Novice question: How does this differ from the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/4-5.6?
2043801
Along with a much faster aperture, this lens is a SP, which means it has much improved optics, as well as image stabalization.
2043802
I believe the f/4-5.6 would be much lighter and not so large in diameter. I purchased the Canon F/4-5.6 rather than the Tamron simply because the price was reasonable, and it had a good review. The lens is so much lighter and easier to handle than the Tamron F2.5. I will lose much of my ability to snap photos in low light so I will have to compensate by raising the ISO level thereby having to live with "noise" in the developed photos. Ugh! But, I can't handle the large size of the F2....
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1756270
No personal experience with the Tamron, but sure it is excellent as well. I really like my Sigma and have no issues with it at all. Look up Matt Granger on YouTube for an excellent comparison on Nikon, Sigma and Tamron versions of this lens.
1779687
I had a d20 several years ago. Tamron has been a lens of choice from back in my film days. They have never let me down. That lens is very versatile and a great choice for your camera.
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
1668188
You mean the Tamron 18-300mm VC lens compare to 18-270mm lens. In my opinion the 18-300mm VC is a better lens for the price
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
2102763
I use Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for general purpose (also at night). I love its sharpness. It is also suitable for portraits. For the professional portraits, look at prime lenses with f1.4 or f1.8.
2158308
Don't know if Tamron makes the lens, but I am very pleased with the images produced. And I especially like the range 18-270 which gives me the maximum flexibility without having to carry 3, 4 or 5 lens.
1749583
if you specify a cannon mount for your particular camera you should be amazed at the versatility and beautiful pictures a tamron gives you I just bought a new cannon and I have the 18-55 standard lens I wish I kept my last tamron but I sold it with my last cannon {darn it!!!!!}
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
1864576
According to Tamron's website, there is a version of the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 lens for Canon. I am using these lens with a Pentax Kr and think it is a superb lens.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
382296
if your camera model has a better sensor that handles high ISO's well (i.e. little noise) the 70-200 F4 is fantastic ... I kept my F2.8 ( fantastic lens but much heavier plus mines an older version W/VR1) but never use any more as the F4 coupled with a D800 is a great combo
2057617
I've used the Tamron 18-270 for about 3 or 4 years on my Canon XTi and I love it! I can't compare it to a Nikon kit lens. It seems as sharp as my Canon kit lens though. If you can only carry one lens with you, this is the one. I now shoot with a Canon 6D with a 24-105mm Canon lens and it is noticeably sharper than the Tamron, but that may be because the 6D has a full-frame sensor. The Tamron will not fit my full-frame 6D so I can't compare the two lenses on the same camera body.
1345654
I don't shoot weddings (more indoor sports and landscapes, and I'm using a D90 rather than an FX body) so take this for what it is... I bought this as a budget compromise as well and while it is a decent lens I've never managed to really love it. The range of focal lengths and apertures provided is very useful, but to my eye I just don't get the same "pop" with this lens as some of my others, including even the cheap 18-105mm kit lens. I find myself eyeing the Tamron 24-70 often and will shortly replace this lens with it. That lens didn't exist when I bought the 24-85 but if I were making this decision today I would go straight for the Tamron or the current generation Nikon 24-120mm F4 instead. I don't shoot weddings (more indoor sports and landscapes, and I'm using a D90 rather than an FX body) so take this for what it is... I bought this as a budget compromise as well and while it is a decent lens I've never managed to really love it. The range of focal lengths and apertures provided is very useful, but to my eye I just don't get the same "pop" with this lens as some of my others, including even the cheap 18-105mm kit lens. I find myself eyeing the Tamron 24-70 often and will shortly replace this lens with it. That lens didn't exist when I bought the 24-85 but if I... » Read More I don't shoot weddings (more indoor sports and landscapes, and I'm using a D90 rather than an FX body) so take this for what it is... I bought this as a budget compromise as well and while it is a decent lens I've never managed to really love it. The range of focal lengths and apertures provided is very useful, but to my eye I just don't get the same "pop" with this lens as some of my others, including even the cheap 18-105mm kit lens. I find myself eyeing the Tamron 24-70 often and will shortly replace this lens with it. That lens didn't exist when I bought the 24-85 but if I were making this decision today I would go straight for the Tamron or the current generation Nikon 24-120mm F4 instead. « Show Less
650645
I have both lenses... the Canon 400 prime is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. I would however never use it with a converter... you will increase the f stop to much, at least for me. I would not replace the 400 prime with the Tamron. If I was buying new I would say its a toss up. The Tamron is soft wide open. The 400 cropped gives better results at least for me. I would however take the Tamron over the older Canon 100-400 zoom.