Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?
  
 
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I've narrowed down my zoom options to either the Tamron 70-300 or the Canon 70-200 f/4L. The Tamron is a few hundred less used and has IS and more range. So, I'm just curious from your Canon users how important the IS at this range. I used to own a 55-250 but never used it, but my needs have changed. I'll mostly be using it for landscapes, some wildlife, and my kids at the park/backyard, etc. I probably won't be doing much low light or stuff at night...possibly some landscapes at night, but on a tripod.

Edited on Jan 05, 2013 at 06:01 PM · View previous versions



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:51 AM
ggOk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


IS is a big plus for teles. I think once you pass 135mm, IS helps out alot especially with kids with lower light scene.

/r
Andy



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:58 AM
Phil McNeil
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Think about how much a one degree up or down move effects your image. On a very short lens, not very much, on a long lens a lot. If i tip my camera up one degree on a 20mm lens while the shutter is open I get a tiny shift. But if I move one degree on a 200mm lens, big shift. So IS is much more important on long lenses. Also consider if your subjects will be moving, kids sports, or still, portraits, landscapes. With a moving subject IS won't cure motion blur.


Jan 03, 2013 at 04:06 AM
Phil McNeil
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


The image quality is pretty darn good on the Canon, and you get to start your 'L' addiction.



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:08 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Agreed. Plus the Canon will almost certainly last longer and give you more confidence than the Tamron. Can you stretch to the f4 IS - mint 2nd hand?

Edited on Jan 03, 2013 at 04:21 AM · View previous versions



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:19 AM
WilliamFinley
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I've had both IS & non-IS versions of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, and stayed with the IS version. That lens can get heavy during a long day of shooting.

Bill



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:20 AM
erikburd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I haven't had any problems with my 135L, but when you're shooting 200 on a crop, you can definitely notice the difference that IS makes. I tried out the 200 f/2.8 L prime lens, but it was a lot of lens to handle without IS.

I have the 70-200 f/4L IS, and it works very well.



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:27 AM
dgdg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I have the 70-200 f4 IS, never read about the 3rd party lens. My most common use is playground action where the shutter speed required for subject motion makes IS not very important.
I think the IS would be nice for things that you will not be doing - low light, low shutter speeds without solid support. IS, obviously, does not eliminate motion blur so for your kids playing I imagine a shutter speed of at least 1/250 depending on the action. For landscapes you will have a solid tripod and head, so should not be an issue there. "Some wildlife" is a bit broad and I suspect intentionally vague. Unless you are really close, 200mm is quite short without tacking on an extender. If you are shooting bif on a bright day, no need for IS when your shutter speed is at least 1/1000. If you are shooting a still zoo animal in the early am and want to keep your iso down, IS can help your hand holding or vibrations on a tripod when your shutter speed is 1/50. I found with 400mm lenses if I am significantly under 1/400s on a solid tripod with cable release, simple unpredictable vibrations can affect sharpness. If you can swing the extra $ for IS, it is nice to have for those moments. If it means getting the lens you need or not, then get the non-is or 3rd party.

Edited on Jan 03, 2013 at 04:38 AM · View previous versions



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:31 AM
dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Image quality tends to improve with newer lenses. It so happens that IS is present in all these newer lenses.

If image quality is that not much of a concern then a 70-200 focal length without IS should be ok so long as it is a L lens.



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:37 AM
robstein
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I have used the 70-200f4 for the best part of a decade and just got the f4 IS version last year (I have no need for f2.8 zoom).... The IS is great in marginal lighting conditions and is well worth it if you can swing the price BUT the f4 non IS is a gem of a lens.

I have found the IS version gets funky stray light when shooting into the sun - probably because of it having a lot more glass then the non IS version. It's not any sharper to my eyes then the non IS and MIGHT be marginally worse then the non IS but it's a crap shoot and they are both great lenses.



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:53 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



adamx12m
Online

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


My first 70-200 was non-IS, always regretted not paying the extra for IS because you never know the photo situation your going to be in and often kicked myself numerous times when I needed it for low light. Didn't make that mistake again the second time around.


Jan 03, 2013 at 05:05 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


robstein wrote:
I have used the 70-200f4 for the best part of a decade and just got the f4 IS version last year (I have no need for f2.8 zoom).... The IS is great in marginal lighting conditions and is well worth it if you can swing the price BUT the f4 non IS is a gem of a lens.

I have found the IS version gets funky stray light when shooting into the sun - probably because of it having a lot more glass then the non IS version. It's not any sharper to my eyes then the non IS and
...Show more

Hmm, my experience is the 70-200 4L IS has far less flare than my 70-200 4L. The IS version has proved to be the ultimate sunset zoom.



Jan 03, 2013 at 06:58 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


taylorman22 wrote:
I'll mostly be using it for landscapes, some wildlife, and my kids at the park/backyard, etc. I probably won't be doing much low light or stuff at night...possibly some landscapes at night, but on a tripod.


For this you don't need IS. It will be handy when shooting landscapes at night without a tripod.



Jan 03, 2013 at 09:03 AM
mikesjo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


It's very useful. That said, I've been using my 70-200 2.8 non-is for the past 5 years. The IS version was too expensive for me back when I purchased the lens. Love how sharp it is. One day I'll pick up the IS version since the mk1s have dropped quite a bit.


Jan 03, 2013 at 09:12 AM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I have a 70-200/2.8 IS and it's the only piece of equipment I still have from 2008. A big thanks for that goes to the IS because I have no tripod, nor any wish to rely on it for every occasion when the shutter speed gets borderline. I actually think that IS is beneficial at any focal length, just because I'm shooting random stuff during trips all the time, and never know where I'm ending up and in what light.


Jan 03, 2013 at 12:50 PM
sandycrane
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


IS is definitely worth the added cost.


Jan 03, 2013 at 12:52 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


If you find yourself shooting at slower shutter speeds it definitely helps. It also helps to steady the viewfinder when you need more precise AF. I usually leave it on even for sports with higher shutter speeds just for the viewfinder stability.

Really depends on how steady you are as to how much it will actually help.



Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


taylorman22 wrote:
I probably won't be doing much low light or stuff at night...possibly some landscapes at night, but on a tripod.


For me IS is indispensable but it seems that you could do without it.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jan 03, 2013 at 01:49 PM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


The 70-200/4 IS is significantly sharper than the 70-200/4 non-IS (even when the IS on the IS version is turned off). So, in this particular case, if you're looking for ultimate sharpness, and can afford the extra $, you should get the IS version. (By contrast, the 70-200 non-IS was sharper than the 70-200 IS (v. I). The 70-200 IS II is the best of the lot.) And of course, in addition to the improved optics in the 70-200/4 IS, you also do have great IS. If I were choosing and didn't need to worry too much about the $, I'd strongly prefer the IS version.


Jan 03, 2013 at 01:55 PM
mfreardon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


First, the caveat: I'm not a pro and no one is paying me for perfect images. That said, I have owned the Canon 80-200 f/2.8 (magic drainpipe), 70-200 f/4 (non IS), 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS), and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I may have had good copies of the earlier lenses because on crop bodies (1D III and 50D) the IQ differences are not very large in my opinion. In fact, I wish that I had kept the f/4 non IS, my first L lens.

IS is not necessary for tripod work and moving subjects. You can always buy a used f/4 non IS lens and sell it later for about the same that you paid for it if you decide that you want IS. Good luck with your decision.



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:00 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password