p.4 #1 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Has anyone here used Tamron's newest 70-200/2.8 VC?
I'm considering it as an alternative to, well, everything else. Faster than the F4 lenses, cheaper than the 2.8 IS II, sharper than everything on the market except the 2.8 IS II (so say the reviewers). I'd be using it for indoor sports and some outdoor sports along with general usage where the 24-105 isn't long enough or fast enough.
p.4 #2 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
johnctharp wrote:
Has anyone here used Tamron's newest 70-200/2.8 VC?
I'm considering it as an alternative to, well, everything else. Faster than the F4 lenses, cheaper than the 2.8 IS II, sharper than everything on the market except the 2.8 IS II (so say the reviewers). I'd be using it for indoor sports and some outdoor sports along with general usage where the 24-105 isn't long enough or fast enough.
I wonder if the AF is fast enough for sports. The old 70-200 non-vc was supposed to have excellent IQ but dog slow and dodgy AF that was useless for sports. I thought I heard something crazy about them leaving off USM for the VC update, not sure. Even their USM is not as fast as Canon USM though, but I guess workable (70-300 VC AF is same speed as Canon 70-200 f/4 IS PLUS a Canon 1.4x TC, i.e. 50% slower than bare canon 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L, not bad, but for sports more is better).
p.4 #3 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
The reviewers are all claiming that it's almost as fast as Canon's- that's why I'm asking. Sigma seems to have workable AF but gets docked heavily for sharpness, which would reduce the utility of such an expensive (for an amateur) lens.
p.4 #4 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Wahoowa wrote:
Hmmm... I haven't looked into the magnification ratio specs, but my 70-300L definitely gets as close and get object to be much much bigger than my 70-200L II.
Can you prove that, since if true you should write to Canon and tell them they got the specs wrong on their own lens. Both are quoted at 0.21x max magnification @ mfd, which is 1.2m in both cases. 200mm lens giving same magnification as 300mm lens at same distance means only one thing ...
p.4 #5 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
johnctharp wrote:
The reviewers are all claiming that it's almost as fast as Canon's- that's why I'm asking. Sigma seems to have workable AF but gets docked heavily for sharpness, which would reduce the utility of such an expensive (for an amateur) lens.
Hmm maybe, I might be mixing things up. I've never used it and I don't know anyone who has personally used it either, so I can't really say anything more.
p.4 #6 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
skibum5 wrote:
Hmm maybe, I might be mixing things up. I've never used it and I don't know anyone who has personally used it either, so I can't really say anything more.
You're not mixing up anything- the old Tammy 70-200 was reported to have horrible AF. That's what makes me question all of the 'glowing' reviews of the new one; need someone to beat the hell out of it first.
p.4 #8 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
This is a slight redo of a previous thread, I think I've knocked the 100mm L macro lens off my list. Now I have a chance between a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens. New, about $700 price difference. Not as much if I'm able to find a Canon refurb with 15% off (unlikely at this point, we'll see).
I can see where the price, weight, and reach of the 70-300mm would be preferable, and I can see where the aperture of the 70-200mm would be preferable.
So please impart your wisdom on me & help me decide.
I'm very much an amateur and I like to shoot a variety of things with my 7D, like:
...macro photography, but am not ready to invest in a true macro rig (focusing rails, additional lighting, etc.
...family photography both inside & outside, currently I only have 1 speedlite to illuminate them when needed.
...wildlife photography and often can't get close enough for the shots I really want.
...mostly handheld.
...walkaround (tourist) shots....Show more →
Tough calls. No doubt for indoor family the f/2.8 is nice (although I wonder if a 17-50 type f/2.8 lens might not be better for that stuff).
For wildlife, both a very short. You'd want a TC on the 70-200 for sure. YOu can use a kenko DGX 1.4x TC on the 70-300L too (although f/8 can start getting tricky) and actually I don't know how 70-300L+TC works with the 7D in terms of AF, that one combo Keno DGX TCs and 70-300L does work on 5D3.
For macro, at least on the 5D3, the 70-300L AF goes to pieces, useless, if even a single extension tube is added. It probably works well still with 70-200 2.8 II + extension tubes. Some people don't like AF for macro, but with the 100L or 60USM it works very well and it can be nice to have for pseudo macros with these tele-zooms.
general walk around tourist the size and weight of the 70-300L are a big plus IMO
