Kjøp av objektiv. Canon 70-200 IS USM eller Tamrom AF 70-200 f/2,8 Di LD (IF)

[Hansforum]

Firmaet vårt skal kjøpe et zoom objektiv, men har ikke bestemt seg.

Jeg ønsker å kjøpe Canon 70-200IS f2,8 USM, mens en annen ønsker Tamrom AF 70-200 f/2,8 Di LD (IF). Prisforskjellen er jo en viktig forskjell, men er det stor forskjell i kvaliteten?

Gir det

Jeg har veldig lite kjennskap til Tamrom.

Kameraet vi har er CANON 450D.

Vi tar bilder i områder med mye bevegelse og mørke krevende forhold. Det skal ikke bæres så vekt har liten betydning.

Takk for alle konstruktive svar.

Har ikke mulighet til å svare på noen dager, men skal svare tilbake så snart jeg er tilbake.

[sanztra]

Nå kjenner jeg ikke Canon sin, men jeg har fått med meg at Tamronen har tregere AF som kan bli et issue mtp mørkt og bevegelse.

[k-ryeng]

Optisk skal Tamron være et lite hakk bedre (marginalt uansett dog), mens AF er bedre/raskere på Canon. Dersom det ikke skal bæres er vel ISen ikke noe vits, så da kan dere jo også se på 70-200 f/2.8 uten IS, for å redusere prisen men likevel beholde kjapp AF.

[Hansforum]

Vi skal ta bilder på havet av båter i bevegelse etc uten stativ, så det er viktig med IS. Så Tamrom har bedre optikk? Det var overraskende.

[PorridgeHaus]

jeg har den Canon utgaven og er veldig fornoyd. Veldig fort og skarpt.

 

En dumb ting med tredjepartslenser er at nar Canon gir ut en ny kamera er det ikke sikkert den tredjepartslenser funker lenger. Det skjedde til meg en gang med en sigma macro lensa.

[MrLee]

Hvis du skal ta bilder på sjøen av båter i bevegelse, gjerne da raske båter, så nytter ikke IS... det fungerer stort sett bare på stillestående motiver. Hvis det er snakk om saktegående båter, så vil det muligens være mer vett i det. Men med litt sjø, så vil jeg tro at en rask lukkertid er tingen uansett. Det er måte på hva IS kan utjevne av bølger

Endret 15. juni 2009 av MrLee

[steinrr]

Optisk skal Tamron være et lite hakk bedre (marginalt uansett dog),

 

Stemmer dette? 70-200-objektivene til Canon er kjent for å være noen av de skarpeste objektivene Canon har laget...

[MrLee]

70-200 f/2,8 IS er vel mindre bra optisk enn 70-200mm F/4 IS (virker iallefall å være den generelle oppfatningen).

 

Meget mulig da at Tamron 70-200mm er bedre optisk

[btl]

Det kan kanskje være hensiktsmessig å investere i et kamera som kan ta bilder med høyere ISO uten at det gir så mye støy. Jeg synes iallefall 800ISO er det meste man kan bruke uten å ødelegge bildet med for mye bildestøy. Bildestøy på Canon 5D mkII på ISO 3200 gir tilsvarende støy som Canon 450D på 800ISO. Det vil si at du med 5D mkII kan ta bilder med 4 ganger raskere lukkertid med omtrent samme bildestøy som Canon 450D.

 

Har ikke leste noen tester om Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, men tviler på at denne er bedre optisk enn Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS eller 70-200 f/ 2.8 L. Mulig den kanskje er bedre enn 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

 

Hva med fastoptikk da? Canon 135 f/2 L kan nok også anbefales, Hvis den ikke blir for trang?

[k-ryeng]

Har ikke leste noen tester om Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, men tviler på at denne er bedre optisk enn Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS eller 70-200 f/ 2.8 L. Mulig den kanskje er bedre enn 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

Nei, den er ikke bedre enn 70-200 f/4L IS, men den er like god eller bedre enn 70-200 f/2.8L IS optisk, ifølge DPreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron...8_c16/page6.asp

 

Indeed if we look solely at the studio optical tests, it is a resounding success, as the technical quality of the images this lens can produce is superb throughout most of the range, matching or even outperforming the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM.

Edit: kan legge til at det nok for de aller fleste formål er snakk om marginale forskjeller i praksis!

 

Når det gjelder andre egenskaper som AF-hastighet og byggekvalitet er den ikke på linje, skjønt byggekvaliteten er meget god også på Tamronen. Har ingen personlig erfaring med noen 70-200L, så jeg skal ikke uttale meg om den, men tviler for å være ærlig at noen egentlig vil ha problemer med byggekvaliteten til Tamronen, det er nok mest vrangvilje som vil få folk til å velge Canon "basert på byggekvalitet".

Endret 15. juni 2009 av k-ryeng

[Hansforum]

Det jeg sitter igjen med er at etter de innspill her er at Tamrom er den linsa jeg bør velge, at de ekstra pengene jeg bruker på Canon linsa ikke er nødvendig, det var litt overraskende, men hyggelig for budsjettet vårt.

[Boralis]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx

 

 

 

A slow and noisy Micro Motor powers AF in the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens. The slow speed makes this lens inadequate for most action/sports photography - which is disappointing given the fast aperture and telephoto focal lengths.

 

 

 

 

Overall conclusion

 

The SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro is certainly a very creditable effort by Tamron to produce a high quality, yet affordable fast telephoto zoom. Indeed if we look solely at the studio optical tests, it is a resounding success, as the technical quality of the images this lens can produce is superb throughout most of the range, matching or even outperforming the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM. It's slightly soft wide open in the middle of the zoom range (most visibly on the more demanding APS-C/DX sensor format), but stop down a little and the quality really starts to shine through. Resolution is excellent from corner to corner, chromatic aberration is generally very low, and vignetting about average for a lens of this class. The close minimum focus distance is very welcome, especially as image quality holds up pretty well, and the rendition of out-of-focus regions of the image is very pleasant; this may not be a substitute for a true macro lens, but it's not bad at all. About the only flaws are the slightly high distortion on full frame (unlikely to be a problem for most typical uses of a telephoto zoom) and occasional severe flare issues with strong light sources just outside the frame (which tends to be a weak point of fast telezooms generally).

 

The big problem with this lens, however, lies in the focusing systems. The autofocus motor is relatively slow and noisy, which puts it at a major disadvantage compared to its ultrasonic motor-equipped competitors, simply because AF performance impacts strongly on many of the typical uses for a fast telezoom lens. The slow speed of the motor means focus tracking simply isn't fast enough for sports or action, or even children running around playing; it's also a distinct problem in low light or with low-contrast subjects, where the lens can take what feels like an eternity to achieve focus. This is compounded by the noise the motor makes, which could be a real problem in situations such as wedding or event photography for which the user wishes to remain unobtrusive; discrete it is not. Also the Tamron lacks a focus limiter switch, so has a tendency to hunt back and forwards through its entire range when it fails to lock focus first time. But perhaps the biggest problem we encountered was a tendency for the lens to mis-focus, seemingly at random and disturbingly frequently, such that F2.8 shots in particular were often not critically sharp (although it must be pointed out that this may be specific to either our test sample, or the Canon mount version).

 

However it's not just the autofocus system which is an issue, and the manual focus isn't perfect either. The use of the push-pull clutch on the focus ring to engage manual is a good idea in principle, but not perfectly implemented in practice; the action is remarkably noisy (in context, the click-clunk noises on switching between AF and M are substantially louder than the shutter release on any current DSLR, including the top-end professional models such as the Nikon D3 and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III), and the focus ring has a bad habit of sticking in an intermediate position in which the gearing isn't correctly engaged, and manual focus doesn't work properly. Also, it's not possible to use autofocus to pre-focus on a specific point then switch to manual, as the focus distance can often be thrown in the switchover. Finally, the manual focus ring is just a little too highly geared, with relatively short travel between infinity and the close focus of 0.95m, making critically accurate manual focus difficult to achieve (certainly outside of live view).

 

Now it must be acknowledged that we've only tested this lens in the Canon EF mount, and we can't assume it will behave in exactly the same way on other mounts. We'd presume that the Nikon version shares the same AF motor system, so will likely be just as noisy and probably as slow, but may well not suffer from the accuracy problems we observed with Canon bodies. It's also fair to say that the body-driven Pentax and Sony versions may behave rather better all round. Of course users of these two brands will then have to put up with the irritation of needing to select manual focus using both the body switch and the focus ring clutch, but that would be a small price to pay for the prospect of having these excellent optics benefit from a faster and more consistent autofocus system, especially on a body with built-in image stabilization. (Indeed on that point; it's a pity Tamron couldn't have incorporated the impressive stabilization system from their 28-300mm VC lens into the 70-200mm, at least for the Canon and Nikon mount versions.)

 

So ultimately what we have here is a flawed gem, a lens which fully capable of delivering excellent images, but also frustratingly capable of missing focus on that once-in-a-lifetime shot, either through mis-focus or simply being too slow. And this is a real pity, because the optical quality of this lens is genuinely superb. Now if you shoot mainly outdoors in bright light, the focus speed and noise issues probably won't be a great problem (especially if you're not trying to track fast moving subjects), in which case this lens could well be ideal. However if you shoot frequently in low light, need to track erratically moving subjects, or demand quiet operation, then the relatively unrefined autofocus will leave you frustrated. Also, whilst the mis-focusing issues we observed can certainly be mitigated by taking multiple shots if you have the time and opportunity, that's simply not always possible. Because of these issues, the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8, despite its stellar optics, just fails to take our top award.

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron...8_c16/page6.asp

Endret 16. juni 2009 av Snekker`n

[MrLee]

Det jeg sitter igjen med er at etter de innspill her er at Tamrom er den linsa jeg bør velge, at de ekstra pengene jeg bruker på Canon linsa ikke er nødvendig, det var litt overraskende, men hyggelig for budsjettet vårt.

 

For all del, om du har pengene, gå for Canon. Autofokusen alene er verd de ekstra pengene. (og så kommer byggekvaliteten og gjennsalgsverdi og IS attpåtil)