Lens Comparison: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC USD vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (PART 2)
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 01. 2015
- 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
freemusicarchive.org/music/Box...
Mission, by BoxCat Games
freemusicarchive.org/music/Box...
Rolling, by BoxCat Games
freemusicarchive.org/music/Box...
What a long wait for the part 2, but well worth it. Excellent review and good work!!
You are fucking scientist for lenses!
Hope Northrup and Granger see this.
Thanks mate for outstanding review!
Please do it more often!
One of the best review I've watched on lens...
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.
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.
amazing comparison and high quality video. amazing work matthew. this helped a lot and was very informative thank you
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.
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!
Brilliant Mathew thanks for your time and effort,we need guys like you out there
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.
Outstanding review. This helps lot of people to decide which one to bag.
Thanks for all the details.
Fantastic review Matt. Thank you.
Always a great support. Thank you for a nice video!
Great review! Thank so much Matthew.
Amazing video, and thanks....not only for all the effort but the explanation of focal length and breathing. Truly helped me out.
finaly you are back... keep it coming!
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!
thank you for putting your time and effort into very helpfull reviews!
looking forward for your next review.
- you got a fan from Croatia!
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!
Great review. Glad to see this follow up video.
Excellent review and explanation of focus breathing. Thanks for your hard work and I did subscribe.
Great video. You cleared up some confusing information about focus breathing using these lenses. I'd love to see more videos from you.
This is probably the best and most sensible video I've ever watched, thank you.
+Lekang Productions Thanks :-)
again, another great explanation and comparison. well done!
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!
Thanks Matt. Very informative as I’m about to buy the Tamron lens
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.
Great...I finally understand what focus breathing is. Thank you.
Excellent review!
Such Detailed and well presented review. Thank you.
Definitely Subscribed.
The best explanation of focus breathing! Thank's a lot!
Thank you very much !
Great video & well explained !
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.
wow finally a good comparison. now i need to find a good one for the newer version of both lenses
Thank you for CORRECT information Matthew.
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.
subbed, this is quality mate
Really very very georgeous your test, i already commande a Tamron and its on road to me. Thank you man.
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.
Really liked your review. Thank you
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!
Interesting review.. I learned something! Thanks for sharing
Brilliant Comparison done...
BEST review - thank's a lot for this!!!
Thank you! Excellent video
Fascinating, informative and useful - thank you!
My pleasure. This was a fun one to make :-)
Awesome work!
Great review!
for the new canon copy, does it still have the IS noise like the part 1? thanks
***** Yes, that remains the same.
Thanks for making focus breathing clear to me :) helped a lot
Hands down the best reviewer! This guy is the man!
amazing comparison!
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!
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.)
Thank you for the informative videos :)
Very well done
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.
Cool man, I like your style. Well done
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.
excellent review.
Objective reviews are objective. THANK YOU for bringing objectivity to these reviews.
Outstanding ... Thank you.
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'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?
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!
Great Review
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.
what a great review! looking forward for more reviews based on really data and science, not just blind guess. good job!
Thanks for the review. I have been researching, researching and researching. I am going to buy a TAMRON because of the price difference.
Love this video!
Precise job. thanx
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...
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!
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!
Great comparison! And what a beautiful bass guitar there at 8:21
Nice video! I love my canons 70 300 focus breathing because it gives higher reproduction ratio.
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.
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.
Elegant Review..
Great video.
Subscribed! I would be interested in a comparison video of the two 400mm lenses from Canon, f/5.6 and f/4.
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.
Interesting... nice video!
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.
Please do another one of these comparing the G2 to the Nikkor E and the Canon IS2
Lot of interesting info here.
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.
I like the way you treat test and experiment but not base on basic observation then make conclusion.
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 work buddy.
Thanks Mike!
@@thewetpen 😂
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.
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
Bravo!
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
Hello I saw 2 vedeo ..
Just question. .does the deference in price between two lenses equal the deference in quality and resolution. ..
Thanks ..
what a video mate 👍
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!?
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?
Great videos. Can you put the Canon 70-200 Mk I to these tests?
Please can you review the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. I have this lens partnered with a D7000 and bought it mainly on the strong review of Tony Northrup and although its now become my "go to Lens" for indoor and out door, I do find that it has a hard time focusing in low light situations. your review may reveal to me if this is a general short-coming of the lens or if I've just got a poor copy