Matt Needham
07-15-2010, 12:05 PM
I've owned the Tamron for at least 4 years, and the Canon for about a year less. I've used both for a lot of wedding, portrait, landscape, and live music photography. They've been mainly used on 5D and 5DII bodies, but also some work done with APS-C Canons. Here is my experience and opinion on these lenses.
Max aperture: The Tamron is about 1/3rd stop faster at f/2.8. I can't discern any change in DOF, but it's easy to see the exposure difference.
AF: I can't tell any difference. Most of my photography is done in low light, and they both give the same speed and accuracy. There is a huge difference in the AF performance of the Tamron and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses I've compared, but not with these standard zooms.
Color and contrast: I don't notice any difference.
Bokeh: They both exhibit typical fast zoom lens bokeh, IMO. It is not the same, but I'd say each suffers and excels in different situations. Nothing to really complain or brag about with either.
Center sharpness: Both are very, very sharp at f/2.8. More than sharp enough for my needs. At f/4 they both resolve even more fine details. In large prints I cannot see any sharpness difference even compared to my Canon primes.
Corner sharpness: The Tamron is soft in the corners, but the Canon L is just as soft and sort of smeary looking. I really don't like it, and since using a 5DII it's driving me crazy. I think there is something wrong. The Canon is being sent off for a tune up.
Lens flare: The Canon flares more easily. That may be just because it's got more glass on the end.
Warranties: Tamron = 6 years. Canon =1. I have had to send the Tamron in once when an internal part broke (aperture was stuck on f/22). It was covered by the warranty, and I've had no other problems. This will be the first time I'm sending the Canon in. I assume a tune up will cost me $150-$200.
Size: The Tamron seems a lot smaller. It definitely weighs less. I like that. The Tamron filter size is 72 and the Canon 77.
Build quality: The Canon has more aluminum. Except for that internal part the Tamron is holding up fine. I guess the Canon is weather sealed, although since I can't afford a weather sealed Canon body that doesn't mean anything for me. Supposedly it's dust sealed also, but it appears to have just as much dust in it as all my other lenses.
Price: Here's the hum-dinger. I think the Tamron cost just under $400, and the Canon just under $1300.
They are both pretty good lenses, but considering all of the above I'd have to say that I'm much happier with the Tamron. If the Canon was around $700 I think I'd be pretty happy with it too. As is after three years I am not seeing anywhere near a $900 difference. Just my two cents.
Max aperture: The Tamron is about 1/3rd stop faster at f/2.8. I can't discern any change in DOF, but it's easy to see the exposure difference.
AF: I can't tell any difference. Most of my photography is done in low light, and they both give the same speed and accuracy. There is a huge difference in the AF performance of the Tamron and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses I've compared, but not with these standard zooms.
Color and contrast: I don't notice any difference.
Bokeh: They both exhibit typical fast zoom lens bokeh, IMO. It is not the same, but I'd say each suffers and excels in different situations. Nothing to really complain or brag about with either.
Center sharpness: Both are very, very sharp at f/2.8. More than sharp enough for my needs. At f/4 they both resolve even more fine details. In large prints I cannot see any sharpness difference even compared to my Canon primes.
Corner sharpness: The Tamron is soft in the corners, but the Canon L is just as soft and sort of smeary looking. I really don't like it, and since using a 5DII it's driving me crazy. I think there is something wrong. The Canon is being sent off for a tune up.
Lens flare: The Canon flares more easily. That may be just because it's got more glass on the end.
Warranties: Tamron = 6 years. Canon =1. I have had to send the Tamron in once when an internal part broke (aperture was stuck on f/22). It was covered by the warranty, and I've had no other problems. This will be the first time I'm sending the Canon in. I assume a tune up will cost me $150-$200.
Size: The Tamron seems a lot smaller. It definitely weighs less. I like that. The Tamron filter size is 72 and the Canon 77.
Build quality: The Canon has more aluminum. Except for that internal part the Tamron is holding up fine. I guess the Canon is weather sealed, although since I can't afford a weather sealed Canon body that doesn't mean anything for me. Supposedly it's dust sealed also, but it appears to have just as much dust in it as all my other lenses.
Price: Here's the hum-dinger. I think the Tamron cost just under $400, and the Canon just under $1300.
They are both pretty good lenses, but considering all of the above I'd have to say that I'm much happier with the Tamron. If the Canon was around $700 I think I'd be pretty happy with it too. As is after three years I am not seeing anywhere near a $900 difference. Just my two cents.