Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for sports???

[JABACo]

If any of you have a preference or experience with either or these two lenses, I would greatly appreciate your input. I plan to get one of the two for indoor sports such as basketball, volleyball, cheerleading, etc. I currently have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for my 20D but I want one of these two lenses for my 10D. It will also be used for a general walk around lens. I can't afford the Canon L in this focal range.

[liza]

Get an 85mm 1.8 instead. An aperture of 2.8 is pretty slow for indoor sports. The 85 is fast focusing, sharp, and produces some great background blur. It's very reasonably priced, too, considering the quality of the lens. I have the Tamron you mentioned and felt it was too slow and too soft for sports. It's a fantastic walk around lens, but just doesn't cut it in the gymnasium, in my opinion. Just my 2 cents.

[JABACo]

Get an 85mm 1.8 instead.

liza, I have the 85mm f/1.8 and love it. But sometimes I need to reel it in. This is why I'm looking at one of these two lenses. But, your two cents is welcome anytime.

[Headcase650]

Get the sigma. Its focus is some what faster than the tamron and the build quality is on par with the 70-200 you already have. The tamron is mostly plastic and doesnt feel as strong.

[22littlereasons]

For indoor sports shooting, especially in the poorly lit places, an f2.8 is not the best choice - but usable. On the 10D you'll be constantly shooting at 1600 or 3200 and doing some noise reduction.

I have the tamron 28-75 which I bought last year for the same things you're looking for - something to do sports with and a great walk around lens. You can do both with it, but it is stronger as a walk around lens.

I posted some shots on the link below in the sports photo section.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=113517

I also have a canon 85mm f1.8 and a sigma 30mm f1.4 which I now exclusively use for indoor sports shooting... but I still use the tamron when now and then for sports when I find myself in a well lit indoor venue. I love my primes, but I still prefer a zoom for sports.

[Coder33404]

Watch out for the Tamron! I got one of the bad copies you hear so much about on these pages and it was a huge disappointment. I ended up with a Canon and am very happy with it.

Edited for spelling by Jon

[JABACo]

Thanks to all. This is the type of info I need to help me make a decision. The 28-75mm or 24-70mm range would be perfect for me as a second lens indoors.

My Canon 85mm f/1.8 is great. I've been using my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for all of my indoor sports with a flash. My sigma copy shoots a little soft sometimes. This I will be upgrading to a non IS Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 soon. Hopefully for Christmas.

The best lens I own is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, but, it's a little to big to lug around a basketball court plus way too long on the short side.

[LightRules]

Thanks to all. This is the type of info I need to help me make a decision. The 28-75mm or 24-70mm range would be perfect for me as a second lens indoors.

My Canon 85mm f/1.8 is great. I've been using my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for all of my indoor sports with a flash. My sigma copy shoots a little soft sometimes. This I will be upgrading to a non IS Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 soon. Hopefully for Christmas.

The best lens I own is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, but, it's a little to big to lug around a basketball court plus way too long on the short side.

You've got a lot of ground covered with good glass (viz., 85, 70-200, 120-300). It doesn't seem like "weight" is much a matter to you as you've got some hefty stuff already. If that's the case, the Sigma 24-70 is a strong performer. The Tamron is lighter but I in terms of AF speed, build quality, and focal range, I'd say the Sigma is right up your alley. Optically the EX and Di are pretty close, and any variation is going to be copy-dependant. But I've always said the Sigma 24-70EX is the closest thing to the 24-70L and I still think that.

[condyk]

Watch out for the Tamron! I got one of the bad copies you hear so much about on these pages and it was a huge disappointment. I ended up with a Canon and am very happy with it.

Edited for spelling by Jon

I've been here several months and must have missed all those posts :lol: Storm in a teacup.

I can advocate for both the Tamron and Sigma having had both and could echo what fstopjojo says, but I won't.

Personally, I would stick to fast primes when lights reduce. Walkaround and general use then any ofd the mid range zoom will do you very nicely ... including the Canon L.

[Nezmo]

While I like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, don't you all think it's focusing is a tad on the slow side for sports?

[LightRules]

While I like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, don't you all think it's focusing is a tad on the slow side for sports?

The OP mentions he/she wants a lens for both indoor sports and general walk around. He/she already has a bunch of great glass (85, 70-200, 120-300). My response is more so for the "walk around" and not so much for the indoor sports. I'd agree for indoor sports, the 85 is the best bet. Not many better options really as its AF and aperture are f-a-s-t.

[Nezmo]

I got you. I was just asking thinking perhaps my version was faulty.

[JABACo]

The OP mentions he/she wants a lens for both indoor sports and general walk around. He/she already has a bunch of great glass (85, 70-200, 120-300). My response is more so for the "walk around" and not so much for the indoor sports. I'd agree for indoor sports, the 85 is the best bet. Not many better options really as its AF and aperture are f-a-s-t.

For the record, I'm a he. My 85 has performed flawlessly in low light conditions. I just wanted to be able to back off a little more. I shoot 95% vertical using my grip shutter so I wanted to get the entire player in the frame. I shoot for 4 different sports publications and serve has a helper photographer for the local college. College venues, threre really isn't a lighting issue. However, high schools are much worse when it comes to proper lighting.

[Coder33404]

I've been here several months and must have missed all those posts :lol: Storm in a teacup.

I can advocate for both the Tamron and Sigma having had both and could echo what fstopjojo says, but I won't.

Personally, I would stick to fast primes when lights reduce. Walkaround and general use then any ofd the mid range zoom will do you very nicely ... including the Canon L.
Some of that bad press could have been on other pages but this is one of those (love it or hate it) lenses. Since I had a bad experience guess which one I am. There are a lot of pages here talking about this lens and poor quality if you search. There was even a poll on this and only 83% of respondents said they got good copies on the first try http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49000

If you get one of the other 17% of these things your "storm in a tea cup" analogy dosent really apply, does it.

[condyk]

If you get one of the other 17% of these things your "storm in a tea cup" analogy dosent really apply, does it.

Well, that's definately true I guess in your case. Your mind is made up ;) Sending a faulty anything back and getting a replacement is just what happens in life, whether it's a lens, kettle, CD, whatever. If that stuff really annoys you then I guess it annoys you.

I had a Sigma 80-400 OS that had a problem and I sent it back, doesn't mean I think all other 80-400 OS's are bad. I had some Canon zoom about 3 years back that just packed in within 4 months or so. We read every day here about problems with this and that: doesn't matter about brand or whether lens, camera body, grip, flash, IS motor, whatever. If you want to generalise then Ok. Personally I think the results of that survey are pro Tamron lens: perception is strange eh? Be great to see the results of a similar survey for the 24-70 L :lol: Doubt it would be too different.:)

[sonnyc]

I used the Sigma 24-70 for kiddie U6 soccer and it's alright. Focus is plenty fast for this type of sport. However, if you're shooting indoor volleyball then it may not cut it as the action is very fast. For Cheerleading I think it's fine as long as they don't keep doing blackflip all the time :lol:

[Coder33404]

Well, that's definately true I guess in your case. Your mind is made up ;) Sending a faulty anything back and getting a replacement is just what happens in life, whether it's a lens, kettle, CD, whatever. If that stuff really annoys you then I guess it annoys you.

I had a Sigma 80-400 OS that had a problem and I sent it back, doesn't mean I think all other 80-400 OS's are bad. I had some Canon zoom about 3 years back that just packed in within 4 months or so. We read every day here about problems with this and that: doesn't matter about brand or whether lens, camera body, grip, flash, IS motor, whatever. If you want to generalise then Ok. Personally I think the results of that survey are pro Tamron lens: perception is strange eh? Be great to see the results of a similar survey for the 24-70 L :lol: Doubt it would be too different.:)

No, there is no generalizing here! You think a 17% failure rate is O.K. for a persons hard earned money and I think 2% might be acceptable "if handled correctly". How about this for the great Tamrons out there, the owner of the camera shop I bought it at couldn't even get a call back from his Tamron rep so this could get rectified. That to me says bad lens & bad company. Also do you really think brand does not matter? Do you really think the failure rates of Toyota are the same % as Hyundai, how about Sony as opposed to Sanyo, Canon to Samsung...

[Cadwell]

No, there is no generalizing here! You think a 17% failure rate is O.K. for a persons hard earned money and I think 2% might be acceptable "if handled correctly". How about this for the great Tamrons out there, the owner of the camera shop I bought it at couldn't even get a call back from his Tamron rep so this could get rectified. That to me says bad lens & bad company. Also do you really think brand does not matter? Do you really think the failure rates of Toyota are the same % as Hyundai, how about Sony as opposed to Sanyo, Canon to Samsung...

Three out of my six Canon L series lenses have failed or been faulty - that would be a 50% failure rate. 2 out of 2 of my Canon dSLR bodies have failed. That would be a 100% failure rate. One lens took ten and a half weeks to fix under Canon's "professional" repair scheme.

What conlcusions should I draw?

[condyk]

What conclusions should I draw?

Buy Hyundai next time :lol: :lol:

[Coder33404]

Three out of my six Canon L series lenses have failed or been faulty - that would be a 50% failure rate. 2 out of 2 of my Canon dSLR bodies have failed. That would be a 100% failure rate. One lens took ten and a half weeks to fix under Canon's "professional" repair scheme.

What conlcusions should I draw?

I really don't mean this to be mean at all "serious" but in the US this kind of thing is not tolerated. People here will not accept 17% or 50% or 100% before flaming out in furry. I am not advocating going only with canon but I think knowledge is power and if I were you I would have already switched to Nikon based on what you have shared here. BTW I am not "currently" a Nikon person. Am I all alone on this? Anybody else have an opinion?

[m3incorp]

My Tamron performs outstanding, but I wouldn't use it as a sports lens. Don't get caught on the "bad copy" talk. There are some bad copies of every lens made, and people tend to let you know if they think they have one of those; opposed to the many that are happy with theirs, that you don't hear about. You will find that there are some that are "really" loyal to Canon and that is fine for them. Many know that there are alternatives out there, and yes sometimes a much cheaper price means that you get a lens that might not be built as sturdy as the "L". I do know that the "L" are in many cases the way the go, but there are those times that it doesn't call for it. The Sigma or Tamron are both nice lenses that can be considered a good walk around lens.

[thomasrhee]

The said poll was not specifically about the failure rate of the Tamron lens. I would venture to say that the poll was referring to image quality issues and to be more specific focusing and sharpness issues. Failure rate does not necessarily mean image quality issues and vice versa because of the fact that sharpness is in a lot of ways very subjective. One person's idea of a sharp lens/image is another person's unacceptable. Also, I wouldn't put too much faith into a poll with only 72 respondents which isn't nearly enough to get even a semi-accurate result. 72 respondents with a 17% negative result could easily be 50 respondents with a 25% negative result. 17% vs 25% is pretty wide margin of error.

With the case of the alleged rep who didn't call back, are you absolutely positively certain that he didn't call back? Or could it have been the owner of the shop that forgot to follow up with it and not wanting to look bad for HIS customer, passed the buck to someone else? Even if the rep DID forget to call back, how does that equate to "bad lens & bad company"? This could've been an isolated case of an employee who didn't care and was a "paycheck collector". I'm sure you along with everyone here have known such a person having worked with, for or managed such a person. Does this mean that every company is bad?

As far as your brand comparisons, FWIW here's what JD Power has to say:

JD Power 2004 Initial Quality Study (problems per 100 vehicles, lower = better)

102 Honda
102 Hyundai
104 Toyota (not including Lexus/Scion)

Surprised that Hyundai actually topped Toyota?

-----

JD Power 2005 U.S. Wireless Mobile Phone Evaluation (higher = better):

5 Stars - LG
5 Stars - Sanyo
4 Stars - Samsung
3 Stars - Motorola
2 Stars - Nokia
2 Stars - Sony/Ericsson

Surprised to see LG, Sanyo, and Samsung on top of Motorola, Nokia and Sony?

-----

2005 Digital Camera Ratings (less than $600):

Kodak topped all other makes by a wide margin, surprise surprise.

-----

2005 Digital Camera Ratings (greater than $600):

5 Stars - Canon
4 Stars - Nikon
3 Stars - Sony
2 Stars - Olympus

No surprises here. It's a well known fact that Canon leads the DSLR field followed by a Nikon in distant second.

-----

No, there is no generalizing here! You think a 17% failure rate is O.K. for a persons hard earned money and I think 2% might be acceptable "if handled correctly". How about this for the great Tamrons out there, the owner of the camera shop I bought it at couldn't even get a call back from his Tamron rep so this could get rectified. That to me says bad lens & bad company. Also do you really think brand does not matter? Do you really think the failure rates of Toyota are the same % as Hyundai, how about Sony as opposed to Sanyo, Canon to Samsung...

[grego]

^^LG at top, not anymore. They've done a great job on moving up. A lot of Verizon's best phones come from LG, like the VX6000.

Sanyo, does make parts for Nikon though. :)

[Coder33404]

The said poll was not specifically about the failure rate of the Tamron lens. I would venture to say that the poll was referring to image quality issues and to be more specific focusing and sharpness issues. Failure rate does not necessarily mean image quality issues and vice versa because of the fact that sharpness is in a lot of ways very subjective. One person's idea of a sharp lens/image is another person's unacceptable. Also, I wouldn't put too much faith into a poll with only 72 respondents which isn't nearly enough to get even a semi-accurate result. 72 respondents with a 17% negative result could easily be 50 respondents with a 25% negative result. 17% vs 25% is pretty wide margin of error.

With the case of the alleged rep who didn't call back, are you absolutely positively certain that he didn't call back? Or could it have been the owner of the shop that forgot to follow up with it and not wanting to look bad for HIS customer, passed the buck to someone else? Even if the rep DID forget to call back, how does that equate to "bad lens & bad company"? This could've been an isolated case of an employee who didn't care and was a "paycheck collector". I'm sure you along with everyone here have known such a person having worked with, for or managed such a person. Does this mean that every company is bad?

As far as your brand comparisons, FWIW here's what JD Power has to say:

JD Power 2004 Initial Quality Study (problems per 100 vehicles, lower = better)

102 Honda
102 Hyundai
104 Toyota (not including Lexus/Scion)

Surprised that Hyundai actually topped Toyota?

-----

JD Power 2005 U.S. Wireless Mobile Phone Evaluation (higher = better):

5 Stars - LG
5 Stars - Sanyo
4 Stars - Samsung
3 Stars - Motorola
2 Stars - Nokia
2 Stars - Sony/Ericsson

Surprised to see LG, Sanyo, and Samsung on top of Motorola, Nokia and Sony?

-----

2005 Digital Camera Ratings (less than $600):

Kodak topped all other makes by a wide margin, surprise surprise.

-----

2005 Digital Camera Ratings (greater than $600):

5 Stars - Canon
4 Stars - Nikon
3 Stars - Sony
2 Stars - Olympus

No surprises here. It's a well known fact that Canon leads the DSLR field followed by a Nikon in distant second.

-----


For sure Tamron rep notified several times with only 1 call back but then no follow through, bad focus is FAILURE, Hyundi is horrible if you look at more than the last couple of good years, Samsung does make good phones, I actually meant their cameras, never seen or heard of a GOOD Kodak camera under $500.00 in the last 5 years.

[condyk]

... never seen or heard of a GOOD Kodak camera under $500.00 in the last 5 years.

There are exceptions to every rule my friend.

I spent 2 continuous years on the road and experienced everything (other than intense cold and blizzard) from Monsoons in Sri Lanka to the blazing heat of the Australian Outback and the Kalahari. I first had a Kodak 240 and then traded it in for a 280 model. I had total confidence in both and the shots I took during that period, numbering thousands, still rank amongst my very favourites. I still have the 280 and it works great. GOOD camera's? Of course :D

[Coder33404]

There are exceptions to every rule my friend.

I spent 2 continuous years on the road and experienced everything (other than intense cold and blizzard) from Monsoons in Sri Lanka to the blazing heat of the Australian Outback and the Kalahari. I first had a Kodak 240 and then traded it in for a 280 model. I had total confidence in both and the shots I took during that period, numbering thousands, still rank amongst my very favourites. I still have the 280 and it works great. GOOD camera's? Of course :D

You must be so proud!