Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 70-200 f/4.0 non IS for weddings

[alberto_ayala]

<p>Hi<br>

I am a wedding photographer and I am lookng for a 70-200 lens without spending to much money. I read reviews about the Tamron lens having slow AF but the image quality is good. I like to now if any body have use the Tamron 70-200 in weddings which is my major used for the lens or should I go with the Canon 70-200 f/4.0 non IS L lens.<br>

My other question: Is the f/4.0 lens as not as fast as the 2.8 is a good choice if I go with the canon?<br>

Thanks<br>

Alberto Ayala</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Alberto,<br>

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 tends to review slightly better than the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. In the reviews, neither ranks as high as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4 is said to be pretty much as good as the f/2.8 in IQ, you just lose a stop having f/4.<br>

I would think that stop would be pretty important if you shoot weddings indoors where light is low and flash is not allowed.<br>

All that said, I'm not a wedding photographer and I don't have any of the lenses in question.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[tdigi]

<p>You may want to consider a used Canon 70-200 2.8 (non-is ). I see them pretty often on Craigslist. Assuming many upgrade to the IS version.</p>

[aubreyp]

<p>Shooting weddings is hard enough *with* f2.8 + IS. I wouldn't want to do it without... Depending on how many weddings you do a year, consider renting the Canon f2.8 IS. For $60/day, it will be a small part of your expenses.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have the Original Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which is an excellent lens and is equal to the Canon 70-200 in image quality. The problem is it is not built as well, can not focus as close, and is slower than the Canon 70-200. For weddings I would definetely recommend the F2.8 over an F4 espeacially for a long 200mm lens where it is important to keep your shutter speed equal to the focal length I.E. 1/200 when zoomed to 200MM. You didn't mention the camera you use. With my Canon 30D the Sigma and the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 were fine. However, now that I have upgraded to the Canon 5D Mark II I am upgrading all my lenses to Canon L-series. If you think your going to be doing this for a while I would save your money and invest in L-series lenses Now! </p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>hould I go with the Canon 70-200 f/4.0 non IS L lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can only comment from experience on the Canon f4L IS and non-IS versions with respect to their photographic results. I used to own the non-IS version. I now own the IS version. The IS version af f4 is sharper. The IS lens overall is an optically superior lens and the results are worth the additional outlay of cash.</p>

<p>However, I would agree with the other recommendations here and that is to shoot weddings with the f2.8L IS Canon version for the bokeh. I cannot comment on the differences in autofocus speed between an f2.8L and f4L, but f2.8 theoretically should give you an autofocus edge. Especially if you are mating the lens to a 5D which has additional focus points for f2.8 and faster lenses.</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>Get the Canon-there is nothing worse than slow autofocus when you're shooting a wedding. I recently traded my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for the Canon 24-70L, and it was one of the best moves I have made-I missed too many shots due to the slow AF on the Tamron lens.<br>

I would suggest getting the f2.8 version, especcially if you can find it used. Check out KEH.com-they occassionally have them, and also keep an eye on Craigslist.</p>

[eric_larsen4]

<p>I'm an amateur who's never shot a wedding and I don't have that Tamron lens. But I have shot other family events at churches and I do have the 70-200L/4. Although its a really good lens, I'd never bring it into a church. Just to slow. I did recently upgrade to an old Canon 80-200L/2.8. You have a lot better chance in a church with the extra stop and it is a wonderful lens. You can find used ones for about the same price. Mine is 19 years old and has a scratch in the front element that you can feel with your finger nail. But, it focuses just as fast and has better image quality than the f/4.</p>

[commortis]

<p>...If you're buying and can afford it, buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS. If that's too much cash then buy the tamron.<br>

I rented the canon and the tamron from Lensrentals.com for a month apiece, and used a friend's sigma for a couple weeks. Nothing outdoes the canon: nothing. On the other hand, iq can be approached with the tamron quite nicely - and the tamron's iq and bokeh were, for me anyway, superior to the sigma. Outdoors or in any well-lit scene it is pin-sharp wide-open, and indoors the tamron can capture stationary targets, or from a stationary position, with only the barest obvious difference from the canon; in fact you would have to compare the images closely, side-by-side, to see that barest bit of difference. F/2.8 makes much difference indoors, and for stopping action, so for a wedding I wouldn't bother limiting myself with f/4.<br>

I bought the tamron based on my budget. Though there's no IS, build quality is on a par higher than standard consumer lenses, and at its price point it's good to have for my wanderings. I'll rent the superb canon if I'm being paid.</p><div></div>

[mercedes1]

<p>I'd rent the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. I've tried the f/4 and really missed the extra speed when using it, so bought a 70-200mm 2.8 IS. I shoot to get people's spontaneous portraits and scenes at weddings while the other photographer takes all the priority "Wedding shots". During setup people are getting ready indoors at their homes or something and the light is very rarely bright so the speed of 2.8 is a must. Sometimes even that is too slow and I sometimes have a 50mm 1.2 on the other body.</p>

<p>I've tried the Tamron and the IQ is good, but the autofocus really lets it down. Slow and inconsistant. It was bad enough that I stopped using it after 15min (I'm prone to 'Boredom Chimping' when waiting around and almost had a seizure when I looked at what the lens was producing). I could have just had a rubbish copy, though.</p>

[commortis]

<p>...I do count myself lucky in that I got a good copy of the lens first time: I tried it out at my local calumet photo and the AF was fine out the box; though slow for sure... More than half the time, though, I focus manually anyway...</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I agree with DS about the Sigma vs the Tamron. I have owned the Sigma and can tell you it was very close indeed to the Canon's I now own, on IQ anyway. The canons seem to focus faster/more smoothly.</p>

<p>It's a very close call between the F4 IS and the F2.8. I usually stop down the F2.8 to F3.2 for total sharpness. Now thats only 1/2 stop from F4. And with IS you may even have the advantage. Remember the slightest movement on the camera end makes for much more blurriness than a moderate movement on the subject end. This is why IS is so important on longer lenses.</p>

<p>Also the F4 canon is so much smaller and lighter than any of the F2.8 lenses in that focal range.</p>

<p>Now if you decide to go F2.8, you might as well save some money and get the Sigma. Spend the savings on another flash.</p>

<p>Or, save a bundle and get the canon F4 without IS and use a nice tripod for the cerimony shots. Lot's to think about. Maybe rent for a few weddings and try different thigns till you know.</p>