Lowlight focus speed comparisons?

[quenched]

<p>Hoi Zama!<br /><br />Im going to get the latest Canon or the Tamron 70-200mm, most of my usage will be low light rock shows with intermittent blinding! <br /><br />For me im happy with the centre IQ of the Tammy, my main concern is low light focussing speed/hunting factor. I saw a great comparison on youtube but nobody really tackles the low light focus issue. <br /><br />Typically i will be shooting highlights around 800iso 125/s @ 2.8.<br /><br />Can anybody enlighten me? Anyone shot both in similar conditions?<br /><br />Also what about those good old front/back focussing issues so common with the 3rd party cats, still an issue?<br /><br />Many thanks in advance, all related info and opinion welcome.<br>

Sam</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I don't know about focusing speed but can offer the following advice:</p>

<p>If you have a camera with the AF micro adjust facility then front/back focus issues can be resolved unless there is a serious fault. I wouldn't worry about that on a 70-200. If you were considering a Sigma 50mm or 85mm f/1.4 it would be a different answer.</p>

<p>With a Canon lens you know you are getting the best, both in terms of AF speed and optical performance.</p>

<p>If you're mostly shooting moving subjects you can save a serious wedge of money by buying the version of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L without IS. It is much much cheaper and is still a superb lens. It's an absolute bargain compared to the MkII version that has IS.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Tammy? ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I must assume you are referring to the Tamron 70-200/2.8 DI USD VC - NOT the Tamron 70-200/2.8 DI LD IF - as the focus speed of the LD IF unit is<em> vastly</em> slower then a 70-200/2.8L, plus (and more important in this shooting environment) it does NOT have full time manual focusing. In an environment like this, FTM focus is a <em>must</em> IMO.</p>

<p>IDK what camera body you are using, but as Jamie points out, front/back focus issues are largely (in most cases) mitigated by the AF microadjustment feature the 50D, 7D, 6D, 5D2, 5D3, recent 1Dn s are equipped with. I don't think you could convince me to buy a body w/o the feature as every single lens I own has benefited from using it (including the Ls) to a lesser or greater degree.</p>

<p>I think that the reason nobody really has 'adressed' this is because there is not a lot of difference in performance resulting from the different lenses. Most of the behavior is governed by the camera body, and in most cases a 70-200/2.8 USM/HSM/USD will behave very similarly to another variety in the same lighting environment. I know my experience has been that when comparing a 70-200/2.8 L with a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM perform nearly identically in identical conditions, and I've found that the 2.8L IS does about the same. I can't say whether the positional feedback sensor in the 70-200/2.8L IS II helps much in this respect, its possible it improves hunting performance, but I simply don't know (As I don't have a way to decompose the AF FW - which, again, would be body specific). </p>

<p>However, in this type of shooting, a 6D is going to be the best choice, as there isn't extreme subject movement, and the -3 EV sensitivity of the center point trumps the 1Dx, and the 5D3</p>

[quenched]

<p>Thanks crew<br /><br />I shoot a 5d3, mainly because i also get studio work. Interesting you think the 6D would be quicker Marcus.<br /><br />The bands i shoot tend to jump around quite a bit, as is the case with most event stuff the subject will do something really cool for a split second or so and missing it while the lens hunts even just a little is frustrating as.<br /><br />Manual focus in such low light can be tough and again speed is an issue.<br /><br />Stoked to hear you think the Tamron will be comparable to the L for focus speed in low light. I already have the Mk 1 70-200 L and have been coveting a mk2 for a while, when i saw the Tamron 24-70 effort i figured the big boy was worth clocking.<br /><br />Anyone else got experience with it?<br /><br />Cheers<br>

S</p>

[avinash_balakrishnan]

The 70D can fine tune focus with lenses . And 70D + Tamron 70-200 VC is a wonderful combo. AF has no issues in dim lit conditions thanks to f/2.8 . The 6D has the best center point in terms of AF, but if you are using other focus points, your 5D will be definitely be better than 6D or 70D and I don't think me or anybody need to tell you that. I've found the 70-200 f/2.8 L Canon to be as sharp, if not better than the Tamron and has lesser vignetting. I don't own the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L, but I've shot with it and found AF very nice and fast ( not in low light, so can't comment on that, but it should do fine as its very much like the tamron from my experience ). But if you are shooting at 1/125 s @ 200mm, I would strongly recommend the tamron or Tammy as you say it. Because I needed the VC, I went for the Tamron, but if u don't need VC, the Canon seems to be the better option as it is slightly lighter and you can get a cheap one used.

[quenched]

<p>Ok cool Avinash thanks. Just to be clear i am talking the Tamron VC vs Canon L II (ie latest incarnations).<br /><br />Is that what you are referring to mate?<br /><br />Cheers<br>

Sam</p>

<p> </p>

[avinash_balakrishnan]

I was referring to the non IS version. That's the one I was talking about. I think the sharpness would go like Canon 70-200 L > Tamrnon 70-200 VC > Canon 70-200 L IS II, if internet is the only source. But in real world , I'm not sure how many of us would be able to differentiate between them. And like I said for AF, I couldn't notice a difference between the tamron and non IS Canon in pretty good light. The T value ( value based on actual amount of light ) of Tamron is 3.2 versus Canon's 3.4, so in theory the Tamron may be better. But I would rather believe in real world analysis than this techy stuff.

This review from YouTube is really helpful, at least it did help me.

www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLyIFPOgaGEnkSi87e9phKbZRsBF-ZMpgU&v=Sqf6Q8Wkd_c&app=desktop&persist_app=1&gl=IN&hl=en&client=mv-google&guid=

 

So I went for a cheaper ( it still is not cheap, but competitively cheap ) 70-200 f/2.8 stabilized version which is the Tamron and it never disappointed me ( and I was so glad when I saw for myself that it did perform like the Canon L). The only disappointment I ever had was the 70-200 f/4L IS option I ignored. Its just half the weight, So when I'm carrying this lens for a certain long time, there were times I had wished the 70-200 f/4 L IS just might have lessened my pain, and it could have been enough. But the f/2.8 helps with that extra stop and I get back my happiness.

Hoping this helps and you will get your right lens. All the best ! :)

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p> Interesting you think the 6D would be quicker Marcus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not that the 6D would be 'quicker', it's that the center AF point is sensitive to a lower light level than any on the 5D3/1Dx (-3EV vs. -2EV). In extremely dark environments, this yields better results (better 'overall' speed, with less hunting, and easier AF confirm) because not only can the camera send the lens to the right point (can 'see' adequate contrast), but it can also more easily 'confirm' that focus has been achieved. Both of which are required before the camera will allow you to open the shutter.</p>

<p>For what you are describing, I would expect the 6D would significantly outperform the 5D3 due to it's ability to lock on in lower light than the 5D3. Clearly right now your 5D3 / 70-200/2.8L is struggling. I highly doubt a new 70-200/2.8 (of any variety) is going to improve that by itself. If I was looking at a new lens, I would probably look at a 135/2 or other fast prime. They will allow more light through, and allow significantly increased 'speed' (accuracy/reliability) of the AF system.</p>

<p>Even though the 5D3 is better at tracking moving subjects ( rockers bouncing around, BIF, football players, etc.), it can only track what it can reliably see. At such low light levels, it likely is having trouble achieving focus because it's AF points (all 61 of them) all are equally blind, whereas the 6D only has one 'eye' to see (that is so sensitive), but it's one eye actually can see in lower light.</p>

[quenched]

<p>Awesome guys thankyou all very much.<br /><br />Im going to get the Tammy and have a shoot off against my mates L II will let you know what i find.<br /><br />Might grab a 6D and if it performs as well as my 5D, i'll prob wind up with a pair of those and shift the 5.<br /><br />Again many thanks<br>

Sam</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>There's no way I would choose a 6D over a 5D Mk3 on the basis of AF. In the darkest and dimmest conditions there is a chance the 6D could lock onto a subject where the 5D3 couldn't. But would you even want to take a shot in such dark conditions with an f/2.8 lens? Unless it was a pic of Vladimir Putin in a passionate embrace with Obama then your shot will be worthless anyway.<br>

How many pro photogs would swap a 1DX for a 6D for "better" AF? The 5D3 has almost the same AF as the 1DX so that's basically what you would be doing in AF terms.</p>