It is funny to notice that you have felt that something was wrong with your copy of the Canon IS II because you expected it to be better than the Tamron. Do you think that it would have been the same the other way around ? Or would you have conclude that the Tamron was simply less sharp than the Canon IS II ? Hard to believe that a third party lens can be better than a Canon :-) I don't blame you, I think everybody would have think the same, me included.
When I made this video, the Canon IS II had been out for a couple of years, and I owned the older model, but I had used the Mark II a fair amount for other projects. From that experience, I knew that the Mark II was sharper than my own lenses. When I looked at these results and found that the Mark II was NOT sharper than my own lenses, I knew there was a problem. So, this wasn't just a matter of expecting the Canon to be sharper than the Tamron (though I probably did), it was the Canon not being as sharp as my Canon and meeting past experience. Just came back to this video to answer another question, but noticed that this comment was at the top, so I thought I'd go ahead and answer it, too :-)
Your review is base on something very questionable ? You believe your Canon copy was defective but not sure ? I believe not. Just say that the Tamron is much better !
I use a Tamron 70-200mm super sharp and gives you amazing bokeh blurry backgrounds if that’s your bag, and the price is right, keep that hard earned money in the bank not in your camera bag!
Before I bought both a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 I tested the Canon and Tamron offerings. I picked the Canon 2.8 IS 70-200 over the Tamron as I found it faster and a little sharper, plus I travel a lot and the build quality of the Canon is amazing. I picked the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC over the new Canon 24-70mm 2.8 (that doesn't offer IS) and it was mostly because of the VC/IS. The Canon might have been a tiny bit sharper, up to a point, but in low light I could drop 4 more stops using the Tamron and that makes a huge difference.
I keep finding that people pick this combination: tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and canon 70-200 f2.8 II USM. I currently have the tamron lens. Now I need to decide which 70-200mm I want to get when the money is available.
***** Yep. I have already picked a Tamron 24-70, and will get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii because they say it has a great bokeh, and is very sharp. I had the non-IS and sold it, I'd pick the Tamron 70-200 VC over 70-200 non-IS.
***** Since December I've purchased the canon 70-200 f4 IS and now just last week the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I *thought* the f4 would be enough for me, but I just need/want that extra bit of light and bokeh. And, last week someone was selling a mint condition f2.8 for the equivalent of $1580 USD. I couldn't walk away from that deal. It produces absolutely stunning results. So, I'll probably sell the f4 now that I've got the big boy. I agree, IS is amazing.
***** The 70-200 f/4 is good because it's lightweight, and I believe is sharper than non-IS 2.8. The IS Mark2 is awesome from what they say. IS is amazing. This is why I am not buying the 135mm f/2 yet until they upgrade it with IS and weather sealing.
Hi David - The Tamron (like the Nikon VR II) is only shorter in focal length when the subject is closer to the minimum focal distance. When the camera is focused at infinity, it behaves as a 200mm lens. The images in the comparison above are taken at infinity, and they are all 100% crops, so the size comparisons are accurate. Incidentally, when focused close, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is only about 140mm! Still a great lens, though.
Not sure why you were so surprised about the tamron being sharper. There have been controlled measurements of those lenses and the Tamron was the top performer in the resolution department. Is odd to see a test were you seem to be so focused on making the Canon beat the tamron no matter what. You got the results in front of you that's it.... Canon is not the God of lenses. Heck get a Samyang 135mm F2 and compare it to the Canon L lens to see how the samyang completely destroys is aside from AF of course
+shaolin95 I don't know why you think I was "so surprised". If you have seen my other videos, you'll know that I have no expectation of Canon being the sharpest lens, as a general rule. However, I have years of experience with the Canon 70-200s, and I know how sharp the II IS should be... it's a very sharp lens. When it didn't perform as I expected, it was a simple matter to show that it was performing poorly compared to the Canon non-IS, which is older and not as sharp. That, along with additional testing of the IS II, proved that my initial impression was right. My goal here was to provide accurate information, and that's what I've done here. I have no stake in which lens is better; I don't care which lens people decide to use. I don't get paid by either company.
which lens produces the best portrait, sharpness and just overall picture quality. the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS or the Canon 85mm 1.2 L? im so confuse which one to get. thanks in advance.
+L BS Hi I gess bokeh wise the 85mm 1,2 gives a very crisp bokeh and subject isolation . Consider the 85 is the "successor" of the legendary 50mm F 1.0 . The 70-200 2.8 L IS is an awesome lens which can produce long portraits and gives more flexibility.
My question is, why do you suspect that there is something wrong with the Canon 70-200mm IS when it doesn't beat the Tamron on IS, but not think there is something wrong with the Tamron when the Canon beat it on AF speed or IS noise? Could there not be an issue with the Tamron lens which is causing the focus lag and the whining noise?
Hi Mathew, A couple of things; I didn't make a determination about which of them has better functioning IS. Mostly, though, I always assume that what I experience is normal behavior for the lens unless I have reason to believe otherwise. I have quite a bit of experience with both lenses... I started testing the Tamron at PhotoPlus two years ago before it was even on the market... and what I experienced with both lenses was not unusual, except for the Canon's resolution. The Canon's resolution was not only worse than other IS II's that I've used, it was worse than the much older non-IS (which I know to be not as sharp as the IS II from past experience), so it's safe to say there's a problem. - Matt
Matthew Gore Hi Matt, None the less, I was still very surprised at the performance of the Tamron. I mean, for the price I would be expecting something that doesn't perform anywhere near the Canon ( Really I was expecting the Canon to bury it...). Tamron have really stepped up their game! I would be interested in seeing how these preform if you were to do this test again (With a IS II without any issues) but with the Sigma equivalent also. Great video though!
Mathew Teague Agreed, the Tamron is an awesome lens... much better than the current Sigma equivalents. I love some of the new Sigma Art series lenses, but their 70-200s are all pretty soft at the telephoto end. Hope I get a chance to make that video one day. Better yet, I hope they release a new Art or Sports series 70-200 that is of the same quality as their 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4 primes.
Matthew Gore It would just be interesting to show people how different in quality they are. I have had two sigma 70-200mm lenses in the past and they are a lot softer compared to my 70-200 IS II. I have never seen a review to show how much softer they are. It would show how good the value for money the Tamron actually is! An art version of the 70-200 with improved OS and optics might be a good contender for these. Tamron is really setting the bar for the future lenses though.
Mathew Teague Good point Mathew. The only gripe I have is that everyone says how much faster one lens is than the other but no one seems to ever show much focus throw any particular lens has. If you have a larger focus throw on any lens of course it's going to take longer to focus. This is not directed at Mr. Gore specifically, it is directed at all lens reviewers as no one ever considers focus throw.
Hi Matt, great review, especially when mentioning CA levels as well (ladder on the tower). However, at the lake scenario I would have preferred the same aperture for both lenses, since f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture for both of them and in case of the Canon at f/8 diffraction might kick in already - or even not that much yet - but anyway, having seen the other comparisons with the same aperture, there's no doubt the Canon is weaker here. Can you manage to get another sample of that IS-II Canon and compare it to the Tamron ? When choosing lens I used to read the 2 most comprehensive lens reviews on the net: LensTip.com and photozone.de and reading the Canon IS-II reviews I pretty much think you had a bad copy of that lens. I own a D800 but having issues with face detection + phase detect AF point alignment + focus shifting (which are all eliminated/corrected in mirrorless cameras) and considering to switch to the Sony A7 line - and would like to know, which 70-200 would suit me the best. (Despite being Zeiss lenses, their own ones aren't the best in the lineup). So I'm also waiting for a 2nd Tamron vs. IS-II review because I think I'll buy the Canon-mount adapter for the A7 if I switch finally. Thanks and keep up the good work, very nice review. (Both 2 others mentioned here talk from the geek side, yours are smelling more like a real-life review). Thx again.
Matt, first of all, great video like usually. I must say though that I find it a bit strange for you to re-test with a diferent copy of the Canon just because you expect it to beat the Tamron, BECAUSE in other tests, like 24-70 Canon vs Tamron, the Tamron was less sharp and there you didn't re-test with a different copy of the Tamron either. I get that there will be copy to copy variations with every brand, so, in order to be fair one should not draw any conclusions from testing one lens. Might be, that the 24-70 Tamron is usually better than the 24-70 Canon or vice versa. Hard to tell but it just doesn't seem fair to assume the Canon lenses to be better performing and when they fall short, question your result but when you see what you expected you stick with it :)
Andreas Brand Hi Andreas, That's a point well taken, and I think that in general, I'd agree. In this case, though, I didn't retest with a different copy of the Canon simply because it wasn't as sharp as the Tamron... I retested because it was 1) not as sharp as my past experience with the lens, 2) it was not as sharp as the non-IS version of the lens, and 3) it was not as sharp as the Tamron... so *I had reason to believe* that it wasn't representative of that lens' typical performance. The same is true with the Tamron in Part 2 of this test; when I looked at the image quality across the frame, I could tell that there was a centering problem, so I'd have re-shot if I hadn't already had a good lens in part one (and was too sick of the lenses to do a part 3). But with the Tamron 24-70, I didn't have any reason to believe that I wasn't seeing typical performance. I wish that I had the resources to test multiple copies of each lens, but unfortunately, I just don't. Maybe in the future, if these videos become more popular... - Matthew
Matthew Gore , Hi Matthew, obviously neither one person can be expected to test several copies of lenses all the time, so I'd never expect this of you if you do the testing on the side. Don't know your intentions here and didn't look at your click counts, but if one wanted to really provide a scientific testing with a robust outcome, there is no way around larger sample sizes. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to generalization and conclusions from small sample sizes because I'm a (laser) physicist :). But only because it's science doesn't mean it's overkill here. The sample spread of even "high quality" SLR lenses is way larger than many realize, and I can't say that this only applies to Tamron, Sigma and co but also Canon and Nikon. Years ago, I had an issue with Canon 70-200s. I used a friends copy, got my own and immediately noticed it was extremeley soft. It suffered from massive front-focusing. I was quite puzzled as to why this would even happen. Well, mediocre quality control/calibration I guess. After adjusting the focal point I was stunned at how sharp it was, we went ahead and did the same for my friend's copy.... nothing. Mine was noticably sharper (20% more resolution or so). So we went and tested the optics as well as we could... as a little experiment. We tested than 15 of the 70-200 2.8L mark 1. A very good and well stocked local shop provided us with more lenses than we could test. Measured with laser sources of different colors (also white) for chromatic abberations, photolithographic gratings (as resolution charts), micron wide apertures (diffraction limited spots) etc etc. The spread in resolution due to non-centering, chromatic abberation, coma, astigmatism, and even higher order abberations was astonishing. Non homogenous field curvatures amongst others. Can't say that the performance distribution looked like a gaussian, sample size was still not large enough to be sure. Bottom line: There were razor sharp ones and pretty soft ones. My conclusion from that test was that there is no way to test this properly for every lens purchase because this is simply not feasible (not even to a laser/optics physicist). If I could though, I'd always test at least 5 of a kind and go with the best copy, to ease my mind. My guess is, the manufacturers do the math right (analytically, especially with the ray tracing/optics simulation tools available today) but they accept pretty large manufacturing tolerances (low yield). I think they do that because they can get away with it. Most customers won't compare, even if they knew what they were looking for. With the lack of a comparison, people will be happy because most of the more expensive lenses produce "nice" images. Only a direct comparison will open your eyes, literally. However, I find it very hard to justify the premium prices knowing, that the distribution is so huge. Things might have improved, I don't know. Sigma and Tamron surely aim a lot higher these days, one can see that in increased price. When I look at the price/performance-ratio of my Sigma 35 1.4 or the Tamron 15-30 (which got my hands onto last week) I can only wonder if any of the Canon/Nikon "originals" are really still worth the extra money, considering production tolerances. I'm almost certain, that if you have 20 random specimen of comparable top of the line models of each major brand, only Zeiss might still stick out (I'm only talking resolving power = lack of abberations here, not design decisions like vignetting). I could be wrong but I expect it. What I also believe is, that most reviews are biased. 1. There is the personal expectation/bias which I think you also fell for to a small degree here. The canon is "super sharp" by your experience, it costs more and everybody considers it to win. So you re-test with another copy. Taking into account the spread of manufacturing, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that you eventually end up with a pair where the canon turns out to be better again. Interestingly enough you will never know if even the softer second Tamron was not significantly sharper that the Canon you might have used months ago. Only a direct comparison unveals the difference, especially when gauging with the naked eye. This is very human, so no worries. 2. Most reviewers are sponsored, if not directly, then indirectly. Unlike you, many get a "first copy of the lens" from the manufacturer. .... and then conclude: Awesome lens. Well, go figure. Of course the manufacturers CAN provide a super sharp lens out of the distribution and/or manually re-adjust one to perform at its best. I actually think that all manufacturers do this. Anyways: I like your videos, otherwise I wouldn't have been here and commented :). Keep up the good stuff but keep in mind that small sample sizes with products like these in mass-market production days don't necessarily mean a lot. If I could pick a new lens for you to review or a set to compare I'd say: go for the new Tamron 15-30 VC, maybe vs. any of the Canons OR even the new Canon 11-24. I think that as a landscape photographer these should be really interesting to you and me both. kind regards from germany Andreas
Another high quality Review like always thank you very much! Did you also recognized a difference in focal length? I've seen a lot of other reviews which compare these lenses in which is said that the Tamron 70-200 is more a 60-125 compared to the canon which could be a real issue for people. Maybe you can elaborate on this when testing again with another Canon 70-200. Great work as always.
Thanks. I have been testing the focal length of the Tamron, and I'm about halfway through making the part II video. I'm pretty busy with Christmas coming up, but it should be done before too long. (hint... the Tamron focal length isn't that bad).
Hello how are you doing. I admire your videos which have high quality. You do the reviews as they should be. pictures by pictures, side by side. My problem is this. I am a wedding photographer (less than 1 year) but I like the quality and I love primes. I want a lens with a good opening no more than 2.8. I'm between canon 135 f / 2 or 200 f / 2.8. Between the two which is more sharp? Thanks so much.
Thanks Mathhew, am considering a 70-200 for portraits but will use it for video as well so am leaning towards the Tamron but the sound of the autofocus is making me rethink.
at 1:30, the Canon IS noise. Is it normal? Mine has the same noise, but someone said it is not normal. For example: th-cam.com/video/N-DHjNApsl8/w-d-xo.html I couldn't find another copy in the local store, please help. thanks
***** It's been the same on all of the copies of the lens that I've tried, so it's either normal or very common. However, please keep in mind that I've recorded this with a very sensitive microphone in a nearly silent room. If you're in a normal shooting situation, the IS noise is practically silent. It's really only going to be a factor if you're shooting video with the camera and the camera's mic pics it up.
Matthew Gore First, thank you for your quick reply. My first copy from the local store has a big piece of dust inside the lens, so they ordered a new one for me. I kept the first lens for a month before the exchange. I tried the second one at home (very quiet room), I immediately noticed the different noise when IS engage/disengage, because I don't think I heard this noise from the first lens. I did lots of searches on Google, the feedback are mixed. Someone said it is normal, someone said it is not. I assume that some 70-200 copies have this noise, some don't. I also tried the 24-105 kit lens, it also has the similar noise, but much less, compare to the 70-200 is f/2.8. I am going to try the following options: 1. Go back to the store where I did the exchange, see if they still have the first copy with the dust. Check if it has the noise. 2. Try another two camera stores in town, see if they have a demo lens. 3. Discuss the issue with the Canon service in Canada. Thanks again.
After watching a TON of reviews.. I'm happily settling for the Tamron because of this review. I love my Sigmas (35 and 50 and 100) but no Siggy for me on this. :) Thanks for the great review. Do more Lightroom too will you :) I subscribed
I wish we could see more videos from you Matthew Gore - the comparisons are so in depth. I actually own the Tamron 70-200 VC and purchased the 24-70 2.8 VC off the back of your previous review.
Matthew, thank you for your videos (especially the comparison vids) You present information beautifully and in a way that is clear, comprehensive and useful. DON'T STOP PRODUCING! You are great at it.
Very well done review,u should do more vids like this more often loved the 35 and 2470 versions. Question, people claim that the tamron is wider than the canon (dosnt quite reach the 200mil) did u notice something like that? Greetings
Hi Eric, Excuse the copy and paste response here... This was an aspect that I didn't test formally; but will do shortly (for Part 2). However, the problem is not as simple as it sounds at first. This issue with some zoom lenses is called "breath". These lenses have a reduced focal length when you leave the zoom untouched but focus the lens closer to its minimum focal distance. So, while the lens will be a true 200mm lens when you're focused on something 30 meters away, it may be only 160mm when you're focusing on a subject that is only 5 meters away. I've heard reports that the Tamron breaths down to 180mm or 160mm, but I haven't tested it. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II breaths down to 140mm, for comparison. I intentionally avoided that issue in my resolution tests in the video by only focusing in the extreme distance, and since those images in the video are 100% crops, you can see that there is virtually no difference in focal length / magnification when they're focused at infinity. - Matthew
I got the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 thanks to this video. Hands down, it's an amazing lens. For those of you thinking of getting the lens, I got some videos with it on my channel. Check it out.
Test after test of these 2 lenses shows the Tamron winning in resolution and IS. I don't mean to call you out but every review of yours I've seen always seems to put main brand lenses above all else. Consider doing more research on other's videos after you've done your reviews so you can confirm suspicions and not just be a main brand elitest.
As he clearly stated in the video, That's why he used to the Canon 70-200 non is to back up his suspicion of a possible bad copy of the Canon 70-200 IS ii. The canon 70-200 non is shouldn't resolve better then the 70-200 IS ii.
Oh, look, another Canon fanboy. The IS and autofocus are quieter on the Tamron and it is noticeably sharper. Not just in your test, but all tests. You should try being a little more honest in your videos.
Make sure you calibrate the lens to the body before reviewing. Landscape is not relevant went shooting wide open for landscape. Best to use human eyes or anything pointy with focus spot on.
Well I'm shocked.. I tried a 70-200 2.8 canon (non-is) and it was flawless. I also used a tamron 70-200 2.8 non-vc which was.. well.. broken, it was missing focus BY A LOT, focusing was extremely slow and noisy while canon is virtually silent. But ok, these are different lenses, I used the oldest versions of both probably and the Tamron feels like junk. I'm rather happy with my 17-50 2.8 VC tamron though and I use it 90% of the time but I consider it to be overpriced.
Thank you for your video Matthew. Its very important for me. I think that the Canon lens is better than Tamron lens, but your video telling me the other 👍
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L ii. It is super sharp. But the greatest difference between it and the Tamron is focus breathing. The Canon has very little but the Tamron has a lot! That could be a big problem for some. As far as reliability and durability though, these are almost always neglected in tests. Canon is second to none in that respect. If I had to pay $3000 for the Canon I still would. Luckily with the rebate and discount I got the Canon for $1900.
Sigma is way below the Tamron in terms of build and image quality. Sigma should only be a total "budget" solution (I put that in quotes because no 2.8 70-200 can be considered cheap, they are all very good lenses, but if you want to be able to blame bad image quality on you, rather then your equipment, go with the few hundred dollars more Tamron).
Gorgeous work !!! You always do great - phenomenal job ! For me It's A Pleasure to observe your tests/ clips ! Year ago Just because of you ( your 35mm sigma vs canon) I bought sigma instead canon ! And was very happy ! Even now month ago I sold whole my L set lenses and 5d3 and switch to nikon d810 - But steel I prefer 35 sigma ! And in that case 50 art sigma too ! After that vid I'd happy that sold my 70-200 is II :)) Hope Nikon's 70-200 better in test ... But I'm not sure I like it but sometimes when I switch in 70-200 after sigma 50 art its to fuckin disappointing noticeable difference in sharpness ... Sigma a lot sharper Best regards !
Hi Osha, Thanks! Glad you found the videos helpful. FWIW, the Nikkor 70-200 is very similar to the Tamron, but the Nikon actually has a worse problem with the focal length. When your subject is close to the minimum focal distance of the lens, its focal length is reduced to about 140mm rather than 200mm... so things are not as magnified as they should be. It's not a huge problem, though, and otherwise, it's a very nice lens. - Matt
cougar00926 Yep, focus breathing is independent of the body... so if a lens has a breathing issue on a full frame, it will be exactly the same effect on a cropped sensor body... IE, if there's a 20% reduction in image size when focused close, that will remain the same on both cameras, but of course, what would be 20% less than 200mm field of view in the case of a full-frame would be 20% less than a 320mm field of view (1.6x crop) on an APS-C.
If a "cheap" lens outperform a Canon, then the Canon is faulty... :( too sad. If you think the Canon is faulty, don't upload reviews if you think a component on it is faulty, as it turns the review into useless. Awesome work anyway. Thanks.
That was my initial thinking, too. I decided, in the end, that showing my findings would still be useful, because (a) if I had not tested the two lenses next to each other, I probably would never have known that the Canon was faulty... that's something that lots of people out there are probably living with, and assuming that they're doing something wrong. It also speaks to the reliability of these lenses: many people believe that their Canon lenses are bulletproof.... and (b) I was still able to test the autofocus and IS noise, etc. But I agree, it's not a very satisfying video. The second part, when I finally get back to WA and have a little time, should be much better.
Matthew Gore Thanks for your answer, you are a very reasonable man. Keep on with the good work and maybe if you get a not faulty IS II you like to share it with all of us again. Regards from Spain from a new subscriber to your channel :-)
Something that I have seen on other comps is that the Tamron at 200 is really only about 170mm but nobody says why. You made no mention of this. Do you have any info on this.
Hi Marc, As you may know, zoom lenses are never exactly the range they claim to be... they're usually a bit off on both ends.Something like 170 would be pretty significant, though, if it were true all around. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is well known for this problem: at 200mm, when focus is close to the camera, the focal length is about 30% shorter (140mm !) than it should be. This phenomenon is called "breathing". It's possible that the Tamron has a breath issue too, I'll have to take a look through my images and see, but I didn't notice it while shooting. It's pretty clear, though, that when focused at infinity, it's pretty much identical to the Canons; all of the close-ups of the test images in the video are 100% crops, so you can accurately judge from them. - Matthew
Great job and nice video with good detail ... thank you this video gave me a lot of information . can you test and compare Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with other lenses ? thank you so much
I don't regret getting the Tamron, for the marginal differences (if any) the Canon/Nikon are not justifiable for me, Tamron and Sigma will keep giving headaches to the big boys
Did your Canon Lens need a repair, duo the bad resolution? Maybe the focus needs to be adjustment?! I guess nothing beats Nikon at the price point over 2k when it comes to sharpness. I plan on getting the Tamron but maybe without the image stabilization...
nice review. regardless of the part 2 coming soon or not, the tamron looks great compared to the price. but f2.8 70-200s are too heavy for me anyway tho. i have ef 70-200 f4 is and i like it a lot.
Thank you for your response. I think I will get the Tamron anyway due to price at this time, until I can get going and afford the Canon. People are really liking my work and want photos done. Maybe with the work I will get the Canon soon. Thanks again Mattew.
Thank you for sharing this video comparison of the two lenses! I've researched quite a bit and have made the decision to purchase the Tamron 70-200mm to use with my Canon 6d. I also really appreciated your comparison of the Canon 24-70mm vs. Tamron 24-70mm. The 24-70mm will be my next purchase and do agree with you that I should go with the Canon lens. Great informational videos!
i own the 70-300 diVC and some canon is lenses and to be honest the VC system on tamron uses a 3axis giro that while lags a bit to activate in my opinion is superior stabilizing to the canon and nikon ..i get better images handheld.
+Jochy Estrella What does "Lags a Bit" mean? 1 second? 5 seconds? I'm looking for a Low cost SuperFast Camera and AF IS Lens for sports and wildlife... I'm going to be looking at "Refurbished" as I can't afford New... ($1,000 or less FOR EACH.) See my eye sight is bad blurry, and I have to depend on AF and IS to work"FAST"... I go to the races and shoot the accidents and Drivers, and cars, then go home and load them on the computer and bring them up on the 24in LCD Screen put my glasses on get about 20inches away or until it get's clear then scroll through and see which ones came out clear and which ones came out blurry.... I can't go back and tell them to crash again because the camera didn't focus fast enough!! You either get the shot or not, and right now it's 90 to 99% Not.... And when you have to support a family on $1,100. a "Month" a $2,500. lens is out of the question... It would take me 2 years or more to come up with $1,000. So, What would you say is the Fastest AF Cameras MSRP $1000. Or less?? Your top 4 cameras in order #1,2,3,4...(Keep in mind I bought a absolute piece of "CRAP" "NIKON" That I'm still hearing about because we trusted the name and advertisements...) So no "Nikons" unless it's the only one out there... And I need a "SuperFast" AF IS lens something like 50-300mm zoom, 70-200mm, 48-200mm, 20-150mm, or somewhere in that range for all around "SOPRTS&WILDLIFE" Super "QUICK" Shots... I don't know if it has a fast AF or not but I'm trying to get a 5D-Mark 3 from a friend that bought one a few years back to take pictures of his little girls Wedding, and I only think he's used it once since... So I'm hoping to do some welding for it, if it has a fast AF and IS... I know it took great wedding shots...I know he paid a lot of money for it a long time ago... But I don't know if there are better and cheaper ones out today...Please help Thanks...
+Jochy Estrella What does "Lags a Bit" mean? 1 second? 5 seconds? I'm looking for a Low cost SuperFast Camera and AF IS Lens for sports and wildlife... I'm going to be looking at "Refurbished" as I can't afford New... ($1,000 or less FOR EACH.) See my eye sight is bad blurry, and I have to depend on AF and IS to work"FAST"... I go to the races and shoot the accidents and Drivers, and cars, then go home and load them on the computer and bring them up on the 24in LCD Screen put my glasses on get about 20inches away or until it get's clear then scroll through and see which ones came out clear and which ones came out blurry.... I can't go back and tell them to crash again because the camera didn't focus fast enough!! You either get the shot or not, and right now it's 90 to 99% Not.... And when you have to support a family on $1,100. a "Month" a $2,500. lens is out of the question... It would take me 2 years or more to come up with $1,000. So, What would you say is the Fastest AF Cameras MSRP $1000. Or less?? Your top 4 cameras in order #1,2,3,4...(Keep in mind I bought a absolute piece of "CRAP" "NIKON" That I'm still hearing about because we trusted the name and advertisements...) So no "Nikons" unless it's the only one out there... And I need a "SuperFast" AF IS lens something like 50-300mm zoom, 70-200mm, 48-200mm, 20-150mm, or somewhere in that range for all around "SOPRTS&WILDLIFE" Super "QUICK" Shots... I don't know if it has a fast AF or not but I'm trying to get a 5D-Mark 3 from a friend that bought one a few years back to take pictures of his little girls Wedding, and I only think he's used it once since... So I'm hoping to do some welding for it, if it has a fast AF and IS... I know it took great wedding shots...I know he paid a lot of money for it a long time ago... But I don't know if there are better and cheaper ones out today...And not sure if he will part with it, but I will try, if it's still a great camera by today's standard... If not I will have to fall back on the list you provide of the 4 best "Refurbished" Cameras under $1,000.00... Please help Thanks...
I thought on a moving subject like the football game images the vc or is will not help that its mainly for non moving subject only? Thanks for the video
It's this one: the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD. The Tamron is at least as sharp, it's focal length shift isn't as bad as the Nikon, etc. This is a much easier call for Nikon than Canon, I'd say.
Which one is more durable, i need one that durable in heavy ussage scenarios since i shoot outdoors events where you have to squeez though crowds and the lens get beat up, been using the canon 28-300 and wanted something that would last and had good low light capability
Hi Aubrey, This was an aspect that I didn't test formally; but will do shortly (for Part 2). However, the problem is not as simple as it sounds at first. This issue with some zoom lenses is called "breath". These lenses have a reduced focal length when you leave the zoom untouched but focus the lens closer to its minimum focal distance. So, while the lens will be a true 200mm lens when you're focused on something 30 meters away, it may be only 160mm when you're focusing on a subject that is only 5 meters away. I've heard reports that the Tamron breaths down to 180mm or 160mm, but I haven't tested it. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II breaths down to 140mm, for comparison. I intentionally avoided that issue in my resolution tests in the video by only focusing in the extreme distance, and since those images in the video are 100% crops, you can see that there is virtually no difference in focal length / magnification when they're focused at infinity. - Matthew
Could you please do a comparison video on the Canon 135mm vs 70-200mm. I love the softness and bokeh on the 135mm, but I also love how versatile the 70-200mm. I curious to know if the results of the 70-200mm would be equivalent of shot at 135mm? I hope that makes sense? I'm a newbie, and I'm still in search for the perfect portrait yet versatile lens. I would great appreciate it if you are able to make a comparison on the lenses mentioned above. Thank you so much for your excellent videos!
I'll add that to my list of possibilities for comparisons, but since the audience for it will be somewhat limited, I'm not sure when I'll get to it. You may have better luck renting the lenses and checking them out yourself.
If you own this Tamron (not the earlier model), then probably not... but it really depends on how you use it and whether you are having any problems with it. If you shoot a lot of sports, I suppose it might be worth it.
Hi. I have just begun photography with a Canon 700D. Currently I have the 55-250mm kit lens. It's very slow though. The auto focus takes its own sweet time. Which other telephoto would you suggest on my crop sensor? Also, how fast would the auto focus be compared to the kit lens again keeping in mind my crop sensor camera body ?
+Sarthak Agarwal Yeah... the 55-250 is not particularly fast. The Canon and Tamron are both significantly faster; again, I was able to shoot decent football pictures with them both, in very bad lighting conditions.
+Sarthak Agarwal The size of the sensor won't make any difference in the autofocus performance. It will give you better overall resolution (since you're using the sharpest part of the optics, away from the full-frame borders). The camera's AF system itself might make a difference... not in speed of AF, but in the speed in the camera acquiring focus. The difference should be minor. I haven't tested the AF performance of the 700D extensively, but if it's using the same system as the older 60D/70D series cameras (and I believe it is) then there really should be no significant difference.
regarding the lag with VR... at 1/500 (football pictures), is VR (or image stabilization) even active? I was always under the impress when it comes to stills (and NOT video), image stabilization in general only kicks in when shooting slower than 1/focal length, no?
The VC motor/system is operational regardless of what shutter speed you're shooting at... you can hear the motor kick on when you press the button and see the stabilization through the viewfinder... it's just that the effect of stabilization is pretty minimal below 1/500th sec. with a 200mm lens on a full frame camera. So yes... if you were shooting at 1/500th, you could turn off the VC and that might help with the lag (if you can't get used to it otherwise), but if you don't turn it off, it will still be working away in there.
It's already uploaded to TH-cam, but I'll make it public this afternoon. I'm just finishing up the article that goes along with it on my site, and changing some settings/links within the video itself.
Hi Kamaal, I think the most accurate answer is that the Canon lens will probably be better (assuming that you get a good one), but that the Tamron is almost as good... optically, it's a great lens... for considerably less money. - Matt
Harish This issue is addressed in PART 2 of the video: th-cam.com/video/vSuFrIYiINU/w-d-xo.html The quick answer is "no", although it is sometimes a little shorter than 200mm.
With this comparison I'm pretty sold. Hope that canon really is less sharp instead of it being a bad copy. Did you ever figure that out? If not I guess I'm going Tamaron, though all the rest of my gear is Canon. Thanks for the great info!
Hi Laurie, Actually, my conclusion was that the Canon WAS a bad copy. I'm still trying to find some time to do Part II of this comparison, but the Canon II is pretty much on par with the Tamron when it comes to sharpness... or a little better, if you get a good one. But the Tamron is excellent for the price. - Matthew
Definitely not on image quality. The autofocus accuracy has always been great for me on this Tamron, but the G2 has better AF performance and stabilization. I thought that the Tamron used in this video had a little bit of lag when focusing, but the G2 is better. However, even the old lens is very usable.
Sirui Luo Prices are definitely coming down. From authorized dealers around here like B&H, the Canon is still $2100 ($2000 w/mail in rebate) amzn.to/1H4rRkT and the Tamron is now $1500 ($1400 w/rebate) amzn.to/1QKSwdC ... so a $600 difference is still pretty significant. I'd still consider buying the Tamron if I needed to buy other equipment, too.
Matthew Gore im able to get one at authorized store. $400 difference for me. considering the resell value, at this point, canon is a clear winner. tamron is at a good price point when canon not on sale, but still i would suggest 135L if ppl want save money.
Canon is obviously better because it have's red line on it and it's white! DAA!
Lol!
It is funny to notice that you have felt that something was wrong with your copy of the Canon IS II because you expected it to be better than the Tamron.
Do you think that it would have been the same the other way around ? Or would you have conclude that the Tamron was simply less sharp than the Canon IS II ?
Hard to believe that a third party lens can be better than a Canon :-)
I don't blame you, I think everybody would have think the same, me included.
When I made this video, the Canon IS II had been out for a couple of years, and I owned the older model, but I had used the Mark II a fair amount for other projects. From that experience, I knew that the Mark II was sharper than my own lenses. When I looked at these results and found that the Mark II was NOT sharper than my own lenses, I knew there was a problem. So, this wasn't just a matter of expecting the Canon to be sharper than the Tamron (though I probably did), it was the Canon not being as sharp as my Canon and meeting past experience.
Just came back to this video to answer another question, but noticed that this comment was at the top, so I thought I'd go ahead and answer it, too :-)
Your review is base on something very questionable ? You believe your Canon copy was defective but not sure ? I believe not. Just say that the Tamron is much better !
I use a Tamron 70-200mm super sharp and gives you amazing bokeh blurry backgrounds if that’s your bag, and the price is right, keep that hard earned money in the bank not in your camera bag!
There is no other review better then yours! good job!
How do I report this guy for blasphemy to Christopher?
one of the best videos i've seen on these lenses, so clear, great demo of sharpness and comparisons. subbed, thanks you!
Before I bought both a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 I tested the Canon and Tamron offerings. I picked the Canon 2.8 IS 70-200 over the Tamron as I found it faster and a little sharper, plus I travel a lot and the build quality of the Canon is amazing.
I picked the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC over the new Canon 24-70mm 2.8 (that doesn't offer IS) and it was mostly because of the VC/IS. The Canon might have been a tiny bit sharper, up to a point, but in low light I could drop 4 more stops using the Tamron and that makes a huge difference.
I keep finding that people pick this combination: tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and canon 70-200 f2.8 II USM. I currently have the tamron lens. Now I need to decide which 70-200mm I want to get when the money is available.
***** Yep. I have already picked a Tamron 24-70, and will get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii because they say it has a great bokeh, and is very sharp. I had the non-IS and sold it, I'd pick the Tamron 70-200 VC over 70-200 non-IS.
*****
Since December I've purchased the canon 70-200 f4 IS and now just last week the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I *thought* the f4 would be enough for me, but I just need/want that extra bit of light and bokeh. And, last week someone was selling a mint condition f2.8 for the equivalent of $1580 USD. I couldn't walk away from that deal. It produces absolutely stunning results. So, I'll probably sell the f4 now that I've got the big boy.
I agree, IS is amazing.
***** The 70-200 f/4 is good because it's lightweight, and I believe is sharper than non-IS 2.8. The IS Mark2 is awesome from what they say. IS is amazing. This is why I am not buying the 135mm f/2 yet until they upgrade it with IS and weather sealing.
***** and just tonight, I took some awesome photos with my Tamron 24-70 in a bar. I love it.
Did you notice that the tamron has a significantly shorter actual length? I've read that in actuality the lens is 180mm
Hi David -
The Tamron (like the Nikon VR II) is only shorter in focal length when the subject is closer to the minimum focal distance. When the camera is focused at infinity, it behaves as a 200mm lens. The images in the comparison above are taken at infinity, and they are all 100% crops, so the size comparisons are accurate.
Incidentally, when focused close, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is only about 140mm! Still a great lens, though.
thank you, great clarification
David Gill The lens itself? if thats the case, im getting it. Tired of the stupid 1.6x sensor.
Not sure why you were so surprised about the tamron being sharper.
There have been controlled measurements of those lenses and the Tamron was the top performer in the resolution department.
Is odd to see a test were you seem to be so focused on making the Canon beat the tamron no matter what. You got the results in front of you that's it.... Canon is not the God of lenses. Heck get a Samyang 135mm F2 and compare it to the Canon L lens to see how the samyang completely destroys is aside from AF of course
+Justin T guess you have not been paying attention to this happening more often than you thought 😉
+shaolin95 I don't know why you think I was "so surprised". If you have seen my other videos, you'll know that I have no expectation of Canon being the sharpest lens, as a general rule. However, I have years of experience with the Canon 70-200s, and I know how sharp the II IS should be... it's a very sharp lens. When it didn't perform as I expected, it was a simple matter to show that it was performing poorly compared to the Canon non-IS, which is older and not as sharp. That, along with additional testing of the IS II, proved that my initial impression was right.
My goal here was to provide accurate information, and that's what I've done here. I have no stake in which lens is better; I don't care which lens people decide to use. I don't get paid by either company.
which lens produces the best portrait, sharpness and just overall picture quality. the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS or the Canon 85mm 1.2 L? im so confuse which one to get. thanks in advance.
+L BS Hi I gess bokeh wise the 85mm 1,2 gives a very crisp bokeh and subject isolation . Consider the 85 is the "successor" of the legendary 50mm F 1.0 . The 70-200 2.8 L IS is an awesome lens which can produce long portraits and gives more flexibility.
Awesome review you def influenced my purchase and gave me perspective with the lenses!
My question is, why do you suspect that there is something wrong with the Canon 70-200mm IS when it doesn't beat the Tamron on IS, but not think there is something wrong with the Tamron when the Canon beat it on AF speed or IS noise?
Could there not be an issue with the Tamron lens which is causing the focus lag and the whining noise?
Hi Mathew,
A couple of things; I didn't make a determination about which of them has better functioning IS. Mostly, though, I always assume that what I experience is normal behavior for the lens unless I have reason to believe otherwise. I have quite a bit of experience with both lenses... I started testing the Tamron at PhotoPlus two years ago before it was even on the market... and what I experienced with both lenses was not unusual, except for the Canon's resolution. The Canon's resolution was not only worse than other IS II's that I've used, it was worse than the much older non-IS (which I know to be not as sharp as the IS II from past experience), so it's safe to say there's a problem.
- Matt
Matthew Gore Hi Matt,
None the less, I was still very surprised at the performance of the Tamron. I mean, for the price I would be expecting something that doesn't perform anywhere near the Canon ( Really I was expecting the Canon to bury it...). Tamron have really stepped up their game!
I would be interested in seeing how these preform if you were to do this test again (With a IS II without any issues) but with the Sigma equivalent also.
Great video though!
Mathew Teague
Agreed, the Tamron is an awesome lens... much better than the current Sigma equivalents. I love some of the new Sigma Art series lenses, but their 70-200s are all pretty soft at the telephoto end. Hope I get a chance to make that video one day. Better yet, I hope they release a new Art or Sports series 70-200 that is of the same quality as their 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4 primes.
Matthew Gore
It would just be interesting to show people how different in quality they are. I have had two sigma 70-200mm lenses in the past and they are a lot softer compared to my 70-200 IS II. I have never seen a review to show how much softer they are. It would show how good the value for money the Tamron actually is!
An art version of the 70-200 with improved OS and optics might be a good contender for these. Tamron is really setting the bar for the future lenses though.
Mathew Teague Good point Mathew. The only gripe I have is that everyone says how much faster one lens is than the other but no one seems to ever show much focus throw any particular lens has. If you have a larger focus throw on any lens of course it's going to take longer to focus. This is not directed at Mr. Gore specifically, it is directed at all lens reviewers as no one ever considers focus throw.
Hi Matt,
great review, especially when mentioning CA levels as well (ladder on the tower). However, at the lake scenario I would have preferred the same aperture for both lenses, since f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture for both of them and in case of the Canon at f/8 diffraction might kick in already - or even not that much yet - but anyway, having seen the other comparisons with the same aperture, there's no doubt the Canon is weaker here. Can you manage to get another sample of that IS-II Canon and compare it to the Tamron ? When choosing lens I used to read the 2 most comprehensive lens reviews on the net: LensTip.com and photozone.de and reading the Canon IS-II reviews I pretty much think you had a bad copy of that lens. I own a D800 but having issues with face detection + phase detect AF point alignment + focus shifting (which are all eliminated/corrected in mirrorless cameras) and considering to switch to the Sony A7 line - and would like to know, which 70-200 would suit me the best. (Despite being Zeiss lenses, their own ones aren't the best in the lineup). So I'm also waiting for a 2nd Tamron vs. IS-II review because I think I'll buy the Canon-mount adapter for the A7 if I switch finally.
Thanks and keep up the good work, very nice review. (Both 2 others mentioned here talk from the geek side, yours are smelling more like a real-life review). Thx again.
Matt,
first of all, great video like usually. I must say though that I find it a bit strange for you to re-test with a diferent copy of the Canon just because you expect it to beat the Tamron, BECAUSE in other tests, like 24-70 Canon vs Tamron, the Tamron was less sharp and there you didn't re-test with a different copy of the Tamron either.
I get that there will be copy to copy variations with every brand, so, in order to be fair one should not draw any conclusions from testing one lens. Might be, that the 24-70 Tamron is usually better than the 24-70 Canon or vice versa.
Hard to tell but it just doesn't seem fair to assume the Canon lenses to be better performing and when they fall short, question your result but when you see what you expected you stick with it :)
Andreas Brand Hi Andreas,
That's a point well taken, and I think that in general, I'd agree. In this case, though, I didn't retest with a different copy of the Canon simply because it wasn't as sharp as the Tamron... I retested because it was 1) not as sharp as my past experience with the lens, 2) it was not as sharp as the non-IS version of the lens, and 3) it was not as sharp as the Tamron... so *I had reason to believe* that it wasn't representative of that lens' typical performance.
The same is true with the Tamron in Part 2 of this test; when I looked at the image quality across the frame, I could tell that there was a centering problem, so I'd have re-shot if I hadn't already had a good lens in part one (and was too sick of the lenses to do a part 3). But with the Tamron 24-70, I didn't have any reason to believe that I wasn't seeing typical performance.
I wish that I had the resources to test multiple copies of each lens, but unfortunately, I just don't. Maybe in the future, if these videos become more popular...
- Matthew
Matthew Gore , Hi Matthew,
obviously neither one person can be expected to test several copies of lenses all the time, so I'd never expect this of you if you do the testing on the side. Don't know your intentions here and didn't look at your click counts, but if one wanted to really provide a scientific testing with a robust outcome, there is no way around larger sample sizes.
Maybe I'm overly sensitive to generalization and conclusions from small sample sizes because I'm a (laser) physicist :). But only because it's science doesn't mean it's overkill here.
The sample spread of even "high quality" SLR lenses is way larger than many realize, and I can't say that this only applies to Tamron, Sigma and co but also Canon and Nikon.
Years ago, I had an issue with Canon 70-200s. I used a friends copy, got my own and immediately noticed it was extremeley soft. It suffered from massive front-focusing. I was quite puzzled as to why this would even happen. Well, mediocre quality control/calibration I guess. After adjusting the focal point I was stunned at how sharp it was, we went ahead and did the same for my friend's copy.... nothing. Mine was noticably sharper (20% more resolution or so). So we went and tested the optics as well as we could... as a little experiment.
We tested than 15 of the 70-200 2.8L mark 1. A very good and well stocked local shop provided us with more lenses than we could test. Measured with laser sources of different colors (also white) for chromatic abberations, photolithographic gratings (as resolution charts), micron wide apertures (diffraction limited spots) etc etc. The spread in resolution due to non-centering, chromatic abberation, coma, astigmatism, and even higher order abberations was astonishing. Non homogenous field curvatures amongst others. Can't say that the performance distribution looked like a gaussian, sample size was still not large enough to be sure.
Bottom line: There were razor sharp ones and pretty soft ones. My conclusion from that test was that there is no way to test this properly for every lens purchase because this is simply not feasible (not even to a laser/optics physicist). If I could though, I'd always test at least 5 of a kind and go with the best copy, to ease my mind. My guess is, the manufacturers do the math right (analytically, especially with the ray tracing/optics simulation tools available today) but they accept pretty large manufacturing tolerances (low yield). I think they do that because they can get away with it. Most customers won't compare, even if they knew what they were looking for. With the lack of a comparison, people will be happy because most of the more expensive lenses produce "nice" images. Only a direct comparison will open your eyes, literally.
However, I find it very hard to justify the premium prices knowing, that the distribution is so huge. Things might have improved, I don't know.
Sigma and Tamron surely aim a lot higher these days, one can see that in increased price. When I look at the price/performance-ratio of my Sigma 35 1.4 or the Tamron 15-30 (which got my hands onto last week) I can only wonder if any of the Canon/Nikon "originals" are really still worth the extra money, considering production tolerances. I'm almost certain, that if you have 20 random specimen of comparable top of the line models of each major brand, only Zeiss might still stick out (I'm only talking resolving power = lack of abberations here, not design decisions like vignetting). I could be wrong but I expect it.
What I also believe is, that most reviews are biased.
1. There is the personal expectation/bias which I think you also fell for to a small degree here. The canon is "super sharp" by your experience, it costs more and everybody considers it to win. So you re-test with another copy. Taking into account the spread of manufacturing, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that you eventually end up with a pair where the canon turns out to be better again. Interestingly enough you will never know if even the softer second Tamron was not significantly sharper that the Canon you might have used months ago. Only a direct comparison unveals the difference, especially when gauging with the naked eye. This is very human, so no worries.
2. Most reviewers are sponsored, if not directly, then indirectly. Unlike you, many get a "first copy of the lens" from the manufacturer. .... and then conclude: Awesome lens. Well, go figure. Of course the manufacturers CAN provide a super sharp lens out of the distribution and/or manually re-adjust one to perform at its best. I actually think that all manufacturers do this.
Anyways: I like your videos, otherwise I wouldn't have been here and commented :). Keep up the good stuff but keep in mind that small sample sizes with products like these in mass-market production days don't necessarily mean a lot. If I could pick a new lens for you to review or a set to compare I'd say: go for the new Tamron 15-30 VC, maybe vs. any of the Canons OR even the new Canon 11-24. I think that as a landscape photographer these should be really interesting to you and me both.
kind regards from germany
Andreas
Another high quality Review like always thank you very much! Did you also recognized a difference in focal length? I've seen a lot of other reviews which compare these lenses in which is said that the Tamron 70-200 is more a 60-125 compared to the canon which could be a real issue for people. Maybe you can elaborate on this when testing again with another Canon 70-200. Great work as always.
Thanks. I have been testing the focal length of the Tamron, and I'm about halfway through making the part II video. I'm pretty busy with Christmas coming up, but it should be done before too long. (hint... the Tamron focal length isn't that bad).
that only happens in the shortest focus distance
tamrons new lenses are a beast , something "has" to be wrong with the canon hahaha truth is brutal
he said in a comment above that his canon lens was faulty
Hello how are you doing.
I admire your videos which have high quality.
You do the reviews as they should be. pictures by pictures, side by side.
My problem is this. I am a wedding photographer (less than 1 year) but I like the quality and I love primes. I want a lens with a good opening no more than 2.8.
I'm between canon 135 f / 2 or 200 f / 2.8.
Between the two which is more sharp?
Thanks so much.
Thanks Mathhew, am considering a 70-200 for portraits but will use it for video as well so am leaning towards the Tamron but the sound of the autofocus is making me rethink.
at 1:30, the Canon IS noise. Is it normal? Mine has the same noise, but someone said it is not normal. For example: th-cam.com/video/N-DHjNApsl8/w-d-xo.html
I couldn't find another copy in the local store, please help. thanks
***** It's been the same on all of the copies of the lens that I've tried, so it's either normal or very common. However, please keep in mind that I've recorded this with a very sensitive microphone in a nearly silent room. If you're in a normal shooting situation, the IS noise is practically silent. It's really only going to be a factor if you're shooting video with the camera and the camera's mic pics it up.
Matthew Gore First, thank you for your quick reply.
My first copy from the local store has a big piece of dust inside the lens, so they ordered a new one for me. I kept the first lens for a month before the exchange. I tried the second one at home (very quiet room), I immediately noticed the different noise when IS engage/disengage, because I don't think I heard this noise from the first lens.
I did lots of searches on Google, the feedback are mixed. Someone said it is normal, someone said it is not. I assume that some 70-200 copies have this noise, some don't.
I also tried the 24-105 kit lens, it also has the similar noise, but much less, compare to the 70-200 is f/2.8.
I am going to try the following options:
1. Go back to the store where I did the exchange, see if they still have the first copy with the dust. Check if it has the noise.
2. Try another two camera stores in town, see if they have a demo lens.
3. Discuss the issue with the Canon service in Canada.
Thanks again.
Matthew Gore I even saw someone said it is IS break-in, and the noise will eventually go away. Does lens have break-in like car does?
After watching a TON of reviews.. I'm happily settling for the Tamron because of this review. I love my Sigmas (35 and 50 and 100) but no Siggy for me on this. :) Thanks for the great review. Do more Lightroom too will you :) I subscribed
I wish we could see more videos from you Matthew Gore - the comparisons are so in depth.
I actually own the Tamron 70-200 VC and purchased the 24-70 2.8 VC off the back of your previous review.
Matthew, thank you for your videos (especially the comparison vids) You present information beautifully and in a way that is clear, comprehensive and useful. DON'T STOP PRODUCING! You are great at it.
Good to see your back with another video. Very interesting findings and I look forward to seeing part 2.
Very well done review,u should do more vids like this more often loved the 35 and 2470 versions.
Question, people claim that the tamron is wider than the canon (dosnt quite reach the 200mil) did u notice something like that?
Greetings
Hi Eric,
Excuse the copy and paste response here... This was an aspect that I didn't test formally; but will do shortly (for Part 2). However, the problem is not as simple as it sounds at first.
This issue with some zoom lenses is called "breath". These lenses have a reduced focal length when you leave the zoom untouched but focus the lens closer to its minimum focal distance. So, while the lens will be a true 200mm lens when you're focused on something 30 meters away, it may be only 160mm when you're focusing on a subject that is only 5 meters away. I've heard reports that the Tamron breaths down to 180mm or 160mm, but I haven't tested it. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II breaths down to 140mm, for comparison.
I intentionally avoided that issue in my resolution tests in the video by only focusing in the extreme distance, and since those images in the video are 100% crops, you can see that there is virtually no difference in focal length / magnification when they're focused at infinity.
- Matthew
Thx for the quick response, looking forward to part2, have a good day.
I got the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 thanks to this video. Hands down, it's an amazing lens. For those of you thinking of getting the lens, I got some videos with it on my channel. Check it out.
CrxRacer805
hey, so did you have a faulty lens or is the Canon IS not as sharp as the tamron?
What a bummer to give $2,500 for a faulty lens.
Test after test of these 2 lenses shows the Tamron winning in resolution and IS. I don't mean to call you out but every review of yours I've seen always seems to put main brand lenses above all else. Consider doing more research on other's videos after you've done your reviews so you can confirm suspicions and not just be a main brand elitest.
As he clearly stated in the video, That's why he used to the Canon 70-200 non is to back up his suspicion of a possible bad copy of the Canon 70-200 IS ii. The canon 70-200 non is shouldn't resolve better then the 70-200 IS ii.
Oh, look, another Canon fanboy. The IS and autofocus are quieter on the Tamron and it is noticeably sharper. Not just in your test, but all tests. You should try being a little more honest in your videos.
Thank you for comparing these lenses. It's good to know that the Tamron is still worth the investment in 2024.
Make sure you calibrate the lens to the body before reviewing. Landscape is not relevant went shooting wide open for landscape. Best to use human eyes or anything pointy with focus spot on.
Great video! Is it possible to you to upload also shots from Tamron when you shooting low light football match ?
Nice I live in the u district and love shooting at Kerry park!
Well I'm shocked.. I tried a 70-200 2.8 canon (non-is) and it was flawless. I also used a tamron 70-200 2.8 non-vc which was.. well.. broken, it was missing focus BY A LOT, focusing was extremely slow and noisy while canon is virtually silent. But ok, these are different lenses, I used the oldest versions of both probably and the Tamron feels like junk. I'm rather happy with my 17-50 2.8 VC tamron though and I use it 90% of the time but I consider it to be overpriced.
Thank you for your video Matthew. Its very important for me. I think that the Canon lens is better than Tamron lens, but your video telling me the other 👍
I have the Canon 70-200 2.8L ii. It is super sharp. But the greatest difference between it and the Tamron is focus breathing. The Canon has very little but the Tamron has a lot! That could be a big problem for some. As far as reliability and durability though, these are almost always neglected in tests. Canon is second to none in that respect. If I had to pay $3000 for the Canon I still would. Luckily with the rebate and discount I got the Canon for $1900.
Well done on conducting such a thorough, impartial and explanatory comparison of these three lenses. Extremely useful!
Glad you found it helpful!
i am confuse which one to buy between sigma 70-200 and tamron 70-200mm..... please make a comparison to help me (may be many more)....
Sigma is way below the Tamron in terms of build and image quality. Sigma should only be a total "budget" solution (I put that in quotes because no 2.8 70-200 can be considered cheap, they are all very good lenses, but if you want to be able to blame bad image quality on you, rather then your equipment, go with the few hundred dollars more Tamron).
Gorgeous work !!! You always do great - phenomenal job !
For me It's A Pleasure to observe your tests/ clips !
Year ago Just because of you ( your 35mm sigma vs canon) I bought sigma instead canon ! And was very happy ! Even now month ago I sold whole my L set lenses and 5d3 and switch to nikon d810 - But steel I prefer 35 sigma ! And in that case 50 art sigma too !
After that vid I'd happy that sold my 70-200 is II :))
Hope Nikon's 70-200 better in test ... But I'm not sure I like it but sometimes when I switch in 70-200 after sigma 50 art its to fuckin disappointing noticeable difference in sharpness ... Sigma a lot sharper
Best regards !
Hi Osha,
Thanks! Glad you found the videos helpful. FWIW, the Nikkor 70-200 is very similar to the Tamron, but the Nikon actually has a worse problem with the focal length. When your subject is close to the minimum focal distance of the lens, its focal length is reduced to about 140mm rather than 200mm... so things are not as magnified as they should be. It's not a huge problem, though, and otherwise, it's a very nice lens.
- Matt
Matthew Gore Is focus breathing also an issue with fx lenses on crop sensor bodies, and if so to what extent?
cougar00926 Yep, focus breathing is independent of the body... so if a lens has a breathing issue on a full frame, it will be exactly the same effect on a cropped sensor body... IE, if there's a 20% reduction in image size when focused close, that will remain the same on both cameras, but of course, what would be 20% less than 200mm field of view in the case of a full-frame would be 20% less than a 320mm field of view (1.6x crop) on an APS-C.
Here after 9 years the IS downgrade the resolution so the non IS version is sharper
Please also check the ((sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO))
You should also get another copy of the Tamron. Maybe it was also defective that made the IS/VC noise and performs less on AF.
If a "cheap" lens outperform a Canon, then the Canon is faulty... :( too sad. If you think the Canon is faulty, don't upload reviews if you think a component on it is faulty, as it turns the review into useless. Awesome work anyway. Thanks.
That was my initial thinking, too. I decided, in the end, that showing my findings would still be useful, because (a) if I had not tested the two lenses next to each other, I probably would never have known that the Canon was faulty... that's something that lots of people out there are probably living with, and assuming that they're doing something wrong. It also speaks to the reliability of these lenses: many people believe that their Canon lenses are bulletproof.... and (b) I was still able to test the autofocus and IS noise, etc. But I agree, it's not a very satisfying video. The second part, when I finally get back to WA and have a little time, should be much better.
Matthew Gore Thanks for your answer, you are a very reasonable man. Keep on with the good work and maybe if you get a not faulty IS II you like to share it with all of us again. Regards from Spain from a new subscriber to your channel :-)
Something that I have seen on other comps is that the Tamron at 200 is really only about 170mm but nobody says why. You made no mention of this. Do you have any info on this.
Hi Marc,
As you may know, zoom lenses are never exactly the range they claim to be... they're usually a bit off on both ends.Something like 170 would be pretty significant, though, if it were true all around.
The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is well known for this problem: at 200mm, when focus is close to the camera, the focal length is about 30% shorter (140mm !) than it should be. This phenomenon is called "breathing".
It's possible that the Tamron has a breath issue too, I'll have to take a look through my images and see, but I didn't notice it while shooting. It's pretty clear, though, that when focused at infinity, it's pretty much identical to the Canons; all of the close-ups of the test images in the video are 100% crops, so you can accurately judge from them.
- Matthew
Matthew Gore TAMRON at infinity should be fine . issue is more short while focus near MFD
No point in this comparison as the canon was faulty. Why bother?
Tamron... sharper... one good reason for me! saving $1000,00
Great job and nice video with good detail ... thank you this video gave me a lot of information . can you test and compare Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with other lenses ?
thank you so much
I don't regret getting the Tamron, for the marginal differences (if any) the Canon/Nikon are not justifiable for me, Tamron and Sigma will keep giving headaches to the big boys
If I use at concerts or indoor portrait,
which one is better?
Your Tamron was a very good one or your canon a very bad ;)
Thats the Problem with Lensens... everyone a a bit differend
Did your Canon Lens need a repair, duo the bad resolution? Maybe the focus needs to be adjustment?!
I guess nothing beats Nikon at the price point over 2k when it comes to sharpness. I plan on getting the Tamron but maybe without the image stabilization...
nice review. regardless of the part 2 coming soon or not, the tamron looks great compared to the price. but f2.8 70-200s are too heavy for me anyway tho. i have ef 70-200 f4 is and i like it a lot.
Thank you for your response. I think I will get the Tamron anyway due to price at this time, until I can get going and afford the Canon. People are really liking my work and want photos done. Maybe with the work I will get the Canon soon. Thanks again Mattew.
Thank you for sharing this video comparison of the two lenses! I've researched quite a bit and have made the decision to purchase the Tamron 70-200mm to use with my Canon 6d. I also really appreciated your comparison of the Canon 24-70mm vs. Tamron 24-70mm. The 24-70mm will be my next purchase and do agree with you that I should go with the Canon lens. Great informational videos!
I owned tamron 24-70 n 70-200. Both are great lens.
Great video!!
Must be an issue with the sample. Mine is remarkably sharp.
i own the 70-300 diVC and some canon is lenses and to be honest the VC system on tamron uses a 3axis giro that while lags a bit to activate in my opinion is superior stabilizing to the canon and nikon ..i get better images handheld.
+Jochy Estrella What does "Lags a Bit" mean? 1 second? 5 seconds? I'm looking for a Low cost SuperFast Camera and AF IS Lens for sports and wildlife... I'm going to be looking at "Refurbished" as I can't afford New... ($1,000 or less FOR EACH.) See my eye sight is bad blurry, and I have to depend on AF and IS to work"FAST"... I go to the races and shoot the accidents and Drivers, and cars, then go home and load them on the computer and bring them up on the 24in LCD Screen put my glasses on get about 20inches away or until it get's clear then scroll through and see which ones came out clear and which ones came out blurry.... I can't go back and tell them to crash again because the camera didn't focus fast enough!! You either get the shot or not, and right now it's 90 to 99% Not.... And when you have to support a family on $1,100. a "Month" a $2,500. lens is out of the question... It would take me 2 years or more to come up with $1,000. So, What would you say is the Fastest AF Cameras MSRP $1000. Or less?? Your top 4 cameras in order #1,2,3,4...(Keep in mind I bought a absolute piece of "CRAP" "NIKON" That I'm still hearing about because we trusted the name and advertisements...) So no "Nikons" unless it's the only one out there... And I need a "SuperFast" AF IS lens something like 50-300mm zoom, 70-200mm, 48-200mm, 20-150mm, or somewhere in that range for all around "SOPRTS&WILDLIFE" Super "QUICK" Shots... I don't know if it has a fast AF or not but I'm trying to get a 5D-Mark 3 from a friend that bought one a few years back to take pictures of his little girls Wedding, and I only think he's used it once since... So I'm hoping to do some welding for it, if it has a fast AF and IS... I know it took great wedding shots...I know he paid a lot of money for it a long time ago... But I don't know if there are better and cheaper ones out today...Please help Thanks...
+Jochy Estrella What does "Lags a Bit" mean? 1 second? 5 seconds? I'm looking for a Low cost SuperFast Camera and AF IS Lens for sports and wildlife... I'm going to be looking at "Refurbished" as I can't afford New... ($1,000 or less FOR EACH.) See my eye sight is bad blurry, and I have to depend on AF and IS to work"FAST"... I go to the races and shoot the accidents and Drivers, and cars, then go home and load them on the computer and bring them up on the 24in LCD Screen put my glasses on get about 20inches away or until it get's clear then scroll through and see which ones came out clear and which ones came out blurry.... I can't go back and tell them to crash again because the camera didn't focus fast enough!! You either get the shot or not, and right now it's 90 to 99% Not.... And when you have to support a family on $1,100. a "Month" a $2,500. lens is out of the question... It would take me 2 years or more to come up with $1,000. So, What would you say is the Fastest AF Cameras MSRP $1000. Or less?? Your top 4 cameras in order #1,2,3,4...(Keep in mind I bought a absolute piece of "CRAP" "NIKON" That I'm still hearing about because we trusted the name and advertisements...) So no "Nikons" unless it's the only one out there... And I need a "SuperFast" AF IS lens something like 50-300mm zoom, 70-200mm, 48-200mm, 20-150mm, or somewhere in that range for all around "SOPRTS&WILDLIFE" Super "QUICK" Shots... I don't know if it has a fast AF or not but I'm trying to get a 5D-Mark 3 from a friend that bought one a few years back to take pictures of his little girls Wedding, and I only think he's used it once since... So I'm hoping to do some welding for it, if it has a fast AF and IS... I know it took great wedding shots...I know he paid a lot of money for it a long time ago... But I don't know if there are better and cheaper ones out today...And not sure if he will part with it, but I will try, if it's still a great camera by today's standard... If not I will have to fall back on the list you provide of the 4 best "Refurbished" Cameras under $1,000.00... Please help Thanks...
I thought on a moving subject like the football game images the vc or is will not help that its mainly for non moving subject only? Thanks for the video
Great video as always!
million dollar question: What's comparable to Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II in Tamron Lens?
It's this one: the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD. The Tamron is at least as sharp, it's focal length shift isn't as bad as the Nikon, etc. This is a much easier call for Nikon than Canon, I'd say.
Which one is more durable, i need one that durable in heavy ussage scenarios since i shoot outdoors events where you have to squeez though crowds and the lens get beat up, been using the canon 28-300 and wanted something that would last and had good low light capability
Great review. Is your canon faulty?
Yes, it was.
Very good video, what I like to see in terms of less speculation and better testing. To bad I'm trying to decide on the Nikon or the Tamron!!!
One question about the 200mm end. Tony Northrup says the tamron is only going out about 160mm not a true 200. What is your opinion?
Hi Aubrey,
This was an aspect that I didn't test formally; but will do shortly (for Part 2). However, the problem is not as simple as it sounds at first.
This issue with some zoom lenses is called "breath". These lenses have a reduced focal length when you leave the zoom untouched but focus the lens closer to its minimum focal distance. So, while the lens will be a true 200mm lens when you're focused on something 30 meters away, it may be only 160mm when you're focusing on a subject that is only 5 meters away. I've heard reports that the Tamron breaths down to 180mm or 160mm, but I haven't tested it. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II breaths down to 140mm, for comparison.
I intentionally avoided that issue in my resolution tests in the video by only focusing in the extreme distance, and since those images in the video are 100% crops, you can see that there is virtually no difference in focal length / magnification when they're focused at infinity.
- Matthew
great review! the sample images happen to be of my high school football team ha! GO GP!!
you leaned to wanting the canon 70-200mm mk ii to beat the tamron more, i can't call this a true reveiw until part 2 comes out
đã đọc hết tất cả commen't của các vị nhiều bổ ích,cảm ơn !
What camera did you using?
Considering the price performance ratio / Tamron wins this
Cool video I have the Tamron 70-200 I love it very sharp an nice bokeh
I notices that even with the focus lag the tamron had less motion blur during the football game photos.
Wow, I loved your video. I now have a much better idea on which len is better.
Your canon copy is not in good condition.
Could you please do a comparison video on the Canon 135mm vs 70-200mm. I love the softness and bokeh on the 135mm, but I also love how versatile the 70-200mm. I curious to know if the results of the 70-200mm would be equivalent of shot at 135mm? I hope that makes sense? I'm a newbie, and I'm still in search for the perfect portrait yet versatile lens. I would great appreciate it if you are able to make a comparison on the lenses mentioned above. Thank you so much for your excellent videos!
I'll add that to my list of possibilities for comparisons, but since the audience for it will be somewhat limited, I'm not sure when I'll get to it. You may have better luck renting the lenses and checking them out yourself.
Ok, would a Canon 135mm vs Sigma 135mm vs Tamron 135mm be a better video choice?
Thank you very much for your time!
Yes, that would be much easier for me to shoot, too :-)
+Matthew Gore That would be awesome! I can't to watch it!! Thank you very much!
Is it worth to buy Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 IS II if I own a Tamron already?
If you own this Tamron (not the earlier model), then probably not... but it really depends on how you use it and whether you are having any problems with it. If you shoot a lot of sports, I suppose it might be worth it.
Wow Mathew, I was blown away on the Tamron's better IQ. Great review. Thanks.
Hi. I have just begun photography with a Canon 700D. Currently I have the 55-250mm kit lens. It's very slow though. The auto focus takes its own sweet time. Which other telephoto would you suggest on my crop sensor? Also, how fast would the auto focus be compared to the kit lens again keeping in mind my crop sensor camera body ?
+Sarthak Agarwal Yeah... the 55-250 is not particularly fast. The Canon and Tamron are both significantly faster; again, I was able to shoot decent football pictures with them both, in very bad lighting conditions.
+Matthew Gore How good would you say they'd perform on a crop sensor like that of the Canon 700D?
+Sarthak Agarwal The size of the sensor won't make any difference in the autofocus performance. It will give you better overall resolution (since you're using the sharpest part of the optics, away from the full-frame borders).
The camera's AF system itself might make a difference... not in speed of AF, but in the speed in the camera acquiring focus. The difference should be minor. I haven't tested the AF performance of the 700D extensively, but if it's using the same system as the older 60D/70D series cameras (and I believe it is) then there really should be no significant difference.
i'm wedding photographer...wiche one best... canono or tamron ?
try actually watching the video...
No, you are not.
Very useful
Cheers Matthew awesome video can't wait for more videos
Also you did not mention the 6 year warranty that Tamron has.
regarding the lag with VR... at 1/500 (football pictures), is VR (or image stabilization) even active? I was always under the impress when it comes to stills (and NOT video), image stabilization in general only kicks in when shooting slower than 1/focal length, no?
The VC motor/system is operational regardless of what shutter speed you're shooting at... you can hear the motor kick on when you press the button and see the stabilization through the viewfinder... it's just that the effect of stabilization is pretty minimal below 1/500th sec. with a 200mm lens on a full frame camera.
So yes... if you were shooting at 1/500th, you could turn off the VC and that might help with the lag (if you can't get used to it otherwise), but if you don't turn it off, it will still be working away in there.
Part two? eta
It's already uploaded to TH-cam, but I'll make it public this afternoon. I'm just finishing up the article that goes along with it on my site, and changing some settings/links within the video itself.
Combat-18 GYM
It's here: th-cam.com/video/vSuFrIYiINU/w-d-xo.html
I've used both lenses and frankly the only thing that Canon has on Tamron.... Is the price.
Hi Matthew, thanks for ur valuable reviews...i would like to know that is the Tamron-70-200 will work better for my Canon-1200D camera...
Hi Kamaal,
I think the most accurate answer is that the Canon lens will probably be better (assuming that you get a good one), but that the Tamron is almost as good... optically, it's a great lens... for considerably less money.
- Matt
great review, i think something was wrong w ur IS II
Hi, I don't find part 2
Tony Northrup says...in real world Tamron 70-200 is only 150mm...Is it true?
Harish This issue is addressed in PART 2 of the video: th-cam.com/video/vSuFrIYiINU/w-d-xo.html
The quick answer is "no", although it is sometimes a little shorter than 200mm.
Matthew Gore Thanks for the reply. Part 2 video is really helpful.
Thank you for the very informative and objective comparison.
With this comparison I'm pretty sold. Hope that canon really is less sharp instead of it being a bad copy. Did you ever figure that out? If not I guess I'm going Tamaron, though all the rest of my gear is Canon. Thanks for the great info!
Hi Laurie,
Actually, my conclusion was that the Canon WAS a bad copy. I'm still trying to find some time to do Part II of this comparison, but the Canon II is pretty much on par with the Tamron when it comes to sharpness... or a little better, if you get a good one. But the Tamron is excellent for the price.
- Matthew
have you got your 70-200 IS fixed?
Т.е. кеноновская элька против тамрона полный фуфел?
Nice video
Hi Matthew, so if I go for the Tamaron, I won't be compromising a lot on focus accuracy or image quality; am I right in this assumption?
Definitely not on image quality. The autofocus accuracy has always been great for me on this Tamron, but the G2 has better AF performance and stabilization. I thought that the Tamron used in this video had a little bit of lag when focusing, but the G2 is better. However, even the old lens is very usable.
holy shit, first video i watch from you and its amazing
where is the part2?
Unfortunately, not completed yet. I'm busy with other projects.
now, the canon ones is around $1800.... i guess ppl should still go for the canon
Sirui Luo Prices are definitely coming down. From authorized dealers around here like B&H, the Canon is still $2100 ($2000 w/mail in rebate) amzn.to/1H4rRkT and the Tamron is now $1500 ($1400 w/rebate) amzn.to/1QKSwdC ... so a $600 difference is still pretty significant. I'd still consider buying the Tamron if I needed to buy other equipment, too.
Matthew Gore im able to get one at authorized store. $400 difference for me. considering the resell value, at this point, canon is a clear winner. tamron is at a good price point when canon not on sale, but still i would suggest 135L if ppl want save money.
Thanks. Helpful information.
Is the Tamron good for sports video?