I have been lurking around FM for some time now and am constantly impressed with the skills some have.
I had been serving as a 2nd shooter/assistant for a pro here in my area and have recently decided to go out on my own as a primary.
I know I need to build up my arsenal so much more and wanted to hear some thoughts on this lens for weddings.
It is a Tamaron 70-200 F2.8 with no IS. The price is running around $700 and according to my camera shop guy he tells me they are selling like hot cakes and Tamaron has them on backorder. Has anyone heard anything about this lens that might encourage or discourage me from purchasing aside from the no IS factor?
I think deewaltguy is making a generalization about the L glass versus the usual quality of Tamron products. I would have to say he is probably right though I have done no testing either. Just an opinion.
cordellwillis wrote:
Please explain your experiences (and/or testing procedures) when you compared the two so you can help us determine.
Thanks
As this is a new lens (based on the OP), no experiences or testing procedures were used to make this statement. Instead I used common sense and observational skills.
Used Tamron/ Sigma/ Tokina lenses typically sell for 50-60% of their original retail. Used Canon L lenses tend to sell for around 75 or 80% of their value. A used 70-200 2.8 purchased for $900 today will retain most of that value in a year, whereas a used Tamron will sell for closer to half of its value.
That's the economic part of the discussion.
The Canon is rated a 9.8 at the review section https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=13&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
So a used Canon is a good economic choice and a good optical choice
The same cannot be said for the Tamron.
I have to agree with deewaltguy! While I have never owned the aforementioned Tamron I have enough experience with both Sigma and Tamron to know that I'd rather pay a little more and get some used "L" glass vs. either of the other brands mentioned. These are my opinions but they are based on a lot of experience.....hope that helps. I do have the 70-200 Non IS (got it for ($925) it is an awesome lens. Don't want to spend that much then go after the Sigma 70-200 (owed that one 2) and is one of the only "other" brand lenes that I would own.....
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L and the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I've also got (just last week) the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. If I had it to do over, I would have just bought the Tamron lenses. Of course, the Tamron 70-200 didn't exist until recently, but it's an awesome lens. Large (of course), but not as heavy. I have never been able to tell the difference when it comes to results, and none of my clients have, either. Print the results, sell them to clients, and they won't know which photo was taken with what. You save money by buying the Tamron lenses, and you earn just as much (if you're any good). What really matters isn't whether you can tell the difference (and really you would be biased, since you know which lens was used when comparing) in your computer.... what matters is whether you can sell more prints with one lens over the other. And when you view it that way, there's no difference!!!!!
emandavi wrote:
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L and the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I've also got (just last week) the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. If I had it to do over, I would have just bought the Tamron lenses. Of course, the Tamron 70-200 didn't exist until recently, but it's an awesome lens. Large (of course), but not as heavy. I have never been able to tell the difference when it comes to results, and none of my clients have, either. Print the results, sell them to clients, and they won't know which photo was taken with what. You save money by buying the Tamron lenses, and you earn just as much (if you're any good). What really matters isn't whether you can tell the difference (and really you would be biased, since you know which lens was used when comparing) in your computer.... what matters is whether you can sell more prints with one lens over the other. And when you view it that way, there's no difference!!!!!...Show more →
A few points:
If you just got the Tamron 70-200 last week, how many clients have you served with this lens?
I'm not sure how having the Tamron allows one to sell more prints. Are you suggesting clients buy prints based on the price of the lens being used?
I can certainly tell which lenses were used to shoot any given image. If I can't see the difference (admitedly I can't always), the information is contained in the EXIF data in DPP.
Edited by deewaltguy on May 09, 2008 at 08:59 AM GMT
deewaltguy wrote:
... Instead I used common sense and observational skills.....
Interesting that it's "common sense". Facts seem to work best in many instances, but I suppose we all have our way of evaluating things.
Oh, and I have "L" lenses too (35 f/1.4, 135 f/2, etc, etc) and have enough experience to know that there are non-L's that are excellent. One of my very favorite lenses is the Sigma 70-200 2.8. If it had OS it would be tops! So to give your advice as "common sense" is just the opposite....but hey, that's your process.
I shot one a friend of mine had and must admit that I was blown away. I have both the 70-200 nonIS and IS and the Tammy was right up there w/ both. Perhaps a bit different, w/ nice blur. Diff in color from the Canons and quite sharp. Cannot really say the Canons have better color just diff. Really liked the IQ...
But just what I thought...
On posts like this I always rec shooting and really having shot b4 giving any real advice...
just what i think... I could be wrong... been wrong countless times b4,
cordellwillis wrote:
Interesting that it's "common sense". Facts seem to work best in many instances, but I suppose we all have our way of evaluating things.
Oh, and I have "L" lenses too (35 f/1.4, 135 f/2, etc, etc) and have enough experience to know that there are non-L's that are excellent. One of my very favorite lenses is the Sigma 70-200 2.8. If it had OS it would be tops! So to give your advice as "common sense" is just the opposite....but hey, that's your process.
I think you're getting a little defensive here. I have NO testing results to compare these teo lenses on. My "common sense" was a reply to the poster who questioned my logic in the way I would choose one over the other.
I pointed out that the Canon is rated a 9.8 here (link above) and keeps its price well on resale. The Tamron is an unknown. That's the extent of the common sense. Feel free to disagree. Many people do.
I have mostly L glass but have owned Tamron and Sigma when they had a lens that filled a space in my lineup. Some lenses from either Mfr are great and others, not so great, but that's the same with Canon, eh?
I never said that if anyone has "common sense", they wouldn't buy the Tammy (or Sigma). One way you might know this is that the OP is family, and I gave them their first two DSLRs (I think I created monsters!).
In any case I'm off to a wedding, and it's a rainy day. Gonna have to be creative with some outdoor stuff...
If it were me, I'd save a bit longer and buy the IS version of the Canon 2.8L. It's my personal preference, but I really prefer the build quality of the L zooms. When you do a lot of location work, you come to appreciate them.
I'd like to see an in depth review. How it responds in field conditions, auto focus in low light, weather resistance, etc etc. Optically it may provide a quality image, but if the thing is going to back focus in a low light situation it may not be worth it to a wedding photog. Performance of the lens is measurable in other areas other than pure aesthetic quality of an image. Is it consistent compared to it's Canon counterpart?
