Tamron 70-200/2.8 for indoor sports?

[mn shutterbug]

Does anyone shoot basketball or volleyball games with this lens? If so, do you recommend it on a 50D?

[canonnoob]

no one really uses the tamron 70-200 for sports because of the very slow AF... it is definatly not ideal. take a look at the sigma or the canon if you want the fast AF.

[mn shutterbug]

I've read that about both the Sigma and Tamron, more so for the Sigma, in the reviews on B&H. However, they both have about 4 1/2 stars. I figured I'd ask here because there are probably more experienced shooters on this forum. I'm just never sure how much to trust online reviews when it has to do with specialized equipment.

Dave, have you used the Sigma, or is this just what you've heard?

I'm almost tempted to sell my Canon 100-400L and buying the Canon 70-200 and a doubler. I'd have the 70-200 for sports, and with the doubler, still have the same focal length and speed for wildlife. I understand I'd lose a bit on sharpness over my 100-400, but I don't sell large photos anyway, and I already have sharp photos of my main subjects. Decisions, decisions.

[canonnoob]

I've read that about both the Sigma and Tamron, more so for the Sigma, in the reviews on B&H. However, they both have about 4 1/2 stars. I figured I'd ask here because there are probably more experienced shooters on this forum. I'm just never sure how much to trust online reviews when it has to do with specialized equipment.

Dave, have you used the Sigma, or is this just what you've heard?

I'm almost tempted to sell my Canon 100-400L and buying the Canon 70-200 and a doubler. I'd have the 70-200 for sports, and with the doubler, still have the same focal length and speed for wildlife. I understand I'd lose a bit on sharpness over my 100-400, but I don't sell large photos anyway, and I already have sharp photos of my main subjects. Decisions, decisions.

I have used every 70-200 for canon mounts. I first bought the sigma because I did not need is nd I did need the 2,8 I was very happy with it. I upgraded to the canon 70-200 2,8 is because I found that I wanted the is for some situations. I am also very happy with it. if you hve the cash go and buy the 70-200 2,8 is or if you don't, get the sigma.

[Lacks_focus]

Probably shouldn't reply, as I have not used the Sigma or Tamron 70-200s, But... I did own a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 ATX Pro. Pretty much same scale of lens as the two on topic lenses. It was fantastic in IQ, and I dare say a bit better in build quality than the Canon L! I was trying to save money and bought it over the Canon. It worked out for a while. The deal killer was its micro motor drive for focus. Just not fast enough to make it a viable action sports lens. Ring USM (or the equivalent) is where it’s at. When my son moved beyond the slow paced learn-to-play-hockey stuff and I seriously wanted to get better at shooting hockey, it was replaced with the Canon L mainly for the focus speed. The non-IS version is priced well and is perfect for the job. I think you should be able to find a used one for near a new Sigma’s cost. We all know the debate around IS vs. non-IS, but in fast action situations, at this focal length, the IS is not so useful. Simply because a shutter of over 1/200 is really a basic requirement, so camera shake should not be an issue. 300MM and above, I can see the need for IS. Point is, for the price of a used, or even new, non-IS Canon 2.8L this is a no brainer. Just get the Canon and be done with it. You'll likely end up getting it anyway if you keep shooting sports. Just my .000000000002 cents worth.

[nicmo]

I have never owned or used the Tamron so I can't comments on that lens, but I have owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. While it was an excellent lens for the $$$, but I always felt it shot a bit too soft on the long end for me and within six months I was upgrading to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I totally agree with the OP, go straight for the Canon if you can, I wish I did. That was a hard one to explain to the CFO (my wife)...;-)

[Photon Phil]

I've tried the Tammy informally and looked at the MTF charts. It is really nice for sharpness. Now, if I was "sure" I wouldnt encounter any fast moving stuff...

[cdi]

i own the tamron 70-200 and i have used it in several different venues. from big stadiums, to small arenas, to race tracks for sprint cars. yeah the af is a little slow, but when you lock in the target you get some amazing shots.

[EnronRocks]

I have used the Tamron 70-200 and found that I had to anticipate the next move, and in volleyball that is almost impossible. I would recomend you just spend more for the Canon, I have found it to focus much faster than the Tamron, and in sports a fast AF is a must. I personally don't own the Canon 70-200 with IS, I have it without IS.

[Alan Dye]

Started with and still use the Sigma 70-200 2.8. For me, The best bang for the $$$.

Don't shoot too much inside of poorly lit gyms, but I do shoot alot in poorly lit rinks. The Siggy handles the task very well!

Good Luck in your search!

[JoePhotoOnline]

I have used all three (Sig, Canon, Tammy) and I currently own the Sig because it gave me everything I needed for Football at half the cost of the Canon. Speed between the two? Not an issue. Tamron? Damn sharp, but slow. The Sig is the best 'budget' one. The Canon was nice, but at twice the price... it should be.

[g4whq]

I've read that about both the Sigma and Tamron, more so for the Sigma, in the reviews on B&H. However, they both have about 4 1/2 stars. I figured I'd ask here because there are probably more experienced shooters on this forum. I'm just never sure how much to trust online reviews when it has to do with specialized equipment.

Dave, have you used the Sigma, or is this just what you've heard?

I'm almost tempted to sell my Canon 100-400L and buying the Canon 70-200 and a doubler. I'd have the 70-200 for sports, and with the doubler, still have the same focal length and speed for wildlife. I understand I'd lose a bit on sharpness over my 100-400, but I don't sell large photos anyway, and I already have sharp photos of my main subjects. Decisions, decisions.

Mike, I sold my 100-400, purchased a second-hand Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS nearly brand new in a box best move I ever did, its ideal for motorsport unable to use it at a local Judo Club because the hall is too small, pity. I have a 300 f4/300 f2.8. I tested the 1.4x extender on the 70-200, I was quite impressed. If you can afford it go for Canon the L lens AF is very fast. Don't think you would have AF using a 2x the 1.4x worked very well. Most of my MX photos were taken with 70-200 f2.8 IS.

Regards

Roy.

[Croasdail]

If you are a casual user, i have no issues with the Sigma. I have two Sigmas I used at pro levels, and optically they did a fine job. Never was there a case where I couldn't get the shot I needed. But flipping to durability, and I can assure you Sigma is not built to pro level usage. Both the 70-200 and 120-300 have have mechanical failures in the bayonet mount. Threading on tripod mounts has been stripped. And the coating on both is coming off. Now I put my stiff through some serious workouts though - I don't have time to baby my stuff. Rain or shine I shooting. But my canon stuff is still clicking away. I have only managed to kill 1 Canon lens, a 28 f1.8. It too isn't an L and it shows.

So if you are going to be a heavy shooting, step up to better build quality of Canon L. If you are going to be an occasional user who takes good care of your stuff, then the sigma AF and Optically should be more than capable of doing the job.

[el mierdo]

for what my two cents is worth... i have used the sigma on my second body for 4 years now and have used it to shoot all sports from youth to D1 college to semipro... indoor/outdoor and it has been a money maker for me. now, i have not used the canon so...
b

[christofoto]

I just started shooting indoor track & field for a sports photography company who provided the equipment. Nikon D90 with Tamron 70-200 F2.8 lens. The Tamron is very frustrating. The AF is too slow to follow a sprinter very well. When I shoot movement at 3 or 4.5fps with continuous focus for several frames usually only the first shot is sharp. At first I thought it was my problem, but after using it for a grand total of 15 hours now, and reading forums, I am convinced that this is not the lens to shoot fast moving unpredictable sports. I would not buy this lens for myself. Also, sometimes (about 3 or 4 times in a full day) the lens would stop auto-focusing. I would have to switch on and off the camera and/or switch to MF and back to get it to work again. I'm not sure if it is the lens, camera, or compatibility problem but it is an issue that led to some missed shots so it is a BIG problem. Go with the top canon lens. I will when the time comes.

[ricklopez1]

Okay I know this has been debated over and over…But here is the scenario, recently I sold my 1st gen Sigma 2.8 70-200MM and now have about 600 dollars to buy another lens. It was my first expensive lens purchased and it did a great job. Until I started reading reviews about AF not locking on to subject. Which mine did , I thought maybe it was me. My keeper rate was fair with that lens. Anyways, I am ready to buy a Canon L F4 for sports. My daughter plays competitive soccer u13 on the big field and although 200 is not ideal I can always get a convertor for more range. I know that canon L lens are great, but someone locally is selling a Tamron 2.8 I know that the AF is slow but is the trade off worth it when it comes to someone on a budget. I really would like to pick up a wide angle 2.8 and if I buy the Tamron I am only a few hundred away from buying another lens, or should I just step up and buy a 2.8 non IS Canon L and just wait a few months to buy a wide angle when my budget is available. Any suggestions would help.

90% of my shooting is done during the day at the soccer field
I used a 7D

Tamron 2.8 70-200 ( and buy another lens sooner wide angle 2.8)
Canon F4 70-200
Canon 2.8 non IS 70-200 Skip the F4 and buy a 2.8 now!

Please help!

[missjenniferrae]

I had first the Sigma version (which I dropped) so I saved and bought the Canon...both used on a 50D

If you can save the money for the Canon....it is completely worth it. My photos are MUCH better than they were with the Sigma

[namasste]

You are not likely to be disappointed by the Canon 2.8 non-IS, its fantastic glass. I've owned two copies and both were great. The Canon IS I, meh, never impressed me. The Canon IS II, how @#!& ! Probably the best I've ever shot with. Recently I grabbed a Sigma 70-200 OS version. Personally, I think its a better call than the non-IS Canon. I like the IQ better, the AF is every bit as fast and its got IS for times I need it outside of sports. You can get a brand new, full warranty lens for only a couple hundred more than the non-IS, used, its a push.

Compared to the MkII Canon, the AF is very close although I do give Canon the edge. IQ wise, nothing touches the Canon but of the 70-200 variations I've owned, the Sigma is second only to that lens. Just some additional real world feedback. Never used the Tammy so I have nothing that I can add there.

Good luck.

[elrey2375]

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 was my first really big lens purchase at the time and I was really pleased with it for the couple of years I used it. The Tamron AF is simply too slow IMO for sports use. I would agree about the Canon non-IS version 1. It's what I have now and it may be older but I think it's the sharpest version except for maybe the brand new one and I'm not spending $2300 or whatever when I've got images I'm happy with now.

[TooManyShots]

You are not likely to be disappointed by the Canon 2.8 non-IS, its fantastic glass. I've owned two copies and both were great. The Canon IS I, meh, never impressed me. The Canon IS II, how @#!& ! Probably the best I've ever shot with. Recently I grabbed a Sigma 70-200 OS version. Personally, I think its a better call than the non-IS Canon. I like the IQ better, the AF is every bit as fast and its got IS for times I need it outside of sports. You can get a brand new, full warranty lens for only a couple hundred more than the non-IS, used, its a push.

Compared to the MkII Canon, the AF is very close although I do give Canon the edge. IQ wise, nothing touches the Canon but of the 70-200 variations I've owned, the Sigma is second only to that lens. Just some additional real world feedback. Never used the Tammy so I have nothing that I can add there.

Good luck.


The Sigma OS version? I found it the AF is a bit too slow for cycling. I like to pick out riders in the field and the Sigma is a major fail in that. Even my old 70-200L F4 NO IS can AF faster. :)

[namasste]

The Sigma OS version? I found it the AF is a bit too slow for cycling. I like to pick out riders in the field and the Sigma is a major fail in that. Even my old 70-200L F4 NO IS can AF faster. :)
its not MkII Canon but I find it on par with all other Canon variants when the OS/IS is off.

[ricklopez1]

So from what i am gathering

Tamron too slow for sports regardless of price

Save up for a Canon L 2.8 non IS version I ?

[elrey2375]

So from what i am gathering

Tamron too slow for sports regardless of price

Save up for a Canon L 2.8 non IS version I ?

You can find a version 1 lens used for around $1K or so.

[4Bucks]

I am a hobby sports guys. I did months of research on the comparison for the Canon Vs Sigma. There is a lot of info out there (and here on POTN). They compare so closely it is hard to find a significant difference to make it worth the extra money. What I got out of my research is: one is white and one is black... the black one costs alot less. I have several thousand shots through my Sigma and am very happy.

[canon rookie]

A buddy of mine has a Tamron 70-200F2.8 and it's really slow to focus even in bright sunlight.Although Optically pretty decent don't be fooled by the low price-stay away!!!!