Cant Decide 70-200 Canon/Sigma/Tamron

The Tamron is in the price range you want, the image quality you want and the apeture you want. The only bad thing is no Image Stabilization... and in the range IS (VC) at times is really needed.

aopsahl7 wrote in post #13891466
I just finished reading the reviews on all of them.

Sigma is out of the question - The Digital Picture review went through hell and did not like it. I trust this guys reviews and it just does not seem worht it to me. GOODBYE SIGMA ha ha.

Tamron - DPR says the IQ is pretty nice, but the AF is questionable at times.

Canon - The guy loves it....only thing holding me back is the concern that I will dream of 2.8...

Just keep in mind, that..although he knows what he's talking about..usually, Bryan at TDP is a Canon Fanboy..and L-series obsessed.

I do not blame him for being L-series obsessed. If I had it my way I would just snag my self a nice Canon 70-200 2.8 ii from BH and never think about it again ha ha.

What will I be shooting - Like I said I am relatively new to photography and really do not have a niche yet. I shoot people/nature/landscap​es/night...everything.

ed rader wrote in post #13891454
i sold my f4 IS for $795, and that's within the OP's budget. even if it weren't within the budget the f4 IS is superior in every way to the f4. save the money for the lens that you won't ever feel you'll need to upgrade.

ed rader

You might have sold yours for under $800, but all the ones I've seen in the market section recently have been asking $900+. If he can find one for under $800, sure, he should go for it. At that price is a deal. IF he can find one under $800.

I agree, its a superior lens. In all but one respect: bang for your buck. The only problem I have with it is that it is only very slightly better in terms of IQ, which means the bulk of the price increase goes toward paying for IS and weather sealing. I don't consider those features worth the extra money. A bit extra, sure, a lot extra, no. The OP has listed all non-IS lenses, so I'm going to presume he doesn't really want IS that badly.

So to reiterate: if he can find a copy in good condition under $800, thats a fair price. If not, then I see absolutely no point in pushing him to go above a budget which he has now said twice he is unwilling to go over.

1Tanker wrote in post #13891485
Just keep in mind, that..although he knows what he's talking about..usually, Bryan at TDP is a Canon Fanboy..and L-series obsessed.

Not to mention he somehow almost always managed to find bad copies of non-canon lenses!

I do pretty much the same with my lens, everything, and I don't really miss 2.8 much. I would find it useful at times definitely, can't argue against that, but then I appreciate the light weight and small size of my f4 far too much to replace it with a 2.8, YMMV. For night shots IS won't really help you at all, so I'd suggest getting a decent tripod, and you won't ever need IS.

I have yet to find a mint condition f/4 IS under $900.

My instinct is telling me to stay Canon..grab the f4 for $500 and run with it. Eventually I can upgrade based on what I find I need. At this point my biggest reason for upgrading for the increased IQ with the L glass.

aopsahl7 wrote in post #13891534
My instinct is telling me to stay Canon..grab the f4 for $500 and run with it. Eventually I can upgrade based on what I find I need. At this point my biggest reason for upgrading for the increased IQ with the L glass.

Just don't be scared of non-canon lenses... I like some 3rd party lenses just as much or more than canon L's I've used.

Once, lenses such as the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX II were judged by the images they could generate, such as these.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Don't waist your time even a second.
This is one area that answer is Canon. Period.

samsen wrote in post #13891744
Don't waist your time even a second.
This is one area that answer is Canon. Period.

No its not.

I have owned 3 70-200's all 2.8. My Tamron went belly up on its own, repairs estimated @ 500 for a 799 lens. Bought the Sigma 2.8 OS, wow really good lens, just a little soft @ 2.8, very good focus speed. Never had any issues, but the wife bought me the MKII for Christmas. WOW, I have never had a issue, and its pin tack sharp. It is expensive, and heavy, and white.....but its the king of the 70-200 2.8's hands down. It separates its self in all area's. At least that's my experience.

Well I am going to check out this Canon f4 tomorrow, and if it plays out to really be NIB and I can snag it for $500 I am going to go fot it. If that falls through we can come back and re-evaluate the decision.

I really do believe that the Sigma's and Tamrons are great lenses. However, there are some complaints and problems that people have with them. I feel very confident buying the f4 that I will be pleased with it. I might want more techinical abilities such as the IS or 2.8 down the road. But with my budget right now I think it is the right move.

Thanks for the help guys!

samsen wrote in post #13891744
Don't waist your time even a second.
This is one area that answer is Canon. Period.

whoa, looks like some people "waisted" their time

(for more than a second)

DC Fan wrote in post #13891731

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

aopsahl7 wrote in post #13891466
I just finished reading the reviews on all of them.

Sigma is out of the question - The Digital Picture review went through hell and did not like it. I trust this guys reviews and it just does not seem worht it to me. GOODBYE SIGMA ha ha.

Tamron - DPR says the IQ is pretty nice, but the AF is questionable at times.

Canon - The guy loves it....only thing holding me back is the concern that I will dream of 2.8...

So, right now you have $800...
Sell 18-200 IS, you'll have most of this range covered with 70-200.
They are $400 on e-bay. Wait until you'll get another 300$.
If you are in the States plenty of used 70-200 2.8 IS on e-bay at $1500 price with only USA shipment.
While you are waiting for another $300, who knows, tamron might announce 70-200 2.8 with their new AF they have on 70-300 and going to have on new 24-70.
Also if you'll get 70-200 f4 for $500 and it was not trashed by previous owner you could always sell it for $500 by the time you are ready for better lens.

I have Canon 70-200 x 2. First I bought IS f2.8 1st version when I had an immediate need in 2004, then got non IS F4 just to have something lighter around my neck on long days.
In between I had 2 copies of Sigma F2.8 .
Except for one exceptional Tamron (24-70mm f2.8), base on my experience with them, I neither will ever buy or will consider any Tamrons.

Now If at all I can talk of experience, after having F4 canon, I have never wanted any other 70-200 on my bag. IMHO it is the sharpest of all. I am not a fan of IS and on many occasions even on my 100-400 or others, I turn it off. In short you have hit the jackpot if you are going for F4 Canon. Have no second thought and a lot of things you hear here or elsewhere is defense mechanism of those who have to prove something to themselves rather than dealing with the truth of reality.