Originally, I was deciding between the Canon 70-200mm f/4L ($635) and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 ($769).
The Tamron is arguably as sharp as the renowned Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, at $500 less. I decided to give the Tamron a shot (I already have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that I love). The auto-focus can be (or appear to be) a little lazy in low light, but I really don't think it's as bad a people lead you on to believe. I did some quick tests and found that it is *not* front or back focusing, which were reported as problems with at least the early release copies.
Oddly enough, I think it performs well, but my confidence has been shaken by the fact that I have gotten "Error 01" half way through shooting in both times that I've mounted it on my camera. I haven't had any issues with others lenses. If I have time, I'm taking it back tomorrow to at least have it inspected, but likely to exchange it.
Now I'm heavily considering the highly coveted Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L, but $1300 is a big number to swallow given that I'm purely a hobbyist and there are times I don't touch my camera for a month. The Tamron has a 6 year warranty, vs. only 1 for this Canon. But both Canons have USM motors, while this one comes with a tripod mount (so does the Tamron) and is environmentally/weather sealed. The f/4L doesn't come with a tripod mount ($145 for official Canon mount), but it is a smaller and lighter package, which would be beneficial in some situations.
I'm mostly thinking out loud in front of a different audience. A friend says he wouldn't even second guess it - if he could get the Canon f/2.8L, he'd do it in a heartbeat. People on a photography forum had similar sentiments.
I have a Canon 480EX II flash, so I can certainly "get by" with the f/4L. I can think of a lot of things to spend the $600 difference on vs. the f/2.8L.
What would you do?
The Tamron is arguably as sharp as the renowned Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, at $500 less. I decided to give the Tamron a shot (I already have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that I love). The auto-focus can be (or appear to be) a little lazy in low light, but I really don't think it's as bad a people lead you on to believe. I did some quick tests and found that it is *not* front or back focusing, which were reported as problems with at least the early release copies.
Oddly enough, I think it performs well, but my confidence has been shaken by the fact that I have gotten "Error 01" half way through shooting in both times that I've mounted it on my camera. I haven't had any issues with others lenses. If I have time, I'm taking it back tomorrow to at least have it inspected, but likely to exchange it.
Now I'm heavily considering the highly coveted Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L, but $1300 is a big number to swallow given that I'm purely a hobbyist and there are times I don't touch my camera for a month. The Tamron has a 6 year warranty, vs. only 1 for this Canon. But both Canons have USM motors, while this one comes with a tripod mount (so does the Tamron) and is environmentally/weather sealed. The f/4L doesn't come with a tripod mount ($145 for official Canon mount), but it is a smaller and lighter package, which would be beneficial in some situations.
I'm mostly thinking out loud in front of a different audience. A friend says he wouldn't even second guess it - if he could get the Canon f/2.8L, he'd do it in a heartbeat. People on a photography forum had similar sentiments.
I have a Canon 480EX II flash, so I can certainly "get by" with the f/4L. I can think of a lot of things to spend the $600 difference on vs. the f/2.8L.
What would you do?
