BenV wrote:
It's always like that for whatever reason
In the US the Tamron is US $900 cheaper (using B&H prices, ignoring any package deal cash back or the like). If it's the same price in the UK, the choice is a no brainer, unless the Tamron is some kind of amazing magic.
I just got done running Imatest on a bunch of Tamron 70-200 Canon mount (report will be out tomorrow).
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here which is going to be important for some of you: the lens measures out to 70-175mm. The Nikon goes to 195mm. That will be a critical difference for some sportshooters, although those using it for portraits and such probably won't care.
Here's same shot taken at 200mm with a Canon 70-200 IS II and a Tamron 70-200 (Nikon and Canon zooms are the same focal length, at least at this distance which was about 30 feet.) The proportions are the same at infinity.
On a positive note, it's very high resolution at both ends.
RCicala wrote:
I just got done running Imatest on a bunch of Tamron 70-200 Canon mount (report will be out tomorrow).
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here which is going to be important for some of you: the lens measures out to 70-175mm. The Nikon goes to 195mm. That will be a critical difference for some sportshooters, although those using it for portraits and such probably won't care.
Here's same shot taken at 200mm with a Canon 70-200 IS II and a Tamron 70-200 (Nikon and Canon zooms are the same focal length, at least at this distance which was about 30 feet.) The proportions are the same at infinity.
On a positive note, it's very high resolution at both ends. ...Show more →
RCicala wrote:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here which is going to be important for some of you: the lens measures out to 70-175mm. The Nikon goes to 195mm.
At what distance?
Which Nikon?
The 2.8 VRII or the new f4 VR?
I'm asking because the 2.8 VRII is known to be as short as 135mm at MFD.
And that's a big difference between the canon and the tamron.
Bad news.
As always, thanks for all the trouble and work.
You provide a public service!
Fraga, thank you, I should have been more clear. At the longer focusing distances the 2.8 VR II, f/4 VR and the Canon 2.8s are all about the same - seems right at 195mm actual. The VRII, and to a lesser extent the Canon IS II get shorter close up but the shot above at 30 feet should have avoided the close up shortening, largely.
This is the kind of thing a reviewers forget to check sometimes, but it will be a big deal for some people.
Thanks for the clarification.
So is it safe to assume that the tamron is also 175mm or close to that at infinity? Or that is takes further than 30 feet for the lens to aproach the claimed 200mm?
Whatever the case, I think it could be a problem for some people.
fraga wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
So is it safe to assume that the tamron is also 175mm or close to that at infinity? Or that is takes further than 30 feet for the lens to aproach the claimed 200mm?
Whatever the case, I think it could be a problem for some people.
The Tamron - Canon ratio was the same at infinity. I just checked and actually really close up it does NOT shorten as much as the VR II so at 6 feet it seemed a bit longer than the VRII.
RCicala wrote:
The Tamron - Canon ratio was the same at infinity. I just checked and actually really close up it does NOT shorten as much as the VR II so at 6 feet it seemed a bit longer than the VRII.
Then it should have been advertised as a 70-180mm...
