Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM 'L' lens review with samples (full frame and APS-C)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- This is a lens that is slowly becoming legendary for its sharpness - is it really all that? What does video footage look like? And is it really worth over £800 (depending on where you shop)?
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
USA: amzn.to/32yhQjE
UK: amzn.to/2uj0RVI
Don't confuse it with its older, non-image stabilized brother, which I reviewed a year ago: • Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 ...
If you've found this or other videos I've made to be helpful, then support me on Patreon! www.patreon.co...
All samples and footage taken by me on Canon 60D and 6D cameras.
Be sure to follow my Photostream on Flickr, to see sample pictures of lenses I've reviewed and to see previews of upcoming lenses, too! www.flickr.com...
Music:
Shades of Spring, Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons...
I appreciate that you include us peasants, with apsc canons, in your lens tests. Now, I am leaning toward the mark 2, with plenty upgrades, easy to see the $200 increase in price.
Drake Leroy I
Hahahahaha
SO TRUE! Especially if you have a Canon 7Dmk2, which is priced and compared with full frame cameras quite often.
@@cooper9917 in some situation, the 7dm2 is better than any fullframe that's not the 1d lineup
Hahaha, peasants, love it. I have m50 mk2
If you live in wales like I do, then thats particularly useful, as it never stops raining. Yep, thats about right! :p
I am 9 years late but thank you for including APS-C in the testing! It’s solidified my decision to buy one now
What are your thoughts on it ? I’m hesitating between taking this or the EF-S 55-250 for my EOS R50 with an adapter. I’m just a beginner in telephotography
9 years old video....but I just got an R6 and it made this lens even better! (I have the IS version). Still a ripper and can be had for cheap. Ppl really overpay for their gear.
I just the R6 and want a lens to get photos of my son at his soccer games. Would you say this would be a great lens for that? I’m thinking of buying one used and have seen some Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS for about $500-600. Thoughts?
@@jaelcaballero5212 depends if 200mm is enough reach for you and it also depends on the lighting conditions (f4 vs f2.8 - mk2 is a great value nowadays). Only you know.
I enjoy watching your reviews, You go straight to the point, no pointless chatter just straight informative reviews! Cheers!
great vid. is this lens still a legit purchase in 2022?
Amazing review Chris 👏👏👏
I bought the "70-200mm f/4 IS USM 'L'
after your review and it's totally brilliant/ razor sharp 😍
Keep up the good work mate 👍
I've worked with this lens, and I agree completely. It's simply tack sharp, undistorted and fun to use. It's also a lot lighter and cheaper than the 2.8F version.
I recently bought this lens for my canon 50D. It’s a fantastic lens every shot on this old camera looks fresh colourful sharp and always get focus right in auto focus
Hey, great review! I'm only a decade late.
Anyways, I have a chace to purchase this lens in great optical and mechanical condition, no internal dust, mold or scratches. The price is 500€ including the hood, tripod collar and an uv-filter. The serial number indicates that this particular lens is manufactured in 2006.
Is the price okay considering the age? Thanks!
This lens would be awesome on an 80D. I might get it.
ValiRossi I just ordered one on eBay.
i own a 70D, i am thinking about getting it. What is ur opinion on this with a crop sensor like 70D/80D? Is it like what he said--really sharp?
The benefit of this on a crop camera is the constant aperture but it's not much sharper on a crop camera vs the kit EF-S lens.
I got the most qhality out of it when using it with my Canon 6D full frame camera.
ValiRossi 80D bro here😂😂 thought the same, might just get this over the non IS version. If you have already bought it, how is your experience with this baby?
Hi triy this...
amzn.to/2EHlA9E
Would this lens be okay for say sports photography?? I have an 850D. I just want something entry level to see if I like doing it before committing to spending a lot of money.
My favorite lens on either a crop or full frame camera. I use it for all my portraits - humans or my rescue dogs and for at least 1/3 of my travel images...
I once owned the non-IS version (before the IS model was introduced). I was a slave to bright light or high ISO but, the IS has freed me from those constraints.
I easily shoot 1/3 to 1/2 of my total imagery with this lens... The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens are my two go-to lenses for travel photography. I usually carry a pair of cameras with one lens mounted on each body. Great setup!
Would this be a good replacement for a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Interested in this answer.
What will the f/4 be If I use it on my Canon 1100D with a 2x TC? Will it be f/8 or with 1.4 f/5.6? Or is it better using a 1.4x TC? I will be photographing butterflies and birds most of the time.. I'm also looking at the 300 mm f/4 L IS USM, but will this be a better buy?
Smauges For shooting birds and butterflies, you might be better off with the 300mm f/4 lens. Although I'd prefer to have this 70-200 with a 1.4x TC, for the extra versatility (the 1.4x TC will make it f/5.6)
Thanks for this wonderful review. Also for telling the truth about the noisiness of image stabilization, which I discovered myself with my Canon 5D and the 100mm fixed lens with powerful image stabilization. But a professional will always use an external mic so there is no problem. It was good you provided a shot to see how when using a tele lens without stabilization and without tripod is not a good way of using the lens. Well, about the prices of Canon lenses, let me say I agree with you that cheap Canon lenses are not worth the money, but the really expensive ones are worth *more* than the money you pay.
This is one of my best travel lenses. Great optics, light weight and not bulky as the 2.8. I had serious doubts before buying it but I'm totally satisfied with the IQ. Totally agree with you. Thanks so much for the great video reviews!
Since I'm giving my wife a new bathroom for Christmas, she's giving me this lens. I believe she's going to spend quite a bit less than I am, but no question, we're both going to be happy with our gifts!
Just purchased this lens and couldn’t agree more. A fabulous all-rounder for portrait, landscape and video production. A must have in anyone’s camera bag. Thank you for the review: www.thetourcreator.com
I sold my 70-200mm f2.8 non IS ang to get this one. The sharpnes is the same and the IS is a big help for me. The f2.8 sometimes gave me some blurred photos @ 200mm and when i zoom in. And so heavy. Thanks for the review
Hi, non-IS would affect only the video right? What would you say about long exposures (if mounted on a tripod anyway)
@@ashwinkumar675 On a Tripod there is no Difference between IS and Non-IS lenses. Reason is that its recommended to switch off the IS on a Tripod to avoid the IS messing up the Pictures.
You have always been the channel that offers me the best review and brings the best answer to every question I have about a lens I'm about to buy, definitely subscribing and recommending. Thank you
As is the Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. For those of us on even tighter budgets. another deeply underrated lens, will you do a review on this one Chris?
Hi, should I buy this len used or the tamron 70-210 f/4 brand new? Which one is a better len ?
Dear Christopher would i like to know, in the nearest future would you test the new Canon 70-200 f/4L IS version II, or even the also new 70-200 f/2,8L IS version III? Both are new released lenses since June '18. Thank you for your answer.
Your voice and the background music makes the review a whole lot better. Not that the review itself isn't great.
I think this is a steal when you can buy this for 500$ used "absolute madness"
You just saved me from sending my lens back when you mentioned the noise at 3:00 - Thanks!!
Great review Chris. All your lens review are awesome. When can we see the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM on the "great wall"?
Great review. Any chance of a review of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM?
Thanks - and that one is on my list :-)
Thanks, just bought one for my D90.
Fantastic review as always, i was considering the 85mm 1.8 as a first lens for a dslr, as i would like to start taking portraits and trying to hone in my skills.. In your opinion would the 70-200 f4 be worth the extra versitility while at a loss of low light performance.. would be using outdoors and in a studio enviroment.... many thanks
70-200 is GREAT for portraits... Especially in studio environment
Hi Chris. Enjoy all your videos. You have the greatest voice on TH-cam. I'm looking at this lens for sports photography, namely photographing my kids baseball games. Just wondering if this would be good for video also. I'm debating whether I should get the IS and do both photography and video or get the non IS for photography and the new Canon 55-200mm STM for video. Is turning on image stabilization when mounted on a tripod ok with either lens? I've heard both yes and no. You're thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks :-)
+Davide Ciccoritti I'd be tempted by getting the non-IS version and the new 55-250 STM, as the 55-250 STM is nicely optimized for video in all kinds of ways. All the best
Would this still be a viable lens in 2021? Budget wise I found a pretty good deal second hand.
It's still pretty good although the newer version is a bit nicer
Did you review 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS? Can you share the link?
Nah. I don't plan to. Basically it's a perfect lens.
Christopher Frost Photography Best answer 😆
is this better than tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc ?
Love your reviews!! I wish there were youtubers who did your style of review but with micro four thirds lenses!! Keep up the great work!
Hey Chris, great review. Just wondering, would you recommend getting a protective UV filter for these kind of expensive lens, or would a UV filter decrease the image quality? Do you usually use protective UV filters or not? Thanks!
I usually only use UV filters in rain or if it's dusty, sandy, etc. for protection. Otherwise, in my experience at least, the filter does take away slightly from the image quality but it's still 100% usable. TL;DR: Use filters in bad weather
Im confused/ when you mention noise feedback from the image stabilization you showed a sigma lens? Wondering if the noise is actually from sigma or if you used wrong footage. Haha just hoping I can purchase the canon lens and not have that issue
Hey Chris I noticed you’ve never done the original 2.8 is L. At 900 dollars I think it’s a bargain in 2021. It’s quite heavy but it’s also parafocal.
Outstanding review!
Hi quite an old topic, but hopefully still active.
I am considering buying this version 2nd hand to go with an Eos R, for an upcoming trip to South Africa.
I have a tamron 35-150 osd, and tamron 100-400mm.
Can anybody say if this lens give faster autofocus along with any iq improvement over above lenses or would it just stay in the bag?
Oldie but a goodie, still mine, very light and powerful. Using along with my 5D Mark III.
I was able to get hold of a version for almost €430 yesterday. I can only confirm what is said in this video. the sharpness is indescribable across all focal lengths and there is definitely still enough light on the sensor, despite F4. I've been photographing with the "big" brother, F2.8, for the last three years. unfortunately this lens did not have a stabilizer, which limits its use to extremely fast shutter speeds or a tripod. I don't even want to talk about the weight saved (F2.8 1400g, F4 720g). The bokeh is (in my opinion) negligibly sharper. I use the lens on a 90D and can only recommend it to anyone who photographs in an actual working range of up to 200m. a word about the stabilizer: it takes about half a second to settle (and is quite loud) but then it's rock solid.
have you try adding a 2x or 1.4 extender to this lens? im using 70-200f4 non IS version,, im thinking of buying an extender.. :) thank you..
re visit this in 2017?
2019
Mine is very soft at f4, all focal lengths.
I've always wondered if there was something wrong with my lens as the IS sounds like gravel in a coffee grinder - but thanks to this video, I now know that that's just how Canon engineered it apparently. I really do love this lens though. And agreed, twice the weight and twice price for the 2.8 version, just for 1-stop and negligably creamier bokeh - uhm, no ta!
Will this fit my Canon T3i? And is IS really necessary for the casual weekend shooter for family and kids sports photos?
Any Canon mount lens made since 1987 will work on your APS-C camera. Yes, IS can be useful
Question Chris. I've been looking to upgrade my tele lens from the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III lens that came bundled with my Canon T5 to the 70-200mm. would the 70-200 be a good replacement for my old 75-300mm?
When i do some research about any lense this man somehow have it lol
your site is very helpful.. have you tried reviewing the Sigma 70-200 equivalent (like the HSM Macro 2 or the current Sports version). how does it perform?
So.. this or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS which is actually even cheaper? :-/
Can you also do a review for canon 70-300 IS USM lens? To differentiate them, they seems like the same with their qualities tho
should I buy the 1:4L or 1:2,8L for indoor sports? Is 1:4L enough or not?
Great video! Really helpful. Thank you.
I use this lens on my 600D and its totally amazing!! great video!!
I will ask you somethin, do you think that it is worth the money you spend on it, some people say that it is not worth f4 what do you think?
Based on your excellent review (as always) and a note written on the Canon site (by a guy who is recommending lenses for the 70D -- he says the 17-55 2.8 is the first lens he would always have, but this one comes in as another essential) I've *almost* decided this will be my second lens.
Given that I know you really like the 55-250 variable aperture Canon STM lens, I'm wondering what you would advise to someone like myself who is looking for a really good zoom. The pluses for this lens are the image quality, of course, as well as build and weather proofing. The downside is that it's much heavier and has a smaller range than the 55-250 (and most likely much noisier IS and less smooth AF). The downside to the 55-250 is that it's variable aperture (which is a big minus in my book).
If cost were no particular object (since I'm only going to use two or three lenses at most for my 70D work, which will be mostly video although I'll do some still, and I want quality) would you choose this lens over your 55-250? I'm always curious about your thoughts, particularly since you've tested both of these.
If cost were no object I'd go for the 70-200, but only just, because of the nice build quality and slightly sharper pictures and better contrast. But the two are pretty close - the 55-250 really is a bit more convenient
That's really helpful, Chris. I just got all my lenses (and the 70D) in the last two days and just in carrying them all around and using them I've come to rethink (for the umpteenth time) my idea about having the L lens versus something a lot lighter and cheaper. Also, I hadn't realized how excellent the modern cameras are at high ISOs and the ability to use the automatic selection (and then just control the aperture and speed manually) means I can still film at fairly low light levels.
But not to belabor this -- when you say "a bit more convenient" you are talking about weight and size, right? Or do you mean the increased focal lengths? I'm just trying to get a very clear picture here before I pop for one or the other (it's particularly sensitive to me right now because the 70-200 comes with a $200 rebate good only through the end of this month, so it's not like I can just take my time and make a more reasoned decision based on my shooting experience).
Mike Kelley
The 55-250 is smaller and lighter and has a much better focal range. I imagine that would be the lens you might prefer, really
Thanks again, Chris (do you *ever* sleep? When you get married I can promise you that will change ).
I suspect you are right, as the more I play around with what I've got so far (I now have the 17-55 2.8, the 10-18 variable STM and yesterday I couldn't help myself and got the 35mm 2.8) I'm almost second guessing myself even on the 17-55. While I do love it's constant aperture, the size and weight are pretty daunting for an old man like me (and I USED to carry around the full sized 70-200mm 2.8, which I still have but am going to sell).
With the 35mm on (which, coincidentally, weighs the same as the 55-250mm we're talking about) it feels just about right, a great camera/lens combination to hold one handed if necessary. With the 17-55, though, I am definitely not shooting one-handed.
And, as I said, I'm really impressed with the way the new cameras respond so well in low light even at smaller apertures. Yes, I can't get the blurred backgrounds I might want, but that's why I have the 35mm. So I'm thinking (just thinking, mind you) I *might* return the 17-55 and use my 35mm for those times I need a blurred background and then have lighter STM lenses to carry around.
It's just a thought but right now my main concern is the decision between these two I'm talking about, and I so appreciate the thoughtful and reasoned approach you take. If you don't make a living making your video reviews, you should (get that new wife of yours to get on your back -- a good woman can do wonders, as I've found out :>).
Mike Kelley
Thanks! Good luck as you find out what's right for you :-)
Hi. Should i get this one or the Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 L lens with 1.4x extender
At the moment I'm leaning towards the 70-300 because of wildlife photography
Thanks in advance
Do you think this will work well on Canon M50? I would not use it to do video as I am not interested in video but for wild life photography.
a review about the cheaper Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM would be helpful
Is it still worth it to buy this lens the IS version f4 for about 500$ ? I know the mark2 is about 900-1000 . Used ofcouse
Chris, I have been asked to shoot a friends wedding, can I use my Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM 'L' lens for shoot inside the church. This is my first wedding, so I am a bit nervous. Thank you.
+Rick Saint John It should be fine, if you use a high ISO. I would personally be inclined to find a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC USD instead, for some extra light.
+Christopher Frost Photography Thank you for your response, and yes I will find a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC USD.
Hi can you plz review tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD? It's cheaper then canon.
Hi Christ can you review canon 70-200mm f4 is with canon 1.4 and 2x tele converter
Would you recommend this but non is and eos 700d or the eos 70d and save up to get this but non is later ? i currently have an eos I000d and i feel like i need to upgrade any help would be great. thanks in advance
Using higher ISO makes the camera more responsive in video-mode ?? Or better to use manual focus or the AF-ON button ??
Hi Chris. What are your thoughts on the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM for wild life? I have a 70D and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM currently and wonder if the L lens would be a significant improvement albeit non-zoom.
I haven't used that lens yet, apparently it's very nice, though!
I ended up getting the Canon 100-400mm L IS USM.
had one then bought a 2.8 version , big mistake got on my nerves carrying it around so went back to the F4 that I find is just as good as the 2.8 version. thanks for the review note you are from Cardiff like myself.
I'd like to see a review on the others in class 70-200mm. Like Canon 2.8 If you get a chance to shoot with that lens.
Hi thanks for the video, im about to choose to buy the 70-200f/4 usm l (no image stabilizer) do you think would be fine for my portraits (studio/outdoor) portraits purpose? thanks
If you're doing video or shooting stuff that moves, go with IS. If you're shooting stuff mostly on a tripod of things that aren't moving then the regular version should be fine. Something to note though, this is optically better than the non IS version. It's sharper with better colour reproduction etc. It's hard to notice unless viewed side by side and both lenses take incredible images, but it's something to be aware of.
I'd suggest you hire both of them out for a day or two and see how they perform for you. Much cheaper than buying one then deciding you should have gone with the other lol.
Um he says IS is noisy so if you are doing video to use a external microphone but pans out to a sigma lens with noise???????
So that's one lens rules all? How about f/2.8?
Hey Chris, can you do a comparison between the canon 70-200mm f2.8. And the tamron version? Btw nice videos! You've helped me a lot in my lens selections :)
Hi. At 3:02 you showed that the IS is noisy however I noticed that the lens used was signa and not Canon. Sorry but just noticed it and thought to let you know.
Have you ever experimented a slipping focus problem? I have seen a few videos about that issue when trying to adjust the focus (focus ring) with the lens in vertical position.
(I hope you understand my bad english haha)
Hmm, I don't remember anything happening like that
+Christopher Frost Photography Have you seen those videos I mentioned? I want a telephoto lens and I'm thinking about gettin this or the 55-250 stm. (For a Canon 80D)
Btw, Great videos dude and thank you for answering.
I haven't really heard of that problem before. Oddly enough, both this and the 55-250 STM have very similar picture quality on an APS-C camera. The 70-200 will have a slight image quality advantage but the 55-250 has a far better zoom range, smaller size, and its far cheaper of course
+Christopher Frost Photography Constant F4 doesn't represent a big advantage?
It's a nice advantage - but not a huge one.
in your video at 70mm i found this lens not sharp ? but you say it s sharp ! at 200mm ok! it s sharp am i wrong ?
Did you ever do a review on the 200mm 2.8L prime? That's the lens I've been considering, along with the 100mm macro. I want to have at least one prime lens (likely the macro). I've seen your review on the 100mm macro, but I've not come across too many reviews on the 200mm prime. Other than being a take off on the 135mm. But I've not seen a review that examines the (200mm) lens as you do. But looking at your review on the 70-200mm I'm kind of reconsidering.
It's on my list of lenses to review next year hehe :)
If it were f/2.8, it would be fully worth the price in my opinion, however for the stunning price it comes at, and being only f/4, it just doesn't seem *quite* worth it.
+Ethan Swords I wish your words were heard by Canon!!!!
+Ethan Swords I find that in comparison with Canon's 2.8, the 1 stop loss of light is traded off for the big size and weight difference, as well as the butter-smooth zoom ring.
Then get the non-is f/4 for a *GREAT* price and quality
Dear Christopher Frost, you might want to add that the outer barrel of this lens is plastic, not metal!
Great review. Is the noise from the IS are the same when taking photos? Thank you!
Hi Chris, "The image stabilisation is a bit noisy" but then we see a Sigma lens ?? ... am i missing something ? :)
I see a few filmmakers who use it in fast action sports like skateboarding. I am currently deciding on whether to get the non IS for $500 or just get the IS version for $300-$400 more. Any suggestions?
+Eric Elizalde If it's for sports, you won't really need the IS as you'll be using fast shutter speeds anyway :-)
should i buy this for my canon 250d
Christopher Frost Photography Just want you to know that i bought the canon 70-200mm f/4 IS. It's amazing, light, and the picture quality is superb. It complements my Canon 60D. My next lens would be the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and the 50mm f/1.4. What are your thoughts?
BTW, your reviews are phenomenal. Keep it up!
Clinnt Favo I'd be cautious getting the 16-35 f/2.8. It's not renowned for its image quality and I don't know how sharp it would be on an APS-C camera. I'd recommend you look into the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 instead :-)
I have found out that the canon 1.4 tele does not work on this lens if some settings are set as it locks the transfer to the card and you have to open the battery compartment to reset..lens correction being one.
just bought the 70 200 f4 L usm lens(non is) today
took few pictures but comes blurry...feeling very disappointing !
i have already the 50 mm f1.8 and 55-250 mm IS lens, i feel 55- 250 gives much better BOKEH and sharpness than the 70-200..f4 L
need few tips regarding the lens for perfect shots. PLease suggest.I am using canon 550d
+Deepjyoti Das Why get the 70-200 when you already have the 55-250? Well, anyway, I don't know what you're doing wrong to get the blurry pictures - it might be worth checking with a photographer friend who lives locally. You might need to be getting a faster shutter speed
Dear Christopher, could you help me please in deciding between this Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM vs. Sigma 50-100 f1,8 DC HSM on a Canon 80D, crop sensor camera. Which one would you buy for yourself between this two lenses? Thank you.
They're quite different by virtue of their respective maximum apertures. If you want zoom range, go for the 70-200. If you want a wide aperture, go for the Sigma lens
My favourite lens.
I just preorder the sony a7iii , im thinking of buying this lens for sony a7iii .
what is the difference between 70-200mm and 75-300mm lens?? and why 70-200mm is more expensive??
It's in the name. The difference is in the focal length, and the aperture
I feel bad.
I was quite excited by buying the old one (non IS)
seems that I have made a wrong decision and not saving for this one =/
Thank u for the noise at 3:00. I was worried mine was bad or something
LOL I said the same when I heard it, I thought mine is exaggerating LOL
Your reviews are my favorite on TH-cam chris. Looking forward to getting this lens when my lens piggy bank fills up again (just dropped $799 on the Sigma 18-35).
how about this lens vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is usm
+Abraham Sandoval Take a look at my review of that lens for more infoz
Now we need new review of mark 2 of 70-200 f4 IS L
As always, great review! I already have a 50mm and might add this for video work when i travel to South America next year. Just need to save up a little and maybe upgrade from apsc to full frame 5Dmk3. Thanks Chris!
Hi. Thank you for your review. I have a dilemma between Canon 70-200 F2.8 nonIS and F4 IS. Advantage of F4 is stabilization which is very usefull, but F2.8 has larger aperture which is better for low light and moving subjects. Which lens is better overall in low light? Tnx for the answer.
+tusho Personally I think the IS would help you more. Also an f/4 zoom lens is far smaller and lighter to carry around which is a huge advantage
Hi Christopher, very good video. Could you make one with sport videos and photos using this same lens? I'm planning to get this one to be used in amateur and /or school / university soccer photos.. Thks
I don't have this lens anymore, and I don't really do sports photography
which one would you choose in terms of pictures quality...
sigma 70-200 F2.8 os
tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc
canon 70-200 F4 is
the price of all about the same.
thanks 👋.
+Ahmad Alabyadh I'd probably go for the Tamron. It will be virtually as sharp as the Canon when stopped down to f/4
Would you take this over a Tamron 70-200 2.8 (or the Sigma for the matter)? Both are around the same price on eBay and I'm thinking that the f/4's L glass would be better than having the f/2.8's extra f-stop. Thoughts, Chris?
+Samuel Granger When you stop the Tamron lens down to f/4 I'm sure the picture quality would be about the same. I'd be tempted by the extra f/stop of the Tamron lens, but also be tempted by the far greater portability of the Canon, so really it's swings and roundabouts