blurr.

I was using the canon 70-200 IS for that. I had the older Tamron and it was sharp but to slow  to focus for sports. The new one sounds much better from what I have read.

 OhioBob's gear list:OhioBob's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +6 more
Telhma Regular Member • Posts: 391
Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

I asked a little bit the same question little time before, they told me to get no tamron, because it was a piece of noise. but i can not tell if that is true.

PK8 OP New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)

Thanks for the advice! I'm strongly leaning toward the Tamron.

Like I said, I'd love to buy the Canon 70-200 II with IS. In a bubble, the price difference between the Tamron and the Canon with IS doesn't seem that huge. But, when looking at the numbers from a $0 starting point, $1,400-1,500 is a lot more palatable than $2,200+ (at least as a budding hobbyist, rather than a pro). That said, based on reviews, it sounds like the Tamron's IQ, build quality and performance are not far behind the Canon II IS.

Thanks again for the advice. Others, please feel free to chime in!

ViV New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS)
1

I agree with previous posting.  Have a look at the DxO Mark ranking (www.dxomark.com).  I suggest that you take following menu: Lenses > Camera Lens Ratings.  Then, on the right hand side, choose your camera model (eg Canon EOS 7D) and filter by type (zoom).  You'll then see that the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP VC USD come in 3rd position just before the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM II.

I know that they are plenty of discussions on the web about lens quality: should we take as reference the charts and defined targets in lab shots (qualitative but unreal), or actual pictures (real but subjective)???

With the former, at least for those of you who are mostly advanced amateurs, you can get some lab comparison in exactly the same conditions for given lenses.  I personally prefer using such website and then look what fits my coin purse...

Now, for those of you who don't care about spending more bucks, or like walking around with a white one, go for the Canon!

 ViV's gear list:ViV's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 60D Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads