p.2 #1 · EF 70-200L 2.8 IS (mk1) vs Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 query
johnctharp wrote:
The EF 100L is a bit special given its more sophisticated stabilization, and realistically the only lenses that are 'better' overall are only available in other mounts - such as Canon's own RF 100L. That's not to cast any shade on Tamron here, just that you wouldn't be gaining anything substantial, if anything at all, and you'd be losing Canon's IS as well as their tuning on the AF motor. Build quality is roughly equal.
Optically speaking, the 100L could be sharper wide open, but it's the longitudinal chromatic aberration that is troublesome. That's also a challenge for every other lens of the same vintage....Show more →
Thanks for the reality check 👍🏻
I’m sticking with the 100L. Was losing sight of what photography is about, instead sliding down the GAS rabbit hole!!
Regarding the 2 zooms on this post
I’ve been back outside this morning using both on my RP simply because the AF is far more accurate than my DSLR’s
I have to say the Tamron has significantly less reach than the canon at 200. Also I removed the UV filter from the canon, it’s been on since I bought it, it actually arrived with it on, prior to which the previous owner had owned it from new and the filter was fitted when first purchased….
Anyway, removed the filter and compared both on my RP. Big surprise, the Tamron has a lot vignetting and no question is sharper wide open. The IS kid definitely more refined. The canon has more reach, zero vignetting and is definitely useable at 2.8 but just a fraction softer than the Tamron BTW I’m peeping at x200 here 😂
I’m keeping both. They are both gorgeous in their own ways.
