This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
For the money, this is much better. Your use case requires a lens that can zoom and takes high speed pictures. Because your target is in motion, you want a faster (larger aperture) lens.
If you need something faster (lower light, indoors, more action), the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is incredible.
Here's my rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist taking picture and post it online and not planning to make money off of it, you'd be fine. If you're a pro, I would invest more and go with canon, you know there would be no compatibility issues down the road + canon lenses last way longer.
This or canon 70-300 f4-5.6 usm ii? Lens sharpness wise... need something to shoot my kid's soccer game.
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
8
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I have a canon M50 and I not using my camera that much had a bunch of f2.8 and f4 lenses when I used to have a D750 and then sized down wondering if I should get the 18-400 or this 70-200 f/4 lens. Will these be good for shooting indoor events like at a church or the f2.8 is needed.
I plan to use it with canon 80d too. But i already own a Canon EF 70-300mm IS II USM. How do they compare? can you shed some light
Sorry, I've never used that lens. That lens is variable aperture and this is fixed @4. I don't know that I would upgrade for that, but if I were choosing between them new, the fixed aperture is going to let in a lot more light over the zoom range.
Actually Kumicho said it better in a previous post
Kumicho
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
Last edited by sjaxkingpin May 12, 2021 at 10:22 AM.
Sorry, I've never used that lens. That lens is variable aperture and this is fixed @4. I don't know that I would upgrade for that, but if I were choosing between them new, the fixed aperture is going to let in a lot more light over the zoom range.
Actually Kumicho said it better in a previous post
Kumicho
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
Thank you for such a detailed insight. Appreciate it.
I own this lens in EF mount, It is fantastic. Very sharp across the whole zoom range and even wide open out to the edges of the frame. Focus is fast and quiet and the lens is very small and light for a 70-200 class lens. For $400 is you don't mind the f4 maximum aperture this lens is a no brainer.
Top Comments
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
If you need something faster (lower light, indoors, more action), the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is incredible.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
67 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
That Canon L lens is really good
Some Reviews:
18-400 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Xc0tMQ5Tc
100-400 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEou9h
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Actually Kumicho said it better in a previous post
Kumicho
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
Actually Kumicho said it better in a previous post
Kumicho
FYI, the variable-aperture lenses (like you posted) ramp smaller awfully quickly. So the 70-300mm is f/4 from 70mm to 103mm, and then is f/4.5 from 104mm to 154mm, then f/5 from 155mm to 228mm, and then f/5.6 from there on out. As a result, as you zoom in, your aperture gets smaller (and number after the f gets bigger), and you end up possibly having your subject be blurry since you'll need to lower your shutter speed in order to compensate.
The Tamron posted is f/4 throughout the range, so after ~100mm it will have a wider aperture, which will let in more light, and allow you to have a faster shutter speed to reduce blurriness. That being said, there's not a huge difference between the two, so if you already have the 70-300mm you're probably not going to see that much of a difference. The 70-210mm also only goes to 210mm, so you might miss some shots if they're too far away.
Just some thoughts.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!