Sports Photograhpy, which to get...

[Bishop Gideon]

I rarely if ever take pictures in low light situations, so I'm kinda torn between two lenses...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens

- OR -

Tamron 70 - 200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens

- OR Even (if I can find one in stock) -

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG Macro HSM II Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens

My first thought is that even if I don't need it, getting the f2.8 will be better in the long run.

But, if I don't need to spend that much, why would I? If I'd be perfectly happy with the f/4, then I should just get that... right?

What does yous guys thinks?

[In2Photos]

The Sigma and Canon lenses you mention have been used by many for sports, myself included (Canon). The Tamron is a little newer so not sure how it fairs, but I will assume it does just fine. But 200mm can be limiting for sports. If you can swing it you might want to check out the Canon 300 f/4 or Sigma 100-300 f/4.

[n1as]

I've not used an f/2.8 70-200 lens. I've had both versions of the f/4 70-200 lens and am in love with the IS version - mainly because it is so crazy sharp.

I shoot sports and for outdoor sports, f/4 is fast enough in most conditions. True, when evening is drawing close and it's cloudy, f/4 can be a bit dark. Still, the light weight of the f/4 lens makes hand-holding quite comfortable.

I believe (not sure) that the Canon lenses focus as fast or faster than the Sigma and both the Sigma and Canon are faster than anyone else.

[sjlund]

I have read (www.the-digital-picture.com) that the Tamron's autofocus is it's major weakness - a very important factor in choosing a sports lens. I've had a Sigma 70-200 2.8 variant in that past and was pleased - I just didn't like the focal length for the shooting I did.

Also, I'm not biased against Tamron in general. Their 17-50 2.8 is my main lens and I'm very pleased with it.

[Nathan]

What type of sports photos do you take?

[eigga]

2.8 has 2 advantages with light being one of them.. It also helps tidy up backgrounds

[30DShooter]

I'd go with the the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 over the Canon f/4. Both will give you excellent shots, so why not go with the faster lens! AF may even be a little faster on the 2.8. However I would go with the non macro version. Those productions seemed to be a little better than the macro version (so I've read.....a lot).

[Nathan]

Agreed. In close quarters, low light or not, I sometimes use my 17-55 for its convenient ability to zoom in and out. However, I much rather prefer using my 85/1.8 or the 70-200/2.8 for the bokeh. Large aperture + longer focal length is what I like to see in my prints.

[Bishop Gideon]

What type of sports photos do you take?

Mainly lawnmower racing (yeah, really)...

But now that my son is getting into sports, I've done some t-ball, swimming, soccer, whatever else he wants to try. So, I'm kinda looking for something versatile while not breaking the bank.

So, that's why I was looking at the Canon 70-200 f/4 @$600 Vs. the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8. The only reason I put a Tamron in there is because it's in stock, while the Sigma is not.

I guess $200 isn't really going to break the bank, just take me a little longer to save up the cash (and sneak it away from my wife).

[30DShooter]

Mainly lawnmower racing (yeah, really)...

But now that my son is getting into sports, I've done some t-ball, swimming, soccer, whatever else he wants to try. So, I'm kinda looking for something versatile while not breaking the bank.

So, that's why I was looking at the Canon 70-200 f/4 @$600 Vs. the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8. The only reason I put a Tamron in there is because it's in stock, while the Sigma is not.

I guess $200 isn't really going to break the bank, just take me a little longer to save up the cash (and sneak it away from my wife).

Check the SALE ads. People sell the Sigma on here for about $675.

[turbodude]

i had the sigma 70-200 for some sprts and it worked really well, i shot indoor basketball with it.

[packpe89]

For kids sports on small fields, 200mm will be fine, but for larger fields, 300mm will work much better. I would also recommend either the 300F4L or Sigma 100-300F4. Both are great, and I've had both. I also have a 70-200/ 2.8IS, which I will use indoors for sports or on a U8 field or T-ball, but swith to the longer glass for most other sports.