Lens Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC USD vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (PART 2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Link to Full Article, Example Downloads: wp.me/p1qGtv-2iV
This is PART II of our comparison of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD. Since we had a defective Canon lens in part one, this test begins with an update to the resolution/sharpness test, and then goes on (and on) about Focus Breathing and true focal lengths.
In the process, I reference two videos, one by Matt Granger, and more briefly, one by Tony Northrup. Their videos can be found here:
Matt Granger's Video: • BEST 70-200mm f2.8 lens
Tony Northrup's Video: • Tamron, Sigma & Canon ...
MUSIC:
All Songs Released Under Creative Commons Attribution License
Against the Wall, by BoxCat Games
freemusicarchiv...
Mission, by BoxCat Games
freemusicarchiv...
Rolling, by BoxCat Games
freemusicarchiv...
One of the best review I've watched on lens...
glad to see someone with some proof behind their statements rather than another guy blowing smoke because he heard something from somewhere else and it must be true.
Thanks for doing the measurements! I suppose it would have been more accurate for me to say, "An indicated 200mm on the Tamron is the same as an indicated 150mm on the Canon."
But, I can't understand any reason why you wouldn't want it to be longer than 200mm. After all, you can always zoom back further, but you can't zoom in further.
I'll also add that several other people have measured the effective focal length of the Canon 70-200 and come up with 190mm or 195mm at the minimum focus distance. As you said, it's a pain to measure and it's only really interesting relative to other buying options, so I'm not going to bother, but I have seen multiple measurements that conflicted with yours, and one of you is wrong.
Tony Northrup Oh, I'll add that I'm not going to amend the video because your data conflicts with multiple outside sources, but if someone ever validates your findings, I'll happily add a note. It doesn't impact any of the results, anyway, but it is an interesting bit of trivia.
Tony Northrup
Hey Tony, thanks for taking the time to respond here. You're right, of course... the difference between the "150mm" mentioned in your video and the measured 170mm is not very significant; I took you to be speaking loosely rather than providing a definitive measurement. I included it only because I had received questions from other viewers specifically about your comparison, not because I thought you'd made an egregious error.
When I first measured the Canon 70-200 and got something over 200mm, I assumed that I'd made a mistake, and did it again. And again. And again. When I measured at additional distances to the subject and found them converging on 200mm as the distance reached infinity, I started to accept them, especially after my measurements of other lenses matched my expectations for them, so I wasn't concerned about the methodology.
I eventually found published data that supported my measurements of the Canon. One was from DPReview. I'll post them here as soon as I can dig them up again.
Tony Northrup
From dpreview:
"The EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM changes its angle of view quite markedly on focusing, becoming narrower at closer distances. This is much the same behavior as the older lens and most others of this type, but notably opposite to Nikon's 70-200mm F2.8 VR II, which gets rather wider on focusing closer."
www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/3
would you guys recommend this on a DX for weddings - or is that just too far
Christopher Li-Reid
Absolutely. The 70-200 f/2.8 is great for events, whether on a full-frame or APS-C sensor.
I find this a little bit strange. I Part I the Tamron picture was sharp, but in Part II the Tamron picture was not sharp. Why is that?
To be clear, the Tamron was very sharp in both parts... but slightly less sharp in Part II. These were two different lenses, and there is going to be a range of variation between samples of any lens. In the first one, I was just using a slightly sharper sample, but again, even the one that's less sharp is still very sharp.
Matthew Gore APS-C Shooters start trembling... I always trusted Tamron prime lenses. I own an old Sony A200 and the best of all my four lenses is the Tamron 90mm F2.8 as I even don't need to edit a photo taken with it. Sharpness is absolute. Almost zero chromatic aberrations at max aperture and this lens is the only one I can use in autofocus. I didn't know anything about focal length issues like focus breathing. I targeted onto the Tamron 200mm 2.8 thinking about sharp animal action with background blur and some nice aviation photography in example a very detailed wing tip photo with a smooth background blur due to the fixed aperture (thus also faster AF performance). Knowing that full frame lenses "show further" focal lengths I said OK, I may get a Tam. Watching this video has made me dare it again. "What? Only 170mm?" I wanted a telephoto, 200mm equals almost 300mm BUT, 170mm Full equals 260mm Crop (1,5×)... Thought I might have a nice ultra-sharp prime fixed aperture 300mm but I even stay shorter than with my Sony SAL 75-300 f4.5-5.6 (which is a Nature's engender)... unless my nowadays' Sony 300mm BREATHES EVEN MORE... Let's see if I may see some special "Pack lens review!" Thanks for the video, Matthew.
Matthew Gore
I meant with full frame lenses "show further focal lengths" as you mount them in a crop sensor... Sorry for that ambiguous explanation.
! yea !very confusing!?
I saw that video by Matt Granger and I could tell just from watching it that the Canon was breathing in the opposite direction. I kept waiting for him to mention it and was shocked when he never did. I was even more shocked when Tony Northrup didn't mention it either in his video since he seems to be a little more technically minded then Granger. I really like your more scientific and unbiased approach to testing things like this.
I appreciate this comparison. In the end, I bought the Tamron and I think most photographers (at least non pros like me) should do the same. In our case we are looking at bang for our buck since we don't expect to make the money back and since the differences are only noticeable on a "lab" test the Tamron is a no-brainer. If I was a "pro" I would have no problem justifying the Canon or Nikon but it would just be for the badge really and maybe the resell value.
Excellent and thorough reviews. Unlike some others I neither felt you trashed Northrop and Granger nor do I feel either of them are lacking in any way. You posted well executed evaluation which was more objective than some others at times, but in aggregate all the reviews overwhelmingly suggest the Tamron is so good that the price difference is what ultimately tips the scale. Unless you really want to pay over a thousand extra dollars for very minimal gains the Tamron is an excellent choice.
I also liked that you acknowledged you had a confirmation bias yet still presented your findings objectively.
I coincidentally own this Tamron and do not regret saving what ended up being $1600.00 in comparison to the Canon. Almost a no-brainer for me.
Thanks Kevin :-)
Great review! Thank so much Matthew.
You are fucking scientist for lenses!
Hope Northrup and Granger see this.
Thanks mate for outstanding review!
Please do it more often!
I love all of the technical information you included! This was such a good review! I am not in the market for a 70-200 right now, but with this information I might start looking for one of the Tamron lenses. Keep up the good work! I can't wait to see more reviews!
What a long wait for the part 2, but well worth it. Excellent review and good work!!
Great...I finally understand what focus breathing is. Thank you.
Hello I saw 2 vedeo ..
Just question. .does the deference in price between two lenses equal the deference in quality and resolution. ..
Thanks ..
amazing comparison and high quality video. amazing work matthew. this helped a lot and was very informative thank you
I have a Tamron 70-200mm and very sharp and the money I saved by buying the Tamron is in my bank not my camera bag, great video with super info!
Dear Matthew, this is just a perfect review of "famous" 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.
This is a really serious review with solid results.
Thanks a lot. Together with your 'Part I' review, it is very informative and in full detail.
Meanwhile, in the end of your review you asked us for which lenses you would make a review.
My vote is on a comparison review between the "new" Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC vs. Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS! That should be the challenge between two pro & fresh wide angle lenses in the market!
Thanks Kaan. I think that's the second vote for a comparison with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. It's a tough call what to compare it with: the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II shares the same maximum aperture, but the f/4L IS shares the image stabilization and price. Both would probably be interesting. I wonder if I could get away with shooting them at the same time... :-) And of course, there's the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, which has a similar, bulbous front element.
Of the bat, you are one geek, in a good way... this is the first time I've actually seen someone has actually broken down what focus breathing is and how it affects the focal length. I almost changed my mind on buying the Tamron until I saw your review... Thanks for taking the time to share this, definitely subscribing to your channel!
Great video. You cleared up some confusing information about focus breathing using these lenses. I'd love to see more videos from you.
You out-scienced Tony Northrup! Well done! I disagree with people saying you're putting the other reviewers down. You stayed on point and corrected a clear mistake on their part. There's nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, I bet Tony and Matt appreciated the correction, if they saw this video.
He really didn't correct them, because there was a difference in focal length on the same picture at the same distance. It's not like Tony or Matt were changing focal lengths or changing distance. The problem would be for the Tamron if you were trying to get as close as possible to the subject, say 5 Ft, You would get a bigger magnification of the same subject with the Canon. It's probably not a big deal to some people
marioslrzn
"It's not like Tony or Matt were changing focal lengths or changing distance"
That's the point exactly.
I don't think Focus breathing should be consider an excuse for not obtaining near 200mm at all distance, but I guess that's why one cost $1000 more because they didn't cut corners...
marioslrzn
Agreed.
Been waiting forever for this! And thank you for focus breathing test. Seen both Matts and Tonys "testing" of focus breathing and they didn't match what people are reporting, so I didn't buy it.
Would love your view on the 50/1.4 Art.
Appreciate your rigor in this review, and I also appreciated your saying, out loud as it were, that you'd wished you had used the same Tamron sample in both parts of the review. My only personal regret with the Tamron, which I own, is that it's close focus distance isn't the greatest, but I'm certainly very happy with the lens, and the money I didn't spend otherwise. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for this video. I regularly watch Tony and Granger's videos, and was very confused over which 70-200 f2.8 lens to get due to their videos and statements about focus breathing.
Thank you for clearly explaining this issue. Best of luck to you!
Thanks for your video. I have the Tamron and very pleased with it. I like having all the facts and I appreciate everyone effort to provide this info including Tony and Matt.
This is probably the best and most sensible video I've ever watched, thank you.
+Lekang Productions Thanks :-)
I'id like to mention two ponits:
first the Canon is parfocal (focus @200 mm and change the focal length whitout changing the focused point) - I really can't say if this is a really big deal, but it is a difference and for sure part of the higher pricing.
The second is the support of the AF-System: referenting to the 5d's manual (Page 79 ff in the german one), the Canon 70-200 is ranked as group A (5 dual-crosstype AF sensors in the center). I asked Tamron germany where they place their 70-200 (brief translation in the brackets):
>>Das Tamron Objektiv SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD [IF] MACRO ( Modell A001E) entspricht mindestens der Gruppe F (model A001E is at least group F: only 47 of 61 AF-fields are used,).
Das Tamron Objektiv SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD ( Modell A009E) entspricht mindestens der Gruppe C (model A009E is at least group C- 61/61 are used but only the center block of AF-Fields is crosstype).
(both answers aer very careful- maybe the support is higer and they do not want to get problems because of beeing too optimistic?)
Keines der beiden oben aufgeführten Objektive ist parfokal. (noone is parfocal)
Thank you for bringing a rational level of discussion to the focus breathing situation. Much appreciated. I also wish you'd had the same Tamron lens for both reviews but agree that they're close enough that it's clear a good copy is all you need for good performance, either way. Nice work, sir.
Hey Matt, just wanted to say thanks. I know you don't have as many videos as some others out there but yours I've always felt cut through the bs and get to the most important points with some actual knowledge as well as math and science when necessary so that other people don't get bad info out there. Also I love that you're a local Seattlite. Keep up the vids man!
Thanks Paul!
Thanks Mathew, I glad you were able to clear this up for me because I'm in a quandry as to which lens to purchase. One factor that wasn't covered in the comparison was the minimum focus distance, if it comes up again please include that specification. Thanks again, Gary.
Thanks Matt, like all of your videos this comparison is super informative with no bias in either direction.The time you take to not only complete the thorough comparisons but to produce such high quality and well informed videos is truly a refreshing change.
I own both lenses (had the Canon first, intended to sell one after getting the Tamron), its really is a super close call when it comes to image quality. I actually prefer the Tamron to stay in my bag for that reason, that and its a more comfortable lens to mount, use and change on the fly (for me).
Thanks again, so well done!
Would LOVE to see a comparison of the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD and the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS once the Tamron starts shipping. Thanks so much for your videos. They are extremely insightful and clearly a lot of your time goes into them. Keep it up!
wow finally a good comparison. now i need to find a good one for the newer version of both lenses
After owning the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for about 1-1/2 years, I reviewed this video again, which was helpful in making my decision to acquire it the 1st place.
I am giving some thought to selling lens (since my backpack weighs in at 30+ lbs.) because of it's weight @ 52oz (the newer G2 is about 53oz) in favor the new 70-210mm f/4 @ about 30oz.
I'm waiting for Rev. Dustin Abbott's 70-210mm review(s) beginning this week, 5/7/18) as I am not into 'event' shooting and lean more toward landscape/wildlife photos.
I also own the new Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC USD (A035) that I purchased after Rev. Abbott's reviews and that lens at 40oz does it all quite well (in addition to the 18-400mm).
Am I a Tammy fan boy..?? I should say so..!!
In addition to Rev. Abbott, Mr. Gore's video reviews are the easiest to understand, based on common sense, expressed in simple terms, w/out a hint of favoritism' or extraneous 'props' of any kind and w/out my need to backtrack over and over again to better understand what they are saying ..!!
This is in comparison to Matt Granger, that former 'Nikon Guy' (if I remember correctly) whom I respect and who is easy to understand, adds pretty young girls to his reviews who fiddle w/their revealing clothing to attract you to his workshops, as does Jason Lanier..!!!
I have nothing against 'Capitalism, to which I am also fanboy.!! LOL!
While Tony and Chelsea have written an excellent DSLR book and that they produce beautiful work based on experience and insight, it should be obvious that Tony does not like to be corrected or challenged probably because his viewer turnout might be jeopardized (just read his replies).
Tony contradicts without any additional evidence to support his 'views' with the intent driving you to his site.. OK, I get it..
I have noticed that when it comes to hardware, Tony's videos are more often than not, 'corrected' by other reviewers, to include his own corrections, and that Tony's breathy 'metro-sexual-effeminate' delivery might be more important to him than getting his facts straight..
It appears to me that Chelsea is the one who wears the pants in that family..!!
Sorry Tony, I calls 'em like I see's 'em.. LOL!
All in all, Matthew Gore hit's it out of the park..
I may just hold on to the 70-200mm just a little longer..
Thank you Mr. Gore for your common sense, in depth, factual and obviously time consuming review and good-natured rebuttals.
Great review, thanks. I think you are correct when you mention that you should have used the same Tamron lens from part 1 against the 2nd copy of the Canon. Why no mention of the difference in warranty? 6 years for Tamron vs. 1 year for Canon. I do not think you bashed Matt and Tony. You put forth your methodology and stated your facts.
Finally someone who know what he is talking about, not just another commercial guy. Excellent explanation and video. After your video I made decision to buy Tamron 70 200,cos simply budget ,:) but I really would like to ask for a video between Tamron 24 70 and Nikon 24 70. I can`t decide if I should spend more for Nikon or not,cos I just start with weddings , portraits etc.. I really appreciate your helpful videos. Greeting from Slovakia.
Brilliant Mathew thanks for your time and effort,we need guys like you out there
Very well done! Settling the Focus breathing debate with actual science. I've personally run into this misinformation problem in the real world with people as I own a Tamron for my Sony camera. One time I struck up a conversation with a Canon shooter asking me what I was shooting, showed him my lens.. "Oh, that has about the same maximum focal length as mine does", pointing to his EF 28-135mm.
I kinda stopped talking at that point and walked away, grumbling that someone's been watching too much Tony Northrup. I like many of Tony's videos but never agreed with the "Focal length is not as stated" argument he made about the Nikon, Tamron and Sony versions compared to Canon. Granger's was at least a bit more reasonable, but your video proves what I'd thought about this subject all along, that the Canon simply breathes outwards.
Outside of that it comes down to personal taste, but there's nothing really wrong with the Focus breathing behavior of any of them, if anything the Canon's the freak. Thank you for finally clearing it all up! Cheers!
Maxwell Starr Matthew pretty fully supports the statement that the focal length is not as stated on the Tamron and Nikon. I've never reviewed the Sony.
Tony Northrup Thanks for the response. I have noticed you've never reviewed the Sony but one of your reviews was still crucial in helping me make my decision to buy the Tamron, a lens that I have been exceptionally pleased with since I bought it.
As for the Focus breathing issue, Matthew also points out that the focal length on the Canon is not as stated either, but as opposed to the Nikon/Tamron (and presumably the Sony/Minolta as well though I've never used it) the Canon focus breathes outwards, and reality is that at close distances the Tamron is not 150mm and the not Canon 200mm, but 180mm and the Canon closer to 220mm, with both being roughly 200mm at infinity.
It's great that Matthew Gore has been nice enough to crunch the numbers and do the math on the subject, and put some physical numbers to a subject that clearly many have their own take on. The key thing is that no matter which lens you buy, no one is really being cheated in the focal length department, and all said there's nothing really wrong with any of them and becomes more a matter of personal taste. After all, it's the images that matter.
Saw your video..went to test both lenses...bought the Canon one..boy its sharp and beautiful there is a difference in IQ most noticeable at f2.8 and the overall quality is worth the price Difference..very happy
Very well done
Thanks Matt!! Welcome back and nice work. Looking forward to seeing your upcoming project for 2015.
2 videos back you did 35mm prime comparison Sigma/Canon and upon reviewing posted past videos you have yet to compare a wide angle lens. I would like to see option 2 (sigma 18-35mm f1.8 "art") review next as you have just completed telephoto and doing a wide angle review would see you come full circle in comparing the available product spectrum.
Great review. Glad to see this follow up video.
Kudos Matthew on measuring the focus breathing.
I find that the wider focal length at close focus distance to be useful when shooting indoor sports. It helps to get a couple more shots of a subject approaching me. (e.g. being able to fill the frame with an approaching ice skater as opposed to getting a half-body shot.)
Great video, I have always been confused about the comments made when watching matt and tony video comparisons with both these lens.. Your explanation was very helpful.
Hope you do a review on the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. It's only for APS-C. You make some great reviews/comparison videos man!
Granger is almost always wrong...
+L Fan Ouch!
Very interesting, this might have me sold on replacing my Canon 135mm F/2 with a Canon 70-200 2.8 II. I very much like the idea that it is longer in focal length, particularly at head shot range at 200mm.
Thanks for the review I have the Tamron and yes all lens breath it's just not mentioned that they breath in different directions with the Canon have more magnification and less for the Tamron, but you will only notice it if you have the two lens to compare. And I found nothing wrong with the corrections of the other reviews, we must remember that individuals are looking for information to aide in their purchasing and often times there's incorrect information to be found but if you don't know which is correct it effects an individuals purchasing a lens based on incorrect information. I found nothing wrong or incorrect with the testing methods and explanation or mentioning of the other reviewers the fact of the matter sometimes we get it wrong.
Outstanding review. This helps lot of people to decide which one to bag.
Thanks for all the details.
Great testing, great points of views, neutrality, professional... i was considering the Tamron, which i think think its a great lens, but based on both videos (part one and two) i will get the Canon. After all, all of my lenses are canon L line. it would be odd to break that consistency for a few hundred bucks, which i can make rather quickly. Thank you kindly for the two videos!
Thanks Matt. Very informative as I’m about to buy the Tamron lens
subbed, this is quality mate
If you focus on something close with the zoom ring at 200mm and the actual focal length goes to 210mm, you can just zoom out to bring it back to 200mm. This can't be done if the actual focal length is less than 200mm. Also I use a tele to get close to my subject and separate it from the background. The Canon has clearly better focus breathing behavior (I don't shoot videos).
Good review, but maybe one significant thing that is left out is the flare resistance of the two lenses .
Amazing video, and thanks....not only for all the effort but the explanation of focal length and breathing. Truly helped me out.
I think that in this case the breathing issue is less with the canon (longer than 200mm) because we are talking about a telephoto lens. But if we are talking about a wide angle lens maybe we'll be more happy if the real focal lenght is shorter than the declared one.
Excellent review!
finaly you are back... keep it coming!
The best explanation of focus breathing! Thank's a lot!
I'm also a follower of both Matt and Tony. I think it is to everyone's benefit when we are all allowed to debate an issue and learn from one another. I found it particularly interesting about the focus breathing in the opposite direction. Thanks for the informative video!
Would love to see you review a Sigma ART :)
Would it be possible for you to include a Nikon in your comparison?
I like the way you treat test and experiment but not base on basic observation then make conclusion.
I would like to see a comparison between the Sigma 24-105mm and the Canon 24-105, especially concerning the transmission of the lenses.
Hey man... any reviewer that goes to the trouble of using an arctan calculation properly (or hell, even improperly! haha) has my vote! I have subsequently subscribed.
Another vote for review of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and maybe compare it with some primes!
Thanks for the review. I have been researching, researching and researching. I am going to buy a TAMRON because of the price difference.
Great review, I gave you a thumbs up and am subscribing! I own a mix of lenses and switched from the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 to the equivalent Tamron model. I found the image quality better and the Tamron has IS. I also sold my Canon 100-400 and went with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and saw a marked improvement in sharpness as well as the extra reach at 600mm. I find the Tamron build quality to be excellent and it's worth noting that Tamron offers a 6 year warranty over Canon's 1 year.
I have been considering upgrading from my Canon 70-200 f2.8 I lens and after this review think I will go with the Tamron.
Objective reviews are objective. THANK YOU for bringing objectivity to these reviews.
Thank you for CORRECT information Matthew.
keep posting videos buddy. Too many idiots got really popular on Utube buy telling nonsense. They think they are "pro" because they shoot weddings. Anyway great video. Thank you.
Nice video! I love my canons 70 300 focus breathing because it gives higher reproduction ratio.
Excellent review and explanation of focus breathing. Thanks for your hard work and I did subscribe.
Really very very georgeous your test, i already commande a Tamron and its on road to me. Thank you man.
again, another great explanation and comparison. well done!
I really liked your scientific approach to comparison in both Part I and II. Thanks for your efforts and the videos. Much appreciated. And a question: have you worked with Tamron LD version? The VC Tamron is beyond my budget and apart from the obvious difference of IS vs non-IS, I want to know what am I missing in terms of image quality.
Hands down the best reviewer! This guy is the man!
Todd Davis . I don't think he was being disrespectful in any manner. He was just pointing out the lack of research and technicality of the observations they had done.
Please do another one of these comparing the G2 to the Nikkor E and the Canon IS2
Always a great support. Thank you for a nice video!
Fantastic review Matt. Thank you.
Hi Matthew, I don't know if this has been asked, how does this compare to Canons MK 1 version IS 70-200mm 2.8. The reason I ask, I am in the market for a 70-200mm 2.8. The Canon MK 1 version used is around $1000-1100, about the same as a Tamron used. Thoughts?
my tamron was a bit tilted, shimming at the mount helped.
then i had to swing and tilt the front group a little, and now it absolutely smokes the rental canon 70-200 i had a chance to compare it to.
Thanks so much for setting the record straight on the focus breathing!! I am curious if you've tried the Sigma version of the 70-200 f2.8? Was wondering how it compared to these 2...
Thanks for making focus breathing clear to me :) helped a lot
Make a review of the sigma 18-35 F1.8 please I think this lens is really interesting considering it's sharpness and the fact that it's the fastest zoom lens ever !
Hi Mat, would you review about Tamron sp 15-30mm f2.8 di vc usd lens? This is the most happening glass right now. Thank you
I'll put that on my list. It would be interesting to see how the Tamron compares with the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.
thank you for putting your time and effort into very helpfull reviews!
looking forward for your next review.
- you got a fan from Croatia!
By far the best reivew/comparison. Do you maybe know if Canon 200/2.8 prime has "beathing" same as their zoom? I am kinda between Tamron zoom and Canon prime, thinking which one to buy?
I've been on the fence on which one to purchase. I'm wanting to use it for my son's baseball and soccer games. I'd use it for portraits too. I'm not a professional yet. However I do get a some gigs. I shoot with a 6D, and own a 135L, 35Art, and 50 1.4. I have just enough money in gift cards/amazon to purchase the canon. I'm not sure if it's really worth the 1K more. I'd like to add the 85Art (once it comes out) and I'd sell my 135L. TIA
You should try yourself in the tilt-shift section. For example comparing Canon's 24mm tilt-shift against Samyang's 24mm tilt-shift lens!
Great video! I went for the Tamron to save some money and I am very well pleased. I haven't played with it much but I did a low light video test for anyone interested in viewing it and you can find it on my channel.
You did not mention the extra deformation of the Canon on 200mm. Look at the building @3:37
Hello Matt, can you please further explain which formula did you use to calculate the focus breathing and how can we use the same to calculate it for other lenses knowing the MFD and max magnification) Thanks
So what went wrong with the Canon IS II lens in the first video?
+Duncan Teh It just needed to be serviced; it had a centering problem, I believe... basically one of the elements was knocked out of alignment. These things happen. Sometimes lenses will ship that way, sometimes they get that way with harsh treatment or pressure changes while flying, etc. I'm not sure about that specific lens.
Such Detailed and well presented review. Thank you.
Definitely Subscribed.
Matthew, Thanks for your excellent review. I recalled in one of your video you mentioned that you will give Tamron 15-30mm a review. I still could not find the video. Can you please confirm whether this has been done? Thank you Matt.
+Sammy Lin Hi Sammy. Not yet... I'm hoping to publish it this month, though. I've done all the testing (mostly last June), I just haven't had time to finish the video. Should be done soon.
Brilliant Comparison done...
Great comparison! And what a beautiful bass guitar there at 8:21
Cool man, I like your style. Well done
Hi Matthew,
First of all nice video...keep it coming. i just wanna ask you what are your thoughts about the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. i'm in the market for 70-200mm lens, but my budget is kinda tight. what would you suggest for me to go for? i have a Nikon D7000...God bless!!!
-thanks-
Sey BC It's been a long time since I used the Sigma 70-200. I'm not sure it was the same as the one currently available... they went through a lot of iterations pretty quickly for a while there. In my experience, though, the Sigma was significantly softer at the 200mm end of the zoom than either the Canon or the Tamron, especially at f/2.8
Subscribed! I would be interested in a comparison video of the two 400mm lenses from Canon, f/5.6 and f/4.
i m about to buy one of the canons 100-400 f4.5-5.6 mkii or the 70-200 f2.8mkii. which one should i choose. i do have a
sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens but its loud and slow in focusing and sometimes drives me far away from my subject because the minimum focus distance is ... a drama. i'm working sometimes side by side with a fellow fotographer who owns a canon 70-200 f2.8 mkii and at 200mm he is at half distance from me. do you think that canons 100-400 mkii can used as portrait lens? thanks
Great video, both parts are awesome. Do you think getting the Tamron for a crop lens like a 70D is a waste? I would be using it for outdoor model photography, but I'm still more of a beginner than anything...
+LProds I don't think it would be a waste at all. My advice is always to buy the best lenses you can afford, for your needs. If you had very specific needs, that might mean buying the Canon, but for models, the Tamron should be great.
+Matthew Gore Thanks a lot for your prompt response. I appreciate it.