Canon vs. Tamron 70-200 lens comparison?

[jaomul]

Any review I've seen between Tammy siggy Nikon a nd canons latest 70-200 rate the Canon as best imager followed closely by Nikon with Tammy almost as good, but best value. I've read and looked at enough of these comparison to believe that pecking order.

 

[goodguy]

Any review I've seen between Tammy siggy Nikon a nd canons latest 70-200 rate the Canon as best imager followed closely by Nikon with Tammy almost as good, but best value. I've read and looked at enough of these comparison to believe that pecking order.

The truth is that even the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS which is a bit lagging behind is still a wonderful lens, it can be had for much lower then the other lenses used and is still close enough to the others to present an interesting option. A good friend of mine and this forum member has this lens, bought it used for I think around 700$ and from seeing hundreds of pictures made with this Sigma lens I can say its a very good and impressive lens, he loves it!

 

[jaomul]

I agree. The 4 of them are great and for their prices they should be, but as for the best, well it seems top dog is top price

 

[runnah]

to me its all about value for money. For the price of two nice prime lenes the Canon should blow the tamron out of the water. Since it doesn it seems like the clear choice.

Granted Id rather have the build quality and resale value of the Canon but not for the price. Frankly I don't understand what you are paying that much more for.

 

[D-B-J]

to me its all about value for money. For the price of two nice prime lenes the Canon should blow the tamron out of the water. Since it doesn it seems like the clear choice.

Granted Id rather have the build quality and resale value of the Canon but not for the price. Frankly I don't understand what you are paying that much more for.

Heck, you can get a second body for that kind of price difference.

 

[jcam]

Thanks all for the feedback, sorry for my slow reply on this... I probably will buy the Canon 70-200 F/2 someday. But right now I am aiming at the 28-300mm from Tamron, I would buy the Canon is a push/pull and I don't want that. The Tamron lens is only about $600 and perfect for travel, light weight. I hope the quality is good, as I am not seeing many reviews on it. But I don't want to take many lenses with me to Europe. Plans changed. I am buying the 6D this weekend, have about a month to learn how to use it, and buying the 28-300 for Europe, it gives me great range even though the apeture stinks if I need that 300 it is there. I probably will try to keep it within 200 if the light is not as good. Does anyone have or use this lens?

 

[jaomul]

I think you'd be better served with the 24-105 f4 kit lens.

 

[Derrel]

I owned the Tamron 28-270mm zoom for a while back in 2007. Tremendous range. Tamron literally invented the double-telescoping lens barrel design, with their earlier 28-200 zoom, which was a groundbreaking zoom, the history and revisions of which were chronicled by the late Herbert Keppler in Popular Photography& Imaging magazine. He was long a supporter of the 28-200 Tamron, which back in those days, was pretty much the absolute LEADER in that category, the "superzoom".

I let the Tamron 28-270 go, giving it to a nice grandmotherly woman, who used it on her Nikon D50,with results that satisfied her. I had been using it on the Nikon D2x, and was not really happy with its longer focal length range performance, plus I had the Nikkor 28-200 G lens, which was better. Less range, but better optics. Of course, that was another lens; the 28-300 might be better. And these superzooms DO have amazing range, in one light lens.

 

[goodguy]

I hope the quality is good

No its not, if Derrel wasn't happy with it I wouldn't bother touching it.
To add to that I personally wouldn't consider ANY superzoom, they are offering great focal flexibility but all of them compromise with image quality.
I rather take 2 lenses to cover the zoom range I like then take one superzoom and not be happy with the results.
Just came back from a 2 week trip in the west coast and I had on me my D750 and the Nikon 24-70mm + the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8, not the lightest package but man the results are Soooo worth it!

If owning a Canon and forced to go with one lens only then I might would go for the 24-105mm F4

If you want a relative light package with lots of zoom then consider the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10

 

[jcam]

It seems Derrel wasn't completely unsatisfied with it was I only see he was not happy with the longer ranges. I don't plan to use the 300 very often, just when I need it. Mostly will be 28-175 or so use. are the optics still garbage at 175-200 say? If they made a 28-200 I would buy that one. But sadly they don't. The Tamron lens is from 2014, I would hope they made some improvements on this.

What about the Canon EF 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS USM? This seems like an older lens though.

What I consider is that I currently have a Canon G12 that has a zoom range of 140mm. That has served me well for the last 5 years, but now I want a DSLR, been meaning to get one for years to replace the SLR I used to use.

Honestly really I do not want to take two lenses with me, that is why I was considering the 28-300 Tamron lens. I don't see any 24 or 28 or 35-200 lenses anymore.

I keep going back and forth on this... I really don't want to take two lenses or even a converter... changing lenses outside sets me up to drop something or have something stolen.

 

[Derrel]

If you can test out the 28-300, even just say 40 or 50 shots outside of a camera shop, you'd probably be able to tell if it was "for you" or not. The superzoom is convenient...it is ONE lens, with huge range, and it can be deployed very quickly, with no fumbling, no swapping, no bagging of one lens and so on...it's SEE and SHOOT! Which was what Herbert Keppler was most enthusiastic about with the Tamron 28-200, which was a lens the Tamron company basically invented, and then went about revising, repeatedly, over about a decade, and then, they began expanding the top end longer.

And YES, I had the 28-270mm, which is now like an eight year-old design, maybe even older; perhaps the 28-300 is improved--I expect it actually might be. The camera a lens is used on can also play some part too...a person really needs to test stuff out, see how it works, see what limits are. "Most" zooms do get softer on the longer end, even the very expensive lenses often show a marked drop-off; the new Tamron 150-600 drops off from 500 to 600mm--and YET, it STILL shoots pictures at 600mm, and people really like it because it offers convenience, and length, at a good price! Is the zoom as good as the Canon 500mm f/4 L-IS USM? Hell no...and yet...people are buying it like crazy.

I totally "get" the reason for the superzoom. Nikon even makes a pretty expensive model. Canon has made a couple L-series models in the past, like 35-300 and 35-350-L series, white barrel monsters, as I recall.

 

[goodguy]

It seems Derrel wasn't completely unsatisfied with it was I only see he was not happy with the longer ranges. I don't plan to use the 300 very often, just when I need it. Mostly will be 28-175 or so use. are the optics still garbage at 175-200 say? If they made a 28-200 I would buy that one. But sadly they don't. The Tamron lens is from 2014, I would hope they made some improvements on this.

What about the Canon EF 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS USM? This seems like an older lens though.

What I consider is that I currently have a Canon G12 that has a zoom range of 140mm. That has served me well for the last 5 years, but now I want a DSLR, been meaning to get one for years to replace the SLR I used to use.

Honestly really I do not want to take two lenses with me, that is why I was considering the 28-300 Tamron lens. I don't see any 24 or 28 or 35-200 lenses anymore.

I keep going back and forth on this... I really don't want to take two lenses or even a converter... changing lenses outside sets me up to drop something or have something stolen.

I have the Canon G15, these are great little cameras, my wife uses it most of the time though.

I dont like changing lenses either, thats why I use only 2 lenses most of the time, 24-70mm and 70-200mm.
On vacation when outside most of the time I have the 70-200mm and in closed doors I will put the 24-70mm.
I find rarely I will need to swap the lenses in the middle of the day when I am on a trip but I still carry both of course.
Buying a DSLR with one lens to me defeat the point, DLSR potentially can produce jaw dropping good images depending of glass, accesories and most importantly the photographers skills, lenses are the bottleneck controling the light that hits the sensor.
If the lens is not very sharp like all superzoom does then you will never get the full benefit of the DSLR.
If you want one camera to do it all then why not consider a zuperzoom P&S ?
As I said the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX10 are good cameras with plenty of zoom and you dont need to worry about lenses.
Buying a DLSR with one lens means pretty much its a big expensive P&S

 

[beagle100]

It seems Derrel wasn't completely unsatisfied with it was I only see he was not happy with the longer ranges. I don't plan to use the 300 very often, just when I need it. Mostly will be 28-175 or so use. are the optics still garbage at 175-200 say? If they made a 28-200 I would buy that one. But sadly they don't. The Tamron lens is from 2014, I would hope they made some improvements on this.

What about the Canon EF 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS USM? This seems like an older lens though.

What I consider is that I currently have a Canon G12 that has a zoom range of 140mm. That has served me well for the last 5 years, but now I want a DSLR, been meaning to get one for years to replace the SLR I used to use.

Honestly really I do not want to take two lenses with me, that is why I was considering the 28-300 Tamron lens. I don't see any 24 or 28 or 35-200 lenses anymore.

I keep going back and forth on this... I really don't want to take two lenses or even a converter... changing lenses outside sets me up to drop something or have something stolen.

Changing lens is not a problem, you just have to accept it when owning a DSLR. I would agree with the others, avoid that Tamron 28-300! Most of the entry level DSLRs have a good 18-135 or 18-55IS and 55-250IS combination. Start with that and don't worry about changing lens