Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Lens Shootout

Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Lens Shootout

Is The Brand Name Worth It? Here’s The Truth INCLUDING What They Don’t Want You To Know!

At the time of this writing you can pick up the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras for only $1999 after rebate on Amazon. That’s a savings of about $500 over what the lens cost just a short time ago.

Next you can pick up the Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon EF or Nikon Cameras for only $1499 on Amazon. That’s a savings of $500 over the cost of the Canon.

Finally you could pick up the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon, Nikon, Sony or Sigma for only $1199.00 on Amazon. That’s a savings of $800 over the cost of the Canon and, $300 over the cost of the Tamron.

GO TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR THE VIDEO REVIEW

About Johnny Yakubik

Johnny Yakubik is the Founder- Editor- Publisher- Chief Cook and Bottle Washer at Modern Lens Magazine. He’s a professional family and portrait photographer living in Southern California. You can see some of his work at http://californiabeachphotography.com

47 comments

I purchased the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens after much deliberation & research. I had initially wanted the Canon L version but went for the Tamron after doing my research and because it was about a third of the cost of the Canon lens. So far, I’m absolutely delighted with it and so glad that I saved my self many hundreds of $’s!

Since F/Stops determine DOF, why isnt every lens set to the SAME F/Stop to have an apples for apples DOF comparison.. ??? AND why are the final shots not raw from the camera and already photoshopped ?? Not sure what this was meant to show, other than framing at different distances..

Since F/Stops determine DOF, why isnt every lens set to the SAME F/Stop to have an apples for apples DOF comparison.. ??? AND why are the final shots not raw from the camera and already photoshopped ?? Not sure what this was meant to show, other than framing at different distances..

It’s funny, I’ve watched the video several times over the months and each time, I don’t see the things this guy Tony is pointing at and I actually see quite a bit that he doesn’t point out. I also note that he is comparing the v1 instead of the FAR superior v2. Only you can decide if it’s worth the extra cost though and if you’re shelling out the kind of money required for a 5Dmiii or better, why short cut on your glass? The Canon has a number of real advantages including weather sealing, better image stabilization, higher maximum magnification and super fast and accurate auto-focus when tracking moving subjects. The Sigma also has a real issue with the focus breathing (the closer you get to a subject, the shorter the focal length) and that there is much more copy variation than with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. One shouldn’t have to send a brand new lens back to the manufacturer but that is what is required all too often with Sigma. If money is an issue strongly consider the 70-200 f/4 IS before the f/2.8 Sigma. You’ll get better low light AF with the f/4 IS Canon and, unless you are right on the edge of not enough light, you can bump the ISO to compensate. If you absolutely need f/2.8, fork out the money for the Canon (version II). When spending this much money, why would you want to second guess whether the dollars saved were worth it and why low light action shots have such a high rate of missed focus.

The Canon Lens dropped $500 since Tony created that video but still costs a lot more than the Sigma or Tamron. I used this video to help me decide but ultimately I did choose the Canon because of the focus breathing he pointed out.

It’s funny, I’ve watched the video several times over the months and each time, I don’t see the things this guy Tony is pointing at and I actually see quite a bit that he doesn’t point out. I also note that he is comparing the v1 instead of the FAR superior v2. Only you can decide if it’s worth the extra cost though and if you’re shelling out the kind of money required for a 5Dmiii or better, why short cut on your glass? The Canon has a number of real advantages including weather sealing, better image stabilization, higher maximum magnification and super fast and accurate auto-focus when tracking moving subjects. The Sigma also has a real issue with the focus breathing (the closer you get to a subject, the shorter the focal length) and that there is much more copy variation than with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. One shouldn’t have to send a brand new lens back to the manufacturer but that is what is required all too often with Sigma. If money is an issue strongly consider the 70-200 f/4 IS before the f/2.8 Sigma. You’ll get better low light AF with the f/4 IS Canon and, unless you are right on the edge of not enough light, you can bump the ISO to compensate. If you absolutely need f/2.8, fork out the money for the Canon (version II). When spending this much money, why would you want to second guess whether the dollars saved were worth it and why low light action shots have such a high rate of missed focus.

The Canon Lens dropped $500 since Tony created that video but still costs a lot more than the Sigma or Tamron. I used this video to help me decide but ultimately I did choose the Canon because of the focus breathing he pointed out.

i saw this video last year and followed his advice. i bought the sigma new version and used the savings to buy the tamron 24-70 vs. im very happy bacause these brands work for me with very little loss of IQ compared to canon or nikon. I use lenstip.com before buying any lens. money is the issue here and hes right you can get more equipment if you saved the money. i am team photographer for highschool football and very happy with sigma 2.8 i can shoot with less light and the images are sharp. it really boils down to technique. now if you make a living out this and for status sake then you get the original brand but the small difference in IQ will not be worth $800. Canon only has a small advantages in corner edge sharpness at 2.8 and slighty faster autofocus. but with the right technique like stopping down the aperture and correct auto focus setting and post processing, its really hard to know the difference. you need good eyes and side by side comparison…as ive said the difference will not be $800. im happier with my decision because i can shoot weddings too with the tamron 24-70 which performs very similar to the canon too…goodluck

i saw this video last year and followed his advice. i bought the sigma new version and used the savings to buy the tamron 24-70 vs. im very happy bacause these brands work for me with very little loss of IQ compared to canon or nikon. I use lenstip.com before buying any lens. money is the issue here and hes right you can get more equipment if you saved the money. i am team photographer for highschool football and very happy with sigma 2.8 i can shoot with less light and the images are sharp. it really boils down to technique. now if you make a living out this and for status sake then you get the original brand but the small difference in IQ will not be worth $800. Canon only has a small advantages in corner edge sharpness at 2.8 and slighty faster autofocus. but with the right technique like stopping down the aperture and correct auto focus setting and post processing, its really hard to know the difference. you need good eyes and side by side comparison…as ive said the difference will not be $800. im happier with my decision because i can shoot weddings too with the tamron 24-70 which performs very similar to the canon too…goodluck

I did a few side by side test with the Canon and the Tamron. I was actually saving for the Canon when the Tamron was finally released. I actually had $1500 saved towards the Canon. After my SIDE by SIDE photo test I was actually impressed how much SHARPER the images were using the Tamron. Also the colors were more rich right out of the camera. Detail was phenomenal. I was sold and have been happy with my purchase. After using this lens for over 2 years maybe almost 3 I can say that the lens holds up well and produces some phenomenal shots. There is NO need to spend an extra $1000 for the Canon version in my opinion. As he says in the video….you can use that money towards many other things for your photography. The Tamron came with a $100 rebate when I bought it and a 6 year warranty. Totally happy with my purchase.

I actually bought that Tamron 70-200 2.8 earlier this year. I have used it off and on for various activities. Hockey games, a wedding and some birding. I was recently unsure of my choice of it and wondered if I should have made the bigger investment and gotten the Canon 2.8. I was wondering if the image quality would be much different, thanks for answering that question for me. I do find that when I zoom in extremely on a image taken with the Tamron it seems that it pixelates quicker and almost very squarely. I will continue to use it and be a little more confident in it’s results.

The sheer weight of the canon lens tells you that your holding a much higher quality lens. Metal, and glass with little plastic. I pay for the name, because canon stands for quality and they back their product.

Tony; as usual Great review! We always like the balanced reviews you and Chelsie put together. We’ve used the Tamron 70-200mm lenses for about two years for portrait and weddings with great pics and no problems. Guess we don’t sling them around too often – LOL. As for the focusing noise you here? I didn’t know if you have a bad copy or just really sessivive hearing, but the two we have seem quite and never seen anyone look toward us when focusing ?? Yah Thanks again for the review.

Leave a Reply

*