70-200 III USM vs Tamrom 70-200 G2

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Does the canon lens have a big advantage over the tamron?

 

[andrewdoeshair]

I owned the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 G2 for canon EF mount, and I’ve borrowed Canon’s EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS ii many times (I can’t say anything about the iii)

After borrowing the canon many times and having zero complaints, I tried the Tamron and found the image quality and focusing performance to be very very good, and then I bought the Tamron because I found the stabilization to be much better than Canon’s (at least for hand held video). The Tamron was a little bit smaller and a little bit lighter than the Canon, but the focus and zoom rings felt kind of cheap in comparison, they moved less smoothly. All in all, I was very happy with the Tamron— until it broke.

about six months after buying the lens, the casing came apart and exposed a gasket between two pieces. The entire lens looked like it was bent. To my knowledge the lens never took any bumps or drops (I wish it had, so I could at least get some closure over what happened). I sent it to Tamron for repair, and $300 later they sent it back to me, but it still didn’t work. When they returned it to me it was like an element was installed backward or something, I mean it literally couldn’t focus on anything, nothing was sharp anywhere in the frame at any focal length and any focusing distance. After a second attempt to fix the lens it finally came back working, but they had put somebody else’s (older model and clearly heavily used) rear cap on the lens. If I had dropped the lens at any point or bumped it or something, I would have gladly kept it after the repairs. But because it broke under its own weight in my bag, I never trusted the lens again and sold it shortly after the repair. I want to say I bought it new for $1,300 then spent $300 for repairs, and was only able to sell it for around $700. The canon surely would’ve been a better investment.

 

[Derrel]

The Canon surely would have been a better investment in terms of resale, but your $1,300 initial retail price and $700 used price at resale is typical for a third-party lens.

For example I bought the Nikon 70-200 VR1 the first week it came out which was way back in I believe 2001 or 2002 and I paid $1,699 for it and I sold it for $1,000 in 2017.I bought the Canon 70 to 200 F 2.8 USM image stabilizer lens for $1,799 in 2006 and also sold it for $1,000 in 2017.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Setting aside a damaged lens, which may I add I am terribly sorry to hear that, does the tamron perform better than the canon? Price isn't an issue as the few hundred dollar difference doesn't bother me. I shoot sports & wildlife mostly. I also have the tamron 150-600 g2. Sharpness & auto focus speed are my two main concerns. Image stabilization would come in after those two.

 

[photoflyer]

I have the Canon and that experience lead me to two additional white lenses in part because they have been so durable. I remember the day I got the 70-200 it was drizzling but I thought "they're made for this right?" and went out shooting anyway. They are heavy but that is the trade off for the ability to shoot wildlife from a canoe in the rain and then toss it in a bag and hike. That said I can't fault anyone who does not need that capability and chooses a less expensive and or lighter alternative if that is what fits their needs.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

I buy most of my Canon gear used to take some of that high priced sting of the purchase but it's important to me that I use Canon lenses on my canon bodies.
If I have a problem and the lens and body need some kind of calibration or fix I want to be able to send the whole ball of wax to Canon to get the job done quickly and correctly!!
Also knowing that the lens will keep working optimally with any Canon body I use in the future without messing with docks and firmware etc. is important too!
SS

 

[photoflyer]

I buy most of my Canon gear used to take some of that high priced sting of the purchase but it's important to me that I use Canon lenses on my canon bodies.

I purchased my 300 f4 used. Because L series are so durable l am more confident that a used article will continue performing after I get it. And while mine had gen one AF, the optics were still superb.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I bought the canon 70-200 2.8 III, it'll be waiting for me when I get home from work.

 

[photoflyer]

I bought the canon 70-200 2.8 III, it'll be waiting for me when I get home from work.

Oh the anticipation!

I just got the 100-400 L ii using air miles. This takes longer and I would go to the site to check the status periodically. It showed as pending. Then one day, unexpectedly, there it was.

If you haven't had a version of that lens previously, you're going to love it!

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I bought the canon 70-200 2.8 III, it'll be waiting for me when I get home from work.

Oh the anticipation!

I just got the 100-400 L ii using air miles. This takes longer and I would go to the site to check the status periodically. It showed as pending. Then one day, unexpectedly, there it was.

If you haven't had a version of that lens previously, you're going to love it!

I have not. The closest thing in focal length I have is the 55-250 stm

 

[Derrel]

A top-quality L-series lens is a joy to use.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

A top-quality L-series lens is a joy to use.

I hope so

 

[photoflyer]

I hope so

Guaranteed. There are two machines that, for me, were truly memorable the first time I used them. The first was when we put a Garmin IFR certified GPS in the airplane. The first time my buddy and I used it we were like little kids as we flew those first approaches. Next was my second L series lens ( 70-200 f2.8) on my first full frame. Pixel peep all you want, they're really fun.

Next you should consider the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. I also have the 2X and it is good but I gravitate to the 1.4. So on your 80D the new lens is 160-320 f 2.8 and with the 1.4 TC it becomes 224-448 at a still respectable f 4. So for about $400 you get another very good lens well suited to daytime sports and wildlife. I have also used that combo for some very interesting compressed landscapes.

Welcome to the cLub.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Do the L lenses usually need micro adjusting?

 

[photoflyer]

Do the L lenses usually need micro adjusting?

I've found mine to be very good but it one thing I like about the better cameras like your 80D, you can if you need to. Also, someone will know, I'm not sure if that has more to do with the camera than the lens, or the two together.