image quality difference between canon 70-200 vs tamron compared to canon 24-105?

P

payal_choksi

New member
Hi all,

i am confused between canon 70-200 f4 vs tamron 70-200 f2.8 as they are placed together in terms of price. right now 24-105 f4 is my only lens.

the point that holds me from pulling the trigger is image quality. if i use tamron with my 24-105, will the shots taken with tamron look very different? though tamron's f2.8 is very tempting, i am more concerned that it may look cool or washed out or warm or anything that will make the footage completely different in comparison with canon 24-105. i just don't want tamron to be an odd one out when used with canon 24-105.

am i right in my thinking? pls help with your valuable advice and suggestions

regards,

:smile:
 
I had to make a few assumptions about which lenses you were reffering to. I guessed that you meant the Canon 70-200 f4 with image stabalization as opposed to the one without. I also am assuming you own the first version of the 24-105. With that in mind:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF70-200mm-f-4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__255_1009_1027_1009_164_1009

As you can see the Tamron is the sharpest, let's in the most light and has the least distortion. However, It also has a good amount of vingetting (which is bad.) With Canon you are partially paying for the name. That being said, Tamron is a 3rd party manufacturer and i've seen Tamron lenses have compatability issues and randomly exhibit weird behaviour. I believe the Tamron will also focus opposite direction to the Canon.

As far as the difference between your 24-105 and the 70-200 (aside from obvious focal length) is that the 24-105 has a lot of distortion and is not a very sharp lens.

My advice is to stay away from Tamron. Tokina is a step up. Sigma's new line of lenses are awsome, typically at a fraction of the price of Canon.
 
Last edited:
In that case, here is the DXO comparison:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF70-200mm-f-4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-AF-70-200mm-F28-Di-LD-IF-MACRO-Canon__255_1009_164_1009_622_0

The Canon is now the sharpest lens and the Tamron has a good amount of vingetting but you get about 1.4 stops of light with the Tamron. Personally I woudln't buy into any of these. If you are shooting video with it, I would save up get something with image stabalization. The Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS is expensive but a grade A lens. Also, I am guessing that sigma will eventually put out a 70-200 2.8 with OS. Maybe even a Contemporary and Sport version of such a lens.
 
I realize that the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II is over twice the price, but I recommend waiting until you can find the funds to purchase that lens. You will never regret it. The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is regarded as one of the greatest zoom lenses ever made. A veteran feature film DP who can have whatever lens he wishes for his work once gushed over that lens to me when he saw me shooting bts with it on his set.

The Tamron is likely a 70-200mm that you will eventually want to replace with something better. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 isn't. You will never want for more in a 70-200mm photo zoom. It has become a cornerstone of any EF zoom lens package. It is "the" interview lens for most shooters using still photo glass. I just wish it was available in basic black as opposed to that goofy cream colored housing. For some reason I associate the color with hobbyist Birders. :grin:
 
Thank you everybody for your comments, suggestions and advise. Based on your replies Canon 70-200 f2.8 II seems to be the best lens to go for. But for someone, like me, who shoots with 24-105 f4 and finds that quality acceptable, going for canon 70-200 f2.8 II seems to be an overkill (of course considering the price).

But here, we are comparing Tamron AF 70 - 200 mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro and Canon 70-200 f4 with canon 24-105 f4. So keeping the 24-105 f4 as base, which one of the two would blend with it? will there be a very vast noticeable difference in terms of image quality if i use Tamron AF 70 - 200 mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro along with 24-105 f4, that the viewers may notice it?

i just don't want the viewers to feel the difference in the two lens when they see the final film, where different shots will be put back to back.

regards,


 
dustylense said:
Buy cheap...Buy twice.
Click to expand...

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lenses are not robust- too many floating plastic mechanics. It is entirely possible to buy expensive and buy twice.

We literally dont know what medium zoom to buy for our canon setup. We own two 70-200 tilt shift lenses - they tilt and shift as the IS bounces about.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lenses are not robust- too many floating plastic mechanics. It is entirely possible to buy expensive and buy twice.

We literally dont know what medium zoom to buy for our canon setup. We own two 70-200 tilt shift lenses - they tilt and shift as the IS bounces about.
Click to expand...

Turn the IS off. Rock solid. Or try a different IS setting.

My point is that this is a strange complaint for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's not known for mechanical issues. And most people don't expect the IS to work for anything more than stationary handholding for which I've never seen any issues in mode 1. You might want to look at the 100-400 II. That lens is robust and has just as good IQ as the 70-200 f/2.8 II. It's quite a bit slower, but the IS is slightly better.
 
morgan_moore said:
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lenses are not robust- too many floating plastic mechanics. It is entirely possible to buy expensive and buy twice.

We literally dont know what medium zoom to buy for our canon setup. We own two 70-200 tilt shift lenses - they tilt and shift as the IS bounces about.
Click to expand...

You own two 70-200 "Tilt-Shift" lenses? LOL.

I have the 70-200 f/4 that is 10 years old. Built like a tank
I have the 70-200 2.8 V1. Built like a tank
I have the 70-200 2.8 VII. Built like the Death Star.

The V2 is the best Zoom I've ever put on a camera.
 
Yep we have 180 macro - sharp, 70-200 4 non is - sharp and both versions 70-200 2.8 v1 and v2 - both are muzzy, problematic and seem to be constantly cycling through CPS
I'm convinced it is the is.
it is a problem bacause the af on the other lenses is slow - it might be time for a 200/2 but they are too big
 
nyvz said:
In other words, if it's less than half the price, get it. :p
Click to expand...
I know you're joking but...

If you are looking for equipment that you want to last years and give you the quality you wish for, and you see a top brand at $2000 and a competitor at $800 and think to yourself "I can save $1200 and work with what I got" only to use it for awhile then down the line you borrowed the $2000 product and it destroys your $800 product? Then you end up replacing with the $2000, you have now spent $2800 in which you could have spent $2000 in the first place and been happy the from the get go. It works own all walks of life. And over time ends up saving you money and farthing your image to the standard you wanted in the first place.

It's just friendly advice from a person who has been shooting for 24 years and has made the same mistake over and over again.

You can always rent while you save up for the right piece of equipment.....
 
payal_choksi said:
Thank you everybody for your comments, suggestions and advise. Based on your replies Canon 70-200 f2.8 II seems to be the best lens to go for. But for someone, like me, who shoots with 24-105 f4 and finds that quality acceptable, going for canon 70-200 f2.8 II seems to be an overkill (of course considering the price).

But here, we are comparing Tamron AF 70 - 200 mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro and Canon 70-200 f4 with canon 24-105 f4. So keeping the 24-105 f4 as base, which one of the two would blend with it? will there be a very vast noticeable difference in terms of image quality if i use Tamron AF 70 - 200 mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro along with 24-105 f4, that the viewers may notice it?

i just don't want the viewers to feel the difference in the two lens when they see the final film, where different shots will be put back to back.

regards,
Click to expand...



So many replies, but none answering the question or point that is raised. we are digressing from the topic. You are talking about the durability of 70-200 but nothing related to the topic. pls put your views regarding the message that is in the quote.
 
morgan_moore said:
I do t know if there is newer data but 70-200 are specifically singled out for poor reliability
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013/

my my advice is to buy and trade out every two years
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. Interesting. Lens Rentals note that they think the 70-200 of any make or variety is the most likely to have more frequent issues due to the size and number of elements. Most of the problems seem to be optics going out of alignment. This really shouldn't be a problem unless you drop the lens. Again, the 100-400 VII tear down seemed to show it being a more robust lens, but I doubt it would be much better than the 70-200 if you are having problems with larger zooms.
 
payal_choksi said:
So many replies, but none answering the question or point that is raised. we are digressing from the topic. You are talking about the durability of 70-200 but nothing related to the topic. pls put your views regarding the message that is in the quote.
Click to expand...

I believe the DXO test scores answered all of that early on in the thread. Everyone else is contributing to factors that should be considered beyond pure image quality scores of a lens which is the beauty of an online community. Collectively (and often individually) We have lots of experiences with different lenses and sometimes what looks best on paper is not recommended in the real world.

Since we have practical knowledge of the lenses and manufacturers, it's very hard for any of us to say, that "Tamron" looks great on paper so we recommend buying that. Our experiences will ultimately save you money.
 
payal_choksi said:
So many replies, but none answering the question or point that is raised. we are digressing from the topic. You are talking about the durability of 70-200 but nothing related to the topic. pls put your views regarding the message that is in the quote.
Click to expand...

See if this will answer your question,
Depending on how sensitive you are to the color or other things, but most normal human client is very difficult to tell which lens you actually use buy watching the end product.
I have used Tamron lens from time to time, most recently I own the 24-70VC 150-600VC . Picture quality is fine if you can accept the 24-105L( acture the new tamron 24-70 VC or 70-200VC are better ). I am sure if you are getting an old one it is comparable with similiar lens that were release the same time
Also there are lots of negative comments on the Canon 70-200L (IS) on its reliability in least few years. So serious thoughts before buying. My friend broke hers couple weeks ago. Canon is of very old design (10years) and the tamron new generation of lens( those with 5-7year warrantee) are much better.

If you are planning to get the new Tamron 70-200 or Canon 70-200F4, I will suggest you to get a second hand Canon 70-200L with or without IS, they are great.



Very sad to say, if you get paid for a job a white lens with a red line at the end can get u questions that are less embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top