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?
  
 
Danpbphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I have had all versions of the 70-200mm, I,II, f/2.8,f4, IS,non is and the ONLY zoom I have kept in my arsenal is the 700-200mm f2.8 II IS.
I have tried practically all the Canon zooms over many years and IMHO, this lens is the "Primo" zoom. The 100-400mm is tied or as close to perfect as the 70-100 II IS f2.8.
I use mine and have used mine and the other zooms, on both 1D series and 5DI,II,III bodies and it is always tack sharp.

For me, at age 65, IS is a must and I prefer IS lenses at the higher ISO's hand held.

as the cliche' goes, "Try it..You'll like it"!
Dan



Jan 03, 2013 at 03:11 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


kevinsullivan wrote:
The 70-200/4 IS is significantly sharper than the 70-200/4 non-IS


I had both (though not at the same time) and my impression is that sharpness in both is equal and excellent.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jan 03, 2013 at 04:39 PM
DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


It all depends on how steady you are (or not) and the shutter speed.

I find the IS indispensible on this lens.



Jan 04, 2013 at 01:51 AM
RobDickinson
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I dont have IS on my 70-200f2.8

I think I mostly miss it when panning, which I do little of. I use it mostly for landscapes, rest for events/portraits.

I like IS as a tool, it can be quit useful, but as it happens I own absolutely no IS lenses at the moment...



Jan 04, 2013 at 02:19 AM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


So, what I'm hearing is that IS Is worth it if I can afford it, but if not, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is non-IS is still a better option than the Tamron 70-300 VC? Right now I just can't swing the extra money for the IS version and probably won't have the cash anytime soon. Right now I have $700 cash in hand and it looks like the used IS versions are around $800....if I'm lucky, slightly under that. The non-IS version is on sale right now on Amazon, new, for $559. At that price I could afford that and a used 430ex flash. So, I could always use the flash if I using it indoors. The Tamron 70-300 VC is $450 new with a $100 rebate, making it $350.

Most of the time I use the 70-300, I'll be outside in decent lighting shooting moving subjects....my kids I suppose I could buy it from Amazon and if I find not having IS is a problem, I could always return it...something I couldn't do if I buy used for $500.

The downside is that if I dumped all of my cash on the 70-200 f/4 and flash, I wouldn't have any cash left to upgrade my kit lens to the Tamron 17-50.

Edited on Jan 05, 2013 at 06:03 PM · View previous versions



Jan 05, 2013 at 05:49 PM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Paul Mo wrote:
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?


Yeh...like the Tamron will disintegrate within the year. I have an old Vivtar 70-210 lens back from the mid 70's that works just fine. Quit dealing out rubbish information.



Jan 05, 2013 at 06:02 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


The 70-200 f4L IS has been my go lens since late 07, I've not had the non-IS version.
This IS lens just rocks, even with a 1.4x II T/C it's still usable for light action shots...

However my most used lens; for going on 15yrs, has been the 100 f2.8 non-L non-IS macro. But as of just recently it is sitting still in my bag, the newer 100L has taken it's place and when hand holding, shooting close-ups; not super tight one-to-one shots, the IS really does help, just like it does, perhaps even better then IS on the 70-200 does.

I will admit a bias toward Canon 'L' glass since seeing images and prints from them. But if budget won't allow, simply buy what you can and enjoy shooting; not waiting...and make the best of the gear in hand.

My 1st AF tele zoom was the 200 dollar non USM/IS 75-300 beauty from Canon. It helped me learn a ton, get use to using AF, over several productive hobbyist film years. A few yrs back it found it's way on to my 40D, just wanted to shoot it for fun, got a few nice images from it including the one you can find at the link below...

Onion Flower and Bee
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1133627/1#10824158

Making images that please you 'right now' is what's most important, just get out and shoot, enjoy, you can always grow into better gear when budget/wallet permits.

Jerry



Jan 05, 2013 at 06:30 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I can not say if the non IS is better than the Tamron in IQ. It surely is in build.
But the IS is much better than the non IS even if you do not use IS. I tested both and purchased the IS version. Its the best lens in IQ I ever owned.

The comparison at TDP.com exactly meets my experience:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=104&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

By the way. To answer your question you can choose the Tamron 70-300 VC instead of the 4.0 L IS and compare the non IS directly at given focal lenght. Imo the Tamron looks better at 70mm. At 100 and up to 200mm the Canon looks better to me. Above 200mm the Tamron is the clear winner again!



Jan 05, 2013 at 07:30 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Well, getting closer to a decision. It's down to one of three lenses.....

1. Buy the 15-85 and maybe a zoom later
2. Buy a Tamron 70-300 vc
3. Buy a 70-200 f/4L

No matter which way I go, I'll have the 430ex II flash to use indoors. If I go option 2 or 3, I'll just hang onto the kit lens (18-55 IS II) for now until I can afford to replace it.



Jan 05, 2013 at 09:38 PM
davekone
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


The Tamron 70-300 is horrible compared to the 70-200 Canon, especially closer to the 300mm end.

You are also at f5.6 on the Tamron quickly meaning you lose focus speed and accuracy. In your original post nothing you are shooing requires IS or VC. Moving Kids and IS or VC will not be of much help. Still kids in low light and IS/VC would be of great help.

Kids move quick and fast focusing will be key, Canon 70-200 F4 is the way to go.

A good used 3rd party lens for your situation would be the Sigma 100-300 f4. Big heavy lens, but excellent quality and speed. And to save money the Canon 70-300 IS would be my last and final choice..



Jan 06, 2013 at 12:39 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


mfreardon wrote:
...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.

Good luck with your decision.


I've observed the same thing. Under ideal conditions the 'better' lens will win, but in 'ordinary' use the gains we read about at DxO, thedigitalpicture, photozone, et al, can and do, in reality, matter less.



Jan 06, 2013 at 01:02 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I've owned both the Canon 70-200/4L and Tamron SP 70-300/4-5.6 VC. IMO, the SP is on par with the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM, which I also owned. The 70-200/4L has better IQ than both of these 70-300 lenses. Of course, the 70-200/4L won't go to 300mm. It takes an Extender quite well, but you'll be missing the IS in many circumstances, for sure.



Jan 06, 2013 at 01:08 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


taylorman22 wrote:
Well, getting closer to a decision. It's down to one of three lenses.....

1. Buy the 15-85 and maybe a zoom later
2. Buy a Tamron 70-300 vc
3. Buy a 70-200 f/4L

No matter which way I go, I'll have the 430ex II flash to use indoors. If I go option 2 or 3, I'll just hang onto the kit lens (18-55 IS II) for now until I can afford to replace it.


I wouldn't worry too much about the differences in Tamron vs Canon, if you don't have a telephoto get one, they are very useful for wildlife, sports, events, etc.






Jan 06, 2013 at 12:04 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I've had both lenses. I had an excellent copy of the Tamron. I compared it to several copies of the canon 70-300 (non L) and the Tamron was a fair bit better. My only gripe with the Tamron is that it didn't render out of focus things very smoothly.

Someone here said that their 70-200 F/4 IS was "way better" than the non IS verson "even with the IS turned off". That's might be true of their experience, but not of the lenses overall. ALL of canon's 70-200mm lenses are absolutely amazing IQ wise EXCEPT for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS version 1 - and that only suffered a bit when it was used wide open. If you're getting any of the 70-200's, you're getting a zoom lens that can hold it's own against primes, and in some cases beat them. They're all amazing.

Buy used. Start with the Canon non IS (still one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used and I have the IS version now). If you find that you need longer, or IS, pick up the Tamron. Maybe you'll be able to swing the IS version of the Canon by then.



Jan 09, 2013 at 03:38 PM
taylorman22
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


jasonpatrick wrote:
I've had both lenses. I had an excellent copy of the Tamron. I compared it to several copies of the canon 70-300 (non L) and the Tamron was a fair bit better. My only gripe with the Tamron is that it didn't render out of focus things very smoothly.

Someone here said that their 70-200 F/4 IS was "way better" than the non IS verson "even with the IS turned off". That's might be true of their experience, but not of the lenses overall. ALL of canon's 70-200mm lenses are absolutely amazing IQ wise EXCEPT for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
...Show more

Good advice. I just bought a 24-105 f/4L, so I'm gonna spend some time with it and then in February I should have the money to buy a zoom. It'll either be a Tamron 70-300 VC or Canon 70-200 f/4L. I'm leaning towards the 70-300 for the increased range and cheaper price.



Jan 09, 2013 at 03:40 PM
robbymack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


The 24-105 is a great choice, the other I would have had you look at is the 17-55 2.8 used for around $700, it's probably the better option on crop, as 24 isnt all that wide, but horses for courses. In any case since you have up to 105 covered at f4 right now I'd definitely look into the canon 70-300 L used vs the 70-200 and definatley over the tamron if you can swing it. A lot of folks debate the usefulness of IS. From a pure shutter speed standpoint to stop action, ESP kids, its probably unnecessary but I find the steady viewfinder to be more valuable than an unsteady viewfinder regardless of fl or shutter speed. For me at least that seals the need for IS. In fact for fun just turn off the IS on your 24-105 and try shooting at 105 and notice how its starting to get hard to hold the image in the viewfinder steady to compose a shot.


Jan 09, 2013 at 04:41 PM
Paul Rothert
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


A telephoto without IS will be useful in a lot fewer situations than a telephoto with IS.

People say that IS is not useful for shooting people. I find that it is very useful.

For instance, if you have kids on stage at a school awards event or play, you may be in the stands using 200mm and a 1/80 shutter speed. That will be a high enough shutter speed to get plenty of keepers. But without IS, there will be too much camera shake.



Jan 09, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


chez wrote:
Yeh...like the Tamron will disintegrate within the year. I have an old Vivtar 70-210 lens back from the mid 70's that works just fine. Quit dealing out rubbish information.



Oh, so you've read through all the rubbish in all my other posts? Okay then, shall I simply delete my account Mr. Boss Guy?

You've had your experiences, I've had mine. And yes, I'd give longevity to the Canon any day.



Jan 09, 2013 at 07:16 PM
py2000
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


Paul Rothert wrote:
A telephoto without IS will be useful in a lot fewer situations than a telephoto with IS.

People say that IS is not useful for shooting people. I find that it is very useful.

For instance, if you have kids on stage at a school awards event or play, you may be in the stands using 200mm and a 1/80 shutter speed. That will be a high enough shutter speed to get plenty of keepers. But without IS, there will be too much camera shake.

+1



Jan 09, 2013 at 08:21 PM
kiankim
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · non-IS 70-200 f/4L better than Tamron 70-300 VC?


I had almost identical problem last year, trying to decide between Tamron 70-300VC and Canon 70-200 F4 L

I tried both Canon and Tamron on my 5DII at my local camera store, and from what I recall, at 70mm, both lenses were practically identical in sharpness, but at 200mm, Canon was slightly better but nothing like night and day difference. At 300mm, Tamron's IQ does get noticeably less sharp but was still pretty good IMO.

At the end, I ended up getting Tamron, because IS/VC makes it much more usable in general compared to Canon. Since at 200mm, Tamron's widest aperture is f5.0 which isn't that much slower than Canon's F4, speed difference isn't really significant and IS easily overcomes that 2/3stop(?) diffrence in most situations I am faced with. Build quality and AF speed on Canon was bit better, but Tamron wasn't a slouch though.

But even if you always use on tripod, I'd still pick Tamron because of having more reach, but since I don't have any APS-C bodies, I am not sure how IQ of Tamron would be on cropped bodies.



Jan 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM
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