70-200mm lens...which one & why?

[NJGuy3]

I currently own a Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 which I use frequently, but have been considering something new. The dslr body I have is a Canon 70D.

I'm interested in getting a 70-200mm lens. I have it narrowed down to Canon & Tamron but as you can see there are some price differences especially since the Canon is a f/4 and the Tamron is a f/2.8..but given my budget, these fall into that category. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is wel above my proce rnage which is why I didn't mention it. I'd prefer to be closer to $1000-1200 vs $1500 but if the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 was well worth it then I think I can stretch it.

I have read that the Canon 70-200mm f/4 is sharper than both the Canon & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.

I think I'd be using it mostly during the day and long sxposure night photography. As for indoor, low light photography...it may occur but not as often. Has anyone used their 70-200mm in any Disney dark rides?

Another reason why I'm interested in this lens is that when I decide to move to a full frame camera, this lens will still be used with that also.

Below, some current prices mostly from B&H Photo and the refurbished Tamron price is from Amazon. I know that Canon sells refurbished lenses directly but currently that part of their website is down for maintenance.

Some of the questions I have are...which one would you recommend and why?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens
new- $1149-$1199
used- $929.95
refurbished- $1039.95

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD lens
new- $1399-1499
refurbished- $999

 

[havoc315]

You always pay a premium for the camera branded lens. Traditionally, they were of better optical quality than the third party lenses, but that is changing. The newest third party lenses are often spectacular.
Typically though, the branded lenses keep their value better on the used market. If your camera has in-camera jpeg corrections, those are typically limited to the branded lenses. Also, there is always a small chance that a third party lens could lose compatibility with future camera bodies (this happened to some sigma lenses in the past).

Now, when I was in a similar position, I opted for the Nikon 70-200/4 over a Tamron 70-200/2.8.

But that was because, for my type of shooting, I preferred the lower weight of the 70-200/4.

So remember, weight is a big part of your equation. And a 70-200/2.8 is MUCH heavier than a 70-200/4.

Putting aside the weight, there is no question that the 70-200/2.8 is a better lens. The extra F-stop is super valuable in indoor/low light, and also for narrower depth of field.
In terms of sharpness...
Comparing both lenses at F4... since you are stopping down the Tamron, the Tamron is much sharper.
http://www.lenstip.com/25.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/375.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html

So there is no question that the Tamron 70-200/2.8 will give you better optical quality, better low light capability, and narrower depth of field. (When some people talk about the F4 lenses being sharper, they are comparing the Canon lens AT F4, compared to the Tamron lens at F2.8 -- and yes, the Canon is sharper under those parameters. But compare them both actually at F4, and the 2.8 lens easily surpasses the F4 native lens).

BUT.. the Canon will be much lighter. It is literally half the weight of the Tamron. A 710 gram difference, or a 1.5 pound difference. So is it worth sacrificing a little bit of optical quality, lower light performance and depth of field, in order to save 1.5 pounds?

I avoided the 70-200/2.8, because I concluded that at the weight, I would never want to carry it, unless I absolutely needed it. I've been doing some professional work, and do use a 24-70/2.8. (the Tamron version). If I expand the amount of pro work I do, I might eventually bite the bullet and get the 70-200/2.8. But for my personal stuff, the 70-200/4 is a good compromise between size and quality.

 

[xlxo]

on a sidenote.... when the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is too bulky.... a 85mm f/1.8 prime comes in really handy...

 

[havoc315]

on a sidenote.... when the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is too bulky.... a 85mm f/1.8 prime comes in really handy...

I love my 85/1.8. Did an entire maternity portrait session, using the 85/1.8 almost exclusively.

http://www.picklepiephoto.com/zanzano


But, it can't reach 200mm when you need 200mm.

 

[xlxo]

That's where 36 megapixels comes so handy..... just crop in! Thank-you Nikon.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

There are several options available. First of all the 2.8 is incredibly helpful but I don't mind the extra weight. Tamron makes two 70-200 f2.8 lenses. One has VC and the other does not. New (B & H price), the newer VC option is $1400 and the older non-VC lens is $769. My friend, a professional motorsports photographer, uses the older version on his Canon system and is extremely pleased with it. Since most of the time we are shooting with high shutter speeds, stabilization is not used very often. I use an in-body stabilized system and most of the time I have it turned off because I get faster focusing time with it off. Another viable option is the new Sigma 70-200 which is stabilized and has the HSM. This lens has been getting some very favorable reviews and goes for $1200. I have been using Sigma lenses for many years and have had excellent results and service. Just my 2 cents.

 

[photo_chick]

I have the 70-200 f/4 L. Non-IS version. I went that way for the weight. The f/2.8 is just too darn heavy. I shoot a lot of dance with it on a 6D. It meets my needs 99% of the time. For the 1% it doesn't I rent the f/2.8.

I saw an 85mm prime mentioned. I LOVE my Samyang 85. Yes it's a manual lens. But you're not going to find a better lens for the price.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I have the Canon 70 - 200mm, f/4 IS version in my bag. I chose the f/4 IS because I couldn't carry the f/2.8.

I use it mostly during the day and for shooting my DS when he is performing. With the 7D, it performs well enough for indoor school performances and the like.

I think I'd be using it mostly during the day and long sxposure night photography. As for indoor, low light photography...it may occur but not as often. Has anyone used their 70-200mm in any Disney dark rides?

I personally prefer to shoot Disney dark rides with a wider focal length. I already find that the 50mm is too tight for Disney dark rides so I have never used this lens in a dark ride.
I have used it to shoot Disney stage shows and am satisfied with the shots that I can currently get from my camera and this lens.

 

[elmoandzoey]

I don't think 70-200 would be a zoom range I would take into any dark rides, let alone that f2.8 is going to really push it and would probably only work on lighter dark rides like say IASW. Now for stage shows that's something completely different. Depending on where you sit and how large the theater is (thinking Fantasmic) that range will come in quite handy! I think it'll also come in handy at AK because sometimes light isn't the greatest with all the vegetation around.

We have the Tamron you are looking at in our family (my brother uses it with his 650D). I have on occassion used it and I just absolutely love it! As others have metioned though, don't underestimate the weight. It is on the heavier side. Personally, I haven't found that to be an issue yet though. I'd really suggest you go to a shop and just hold the lens if you haven't done that. The f2.8 is almost twice the weight as the f4. On paper, it may not sound much but if you actually have it in your hand, it may be completely different.

I own "The Tank" - which is an old Tokina 80-200 f2.8. The lens is completely metal (even the hood), hence built like a tank (and weighs acccordingly). The pictures I get out of it are fantastic! It's a bit soft at 2.8 but tack sharp at f4.

Since you mentioned the reason you are looking at those lenses is you may go to full frame... you'll get better ISO performance out of a full frame camera so you can make up for the missing stop on the f4 by cranking the ISO higher.

 

[bob100]

if you don't need f2.8 I would also choose the Canon 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-is)

 

[mom2rtk]

You always pay a premium for the camera branded lens. Traditionally, they were of better optical quality than the third party lenses, but that is changing. The newest third party lenses are often spectacular.
Typically though, the branded lenses keep their value better on the used market. If your camera has in-camera jpeg corrections, those are typically limited to the branded lenses. Also, there is always a small chance that a third party lens could lose compatibility with future camera bodies (this happened to some sigma lenses in the past).

Now, when I was in a similar position, I opted for the Nikon 70-200/4 over a Tamron 70-200/2.8.

But that was because, for my type of shooting, I preferred the lower weight of the 70-200/4.

So remember, weight is a big part of your equation. And a 70-200/2.8 is MUCH heavier than a 70-200/4.

Putting aside the weight, there is no question that the 70-200/2.8 is a better lens. The extra F-stop is super valuable in indoor/low light, and also for narrower depth of field.
In terms of sharpness...
Comparing both lenses at F4... since you are stopping down the Tamron, the Tamron is much sharper.
http://www.lenstip.com/25.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/375.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html

So there is no question that the Tamron 70-200/2.8 will give you better optical quality, better low light capability, and narrower depth of field. (When some people talk about the F4 lenses being sharper, they are comparing the Canon lens AT F4, compared to the Tamron lens at F2.8 -- and yes, the Canon is sharper under those parameters. But compare them both actually at F4, and the 2.8 lens easily surpasses the F4 native lens).

BUT.. the Canon will be much lighter. It is literally half the weight of the Tamron. A 710 gram difference, or a 1.5 pound difference. So is it worth sacrificing a little bit of optical quality, lower light performance and depth of field, in order to save 1.5 pounds?

I avoided the 70-200/2.8, because I concluded that at the weight, I would never want to carry it, unless I absolutely needed it. I've been doing some professional work, and do use a 24-70/2.8. (the Tamron version). If I expand the amount of pro work I do, I might eventually bite the bullet and get the 70-200/2.8. But for my personal stuff, the 70-200/4 is a good compromise between size and quality.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I rented the 2.8 for my sons' high school graduations so had a chance to carry it around for a few days. The shots were beautiful, so it did what it was supposed to. However, the experience of carrying it made me hesitant to go that route when it came time to add a zoom for my 6D. I went into a local camera shop to pick up the f/4 myself. It felt like a lightweight compared to the 2.8. I was immediately sold. Yes, I love 2.8 lenses. But they don't do you any good if you don't carry them. And I just knew I would be hesitant to throw it in my bag.

I just got back from Disney and didn't hesitate to put the f/4 in my bag a couple days in the parks. That would not have been the case with the 2.8.

 

[mom2rtk]

I have the Canon 70 - 200mm, f/4 IS version in my bag. I chose the f/4 IS because I couldn't carry the f/2.8.

I use it mostly during the day and for shooting my DS when he is performing. With the 7D, it performs well enough for indoor school performances and the like.




I personally prefer to shoot Disney dark rides with a wider focal length. I already find that the 50mm is too tight for Disney dark rides so I have never used this lens in a dark ride.
I have used it to shoot Disney stage shows and am satisfied with the shots that I can currently get from my camera and this lens.

I'm the same way with the dark rides. The wider the better. I loved when I moved to full frame and my primes gave me a wider shot. This trip I went with my kit lens and shot at 24mm with 25K ISO. I actually did pretty well with it and didn't need to carry an extra lens.

I brought the 70-200 on the days we were seeing Aladdin and Fantasmic.

 

[sharona]

This is exactly how I feel about it. I rented the 2.8 for my sons' high school graduations so had a chance to carry it around for a few days. The shots were beautiful, so it did what it was supposed to. However, the experience of carrying it made me hesitant to go that route when it came time to add a zoom for my 6D. I went into a local camera shop to pick up the f/4 myself. It felt like a lightweight compared to the 2.8. I was immediately sold. Yes, I love 2.8 lenses. But they don't do you any good if you don't carry them. And I just knew I would be hesitant to throw it in my bag.

I just got back from Disney and didn't hesitate to put the f/4 in my bag a couple days in the parks. That would not have been the case with the 2.8.

Glad to get this perspective. Like the OP I am in need of a 70-200 (to compliment my Sigma 17-70 so I have no issues going off brand) but was debating if I wanted one of the heavier, faster lenses or would be happy with an f4. I mostly shoot landscapes using a tripod or typical outdoor vacation stuff so I think I would be ok w/ the lighter lens but was thinking of getting the 2.8 because I hate to spend a lot of money on something only to have to upgrade soon after. Equipment weight is an issue for me with my cranky back and getting too old for this knees!

 

[mom2rtk]

Glad to get this perspective. Like the OP I am in need of a 70-200 (to compliment my Sigma 17-70 so I have no issues going off brand) but was debating if I wanted one of the heavier, faster lenses or would be happy with an f4. I mostly shoot landscapes using a tripod or typical outdoor vacation stuff so I think I would be ok w/ the lighter lens but was thinking of getting the 2.8 because I hate to spend a lot of money on something only to have to upgrade soon after. Equipment weight is an issue for me with my cranky back and getting too old for this knees!

If equipment weight is something you have struggled with before, then definitely go with the f/4. On top of the lighter weight, the IQ is awesome. I really struggled with the choice when it was all abstract. But once I picked that lens up, there was no doubt what I would be doing. I have the version with IS.

 

[havoc315]

Glad to get this perspective. Like the OP I am in need of a 70-200 (to compliment my Sigma 17-70 so I have no issues going off brand) but was debating if I wanted one of the heavier, faster lenses or would be happy with an f4. I mostly shoot landscapes using a tripod or typical outdoor vacation stuff so I think I would be ok w/ the lighter lens but was thinking of getting the 2.8 because I hate to spend a lot of money on something only to have to upgrade soon after. Equipment weight is an issue for me with my cranky back and getting too old for this knees!

And that's why some people own both. They are different lenses for different needs. But for general walkabout, if you are like most people who don't want to carry extra bricks, the F4 is a great compromise. And thanks to the high ISO of modern cameras, there is less *need* for 2.8. 2.8 lenses still have slightly superior image quality. They still have even more leeway in low light. And they have even narrower DOF for portraits, etc.

But you can come "close" to all that with the F4, at half the weight, and half the price.

Starbound Dance Competition by Adam Brown, on Flickr

starbound-411.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Engagement shoot by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[SkaGoat]

was thinking of getting the 2.8 because I hate to spend a lot of money on something only to have to upgrade soon after. Equipment weight is an issue for me with my cranky back and getting too old for this knees!

I would go for the /f4 IS version from what you've said. Remember, you'll be able to get most of the money back out of that lens on the used market, if you chose to upgrade to the f/2.8. It's also not a small price difference between the two, $1149 vs. $1999 is a huge difference (at least to me it is).

 

[SkaGoat]

Just to share some shots from my Canon 7D with my Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non IS).

Little White Flowers by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Spring Mallard by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

More White Flowers by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Canada Goose by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Juke's Winter Portrait by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

These are a couple from a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) on my 7D.

Lest We Forget by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Never Shall Their Glory Fade by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

Sam by Steven Goetz, on Flickr

 

[sharona]

I shoot Nikon so the difference is similar and yes, not a small one for me either. If I get the f4 I can also upgrade my 5100 to a 7100 which is my other need. Thanks for the input. Great input from all. Sorry OP if I hijacked your thread!

 

[havoc315]

I shoot Nikon so the difference is similar and yes, not a small one for me either. If I get the f4 I can also upgrade my 5100 to a 7100 which is my other need. Thanks for the input. Great input from all. Sorry OP if I hijacked your thread!

My shots were the Nikon F4, but on the D750.

 

[NJGuy3]

Thanks to everyone who has posted their feedback, input, reviews and posted sample pics...much appreciated!
Glad to see that this thread is a helping other with the same question.
I haven't selected the lens yet, but from what the majority has posted here, I'm leaning towards the Canon 70-200 IS f/4. And being that Christmas is coming up soon, this would make a great gift idea for me. lol
I'll keep you updated.