Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros:
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weigh more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 280mm f4, (at last!) or 420mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros:
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weigh more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 280mm f4, (at last!) or 420mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros:
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 280mm f4, (at last!) or 420mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros.
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 280mm f4, (at last!) or 420mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros.
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 300mm f4, (at last!) or 420mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros.
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
If cost is a major deciding factor, at 40% the price of the new Sony 70-200 f2.8, the Tamron is a no-brainer.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 300mm f4, (at last!) or 450mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros.
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, Tamron impressively holds its own on sharpness and beats the original Sony 70-200 f2.8. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 300mm f4, (at last!) or 450mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros.
These are two great lenses yet dramatically different in their designs. Both very successful approaches once you determine your own priorities. Lots of advantages with either choice. Let's discuss:
In short, Tamron impressively holds its own on sharpness and beat the original Sony 70-200 f2.8. Superb. New Sony takes up quite a bit more room in bag but takes TCs and has stabilization. It has the ability to shoot more frames per second if you own an A1. It does weight more but is manageable, absolutely.
If you shoot sports professionally, or very seriously, new Sony focus hit rate is extraordinary.
There are already early video comparisons out there comparing new Sony 70-200 II vs Tamron 70-180 there such as Manny Ortiz and the Northrups. Both reviews do lend some helpful insights although we all have our fave reviewers, or not! I don't agree with Northrups that the Tamron does not handle backlighting well. Mine does. Also, they say it's not good for sports. That's not true either. Depeniding on the body you are using, it won't be AS good as the new Sony but as a pro I can affirm it's a very capable lens.
Alas, as the owner of two 100-400s, (Sony and Sigma) alas . . . I'm likely to get the new Sony 70-200, primarily for its ability to take my 1.4TC and become a lightweight 300mm f4, (at last!) or 450mm f4 in APS-C mode. But when needing to carry the lightest bag possible, I can't imagine giving up all of the great advantages of my beloved Tamron 70-180mm.
Oct 17, 2021 at 07:16 AM
Previous versions of onthebeam's message #15737492 « Sony 70-200mm f2.8 II vs. Tamron 70-180: Pros vs. Pros: »
