Help me Choose: Tamron vs Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6

[Citizen_Insane]

I've been wanting a longer lens for a while and I can't afford the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 yet, so I was wondering about these two cheaper 70-300mm lenses. The most important thing to me would be AF speed, since I want to use the lens to shoot Solo2 auto racing events. Obviously IQ would be in consideration too. Is it worth it to spend ~$150 now to hold me off until mid summer when I can afford the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L or are both of the cheaper lenses complete crap?

edit - I'm also open to suggestions for lenses in the 200-300mm max range under $200. Also, is the Sigma APO lens worth the extra $60?

[LightRules]

They both have relatively slow AF. But I would take the Sigma with the APO DG designation in this case. Or, maybe a used Canon 100-300 with USM? Not sure what those run though...

[liza]

From what I've read the Sigma is the better lens of the two. With that said, I'd save my money for the 70-200 f/2.8. It's an excellent lens at a decent price. I use one at work and have been pleased with the image quality.

[PhotoJourno]

My quick thought, if you are saving for a 2.8, then get whatever allows you to continue saving the maximum amount of money. I am a huge fan of the Sigma EX series. Tamron worked for me, though I always liked Sigma better.

To be fair though, and in an attempt to stop a barrage of Tamron happy people, I will confess to having owned three Tamron lenses some time ago, and I have no hard evidence that one brand is physically better than the other one.

I have learned that a lens that feels good to me is better than ten of the best brand name of the year, and in desicions such as this one I would go with gut feeling.

[sirsloop]

I say forget those cheapy (70-75)-300mm zoomers. At best they are a 70-200 f/8 lens. Anything over 200mm and under f/8 is pretty lousy. They are REALLY cheapo lenses...

I would start by checking out the 70-200/4L or the 70-300/4-5.6 IS lens ($600 price point). Save up until you get enough cash for one of those two lenses as they both have EXCELLENT optics. The IS lens is REAL nice for panning because its got the mode 2 IS - the only reason I didnt get a 70-200/4 last year. It will help eliminate vertical movement when you are panning at low shutter speeds.

The 70-200/2.8 is good for faster action but I don't think you'll need it for cars. Even on an overcast day you should have no problems getting acceptable shutter speeds with a f/4 or even an f/5.6 lens. If you end up spending a grand on a solo2 lens, you are better off with the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS, 70-200/4L IS, or maybe even the the 400/5.6L.

Heck, sell your 50/1.8, 17-55kit, and your lensbaby to finance this.

XTi, 70-300/4-5.6 IS
iso100, 240mm, 1/100th, f/6.3

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/100746638-L-3.jpg

[Citizen_Insane]

Yeah, I'm starting to think maybe I should make a sacrifice and wait until I have the money for the EF 70-200 f/4L. It's only $550 on sigma4less.com and would be a nice compromise between the $750 f/2.8 Sigma and the cheapo $200 lenses. I'll still probably upgade to something better eventually, but I know the Canon will hold its value so I can sell it with minimal losses when I want to get the f/2.8L IS version of the lens.

[sirsloop]

there's gotta be a camera shop in town there that stocks these lenses. Get your hands on the 70-300IS and the 70-200/4. They are similar in some ways, but definitly different animals! The 70-300IS is a very very lightweight low profile lens that works exceptionally well at like f/8-f/11. Its a great travel lens, good for "sneaking" in places like stadiums that have bans on "white" lenses, and I have found it to be an exceptionally good panning lens. The 70-200/4L will perform much better wide open, has smoother controls and will be more suited for action photography. Its also much heavier and much more obvious. While I used my 70-300IS lens last year with success for action at horse shows, this next year im going to be using my 70-200/2.8L which should be KILLER for horse shows!

You may want to rent a 100-400L... as I think you'll enjoy having a longer lens for solo2 events, unless you can get on course to shoot. The solo2 events up here all rely on volunteers to man cones, etc.

[StephenD]

Sigma 70-300mm APO DG all the way! Unless your budget can stretch higher.

[Citizen_Insane]

Well I don't have to worry about stadiums or anything like that. I think I've been to maybe 3 sporting events in my life and I don't have the desire to go to automotive sporting events unless I'm the one driving. I can get on course to shoot, since we do 3 run groups (at any time 1 group runs, 1 picks cones, 1 rests), so when I'm resting I can photograph. I'm also not really interested in just renting lenses since I'd like to be able to travel with my gear too. The lens isn't meant to be a deticated autoX lens, when I'm autoxing, I'm there to drive first and shoot second. I just want something with more reach than the 17-70mm that I have right now and I know the L takes awesome pictures.