Help me decide on which 70-200 and why?

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16431146
The Σ50-150 is the same size as the 70-200 and won't work on FF. What's the point?

I have the Σ70-200 OS. Read Talley's review of the Tamron VC. You'll take the Sigma right off your list.

I have the Sigma 70-200. It's far from bad and is definitely usable at 2.8. It's less expansive than the Tamron and is closer to a true 200mm.

gremlin75 wrote in post #16431350
Its sharp, great IQ, has beautiful bokeh, gives a 'FF 70-200mm field of view' to crop shooter, and is less expensive then any of the 70-200 f2.8 choices

As a crop shooter it is an amazing choice and one that shouldn't be over looked.

To the OP. Of the two choice you gave I'd go with the tamron. Its proving itself to be a great lens and when you need f2.8 it's there

This. OP has a 60D.

Awesome everyone, thank you! So regarding weight of the Tamron, I'm borrowing my friends canon 70-200 IS 2.8 this week for th first time and how does the weight of the Tamron compare since I'm getting used to this size. Heavier or lighter?

Thanks!

Had the chance to play with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC in New York at PhotoPlus Expo.
Basically half the cost of the Canon Mark II and about the same weight. Very impressive, especially the cost.
Since I do not own the Tamron lens personally, I can give you personal opinions of the two Canon IS 70-200's you are considering. Since I wanted to travel light the day of the show in New York, I decided to pull out the 70-200 f/4 L IS and put it in my shoulder bag for the day. Boy how much lighter it is, razor sharp, image quality is top notch. Wonderful lens.
However like many, I needed (lusted) the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Wow! Has not disappointed at all.
If money and weight are the issue by all means go for the Canon f/4 L IS. I still have both and that says a lot about both of them.

digitalduck wrote in post #16431895
Awesome everyone, thank you! So regarding weight of the Tamron, I'm borrowing my friends canon 70-200 IS 2.8 this week for th first time and how does the weight of the Tamron compare since I'm getting used to this size. Heavier or lighter?

Thanks!

Amazon lists the Tamron VC as 3.2 lbs. and the Canon IS as 2.9 lbs. The Canon f/4 IS listed as 1.7lbs.

There really are only a few things to consider, choosing among all the 70-200s that are offered...

1. How much can you spend?

2. How big and heavy a lens are you willing to lug around?

3. Will you need top AF speed and accuracy for action photography?

The Canon 70-200mm f4s are a bit smaller and lighter than all the f2.8 lenses... about 2/3 the size and weight. Both the non-IS and IS versions are sharp. The IS version is the newer and offers some fo the best IQ of any 70-200. The Canon f4 zooms also sell without tripod mounting rings, but accessory rings are available (at additional cost, of course). The Canon tripod rings are fairly pricey. Third party clones. Both the Canon f4 are very fast and accurate focusing, with USM.

The Canon 70-200mm f2.8s are bigger and heavier. Both include a tripod mounting ring. The f2.8 non-IS is the oldest of the Canon 70-200 quartet and is a bit of a compromise on IQ, but has fast, accurate USM focus. The 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is the latest and greatest, with top IQ, and priced to match. The now-discontinued 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" is still a very good lens if you can find one new-old-stock or used. If buying used, keep in mind that these are real workhorse lenses that few pros would be without, so you might watch out for copies that have had hard use.

Neither Sigma nor Tamron has offered lighter weight, f4 versions. But both have offered larger, heavier f2.8 70-200s. In fact, all the f2.8 zooms are relatively close to the same size and weight. Not enough difference to matter.

I don't know a lot about the Sigma 70-200/2.8s... there have been several versions, with and without OS (Sigma's version of IS), perhaps with and without HSM (Sigma's version of USM). If buying new, their current version has both.

Tamron 70-200/2.8 has also been offered in a couple versions over the years. The current version has VC (Tamron's version of IS) and USD (their version of USM). Again, I have tried it and can't compare IQ, focus performance, VC effectiveness. I have used other Tamron lenses over the years and generally find their quality quite high... but their AF performance has been a bit slower. They have been upgrading their lenses to USD fcous drive, which is supposed to help.

Someone mentioned the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM OS, too. I seem to recall it was also offered in non-OS version... maybe non-HSM, too. The thing I find odd about this lens is that it's a crop only lens that's just about the same size and weight as their 70-200/2.8 HSM OS that works on both crop and FF. I guess I'm just not sure what purpose the 50-150 serves... it if were smaller and lighter it might makes some sense, as a crop only alternative. But since it's the same size, the only diff I see is a somewhat lower price tag.

If I were considering either the Sigma or Tamron, I'd check out their IQ of course, but I'd try to compare their focus performance in particular. HSM and USD are supposed to be similar to USM, but that doesn't always seem to be the case.

Whether or not you need stabilization (whether on the Canon, Sigma or Tamron) really comes down to price... If you can afford it, get it. Period. It can be very helpful on these tele-zooms... especially if used on a crop sensor camera.

I currently am using 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" (for about 12 years) and 70-200/4 IS (for less than a year). Eventually I'll upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II, but am not in a big rush to do so.

^^^^^
A very good summary

digitalduck wrote in post #16430528
Hi guys,

So it’s getting close to upgrading lens time.. I won’t be able to do it till Jan, but I had a taste of my friends 70-200 2.8is canon version and can see how that improves my shots in the areas that im looking for improvement. Im basically only using my 50mm prime.. I also have my 55-250, but rarely use it and would sell it. After reading and watching reviews I have noticed that the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC holds its own very well. Especially with the savings I would get over the 2.8 Canon 70-200 I could invest that in other areas.

I have seen some inamges of the Tamron and they look respectably sharp. Am I missing something or is there a F4 Tamron? Also, I know others have said that the Canon 70-200 f4 IS is very sharp for what it is and that most don’t need 2.8. My biggest thing, just like everyone else, are sharpness (of course) and a shallow DOF.
So that’s where im at:

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or
Canon 70-200 f4 IS

I do like have a very shallow depth of field, but does anyone have a decent portrait example of the canon at f4? Also, I (may) be able to sell my 60D and pick up either a 6D or whatever FF is close enough and not too expensive.. Would going from the 60D to the 6D be a big enough improvement to warrant the change ro do I wait?

Thoughts?
Thanks!

Focal length matters more to making the subject stand out than aperture. One f-stop doesn't make that much of a difference on background blur, but completely shredding the background on a headshot @ 200mm (35mm equivalent) will.

The change to the bigger sensor is more in the former category, although myself I don't like the 60/7d/rebel sensor. 70-200 is kind of annoying on crop unless you go after wildlife or airshows.

There really isn't anything wrong with the Canon f/4 IS, except that you just cannot keep exposure time down, which is a problem when the subject moves.

Rush87 wrote in post #16431849
I have the Sigma 70-200. It's far from bad and is definitely usable at 2.8. It's less expansive than the Tamron and is closer to a true 200mm.

This. OP has a 60D.

What? I referenced the Sigma 50-150, not the 70-200. Then I said I have the 70-200, which by all evidence could be better. The price difference between the Sigma OS and the Tamron VC is $200. The POINT of a 2.8 lens is to shoot it at f/2.8. The Tamron performs better here, according to all indications. I think f/2.8 IQ is important in an f/2.8 lens. If I were buying today, I would pass on the Sigma I already own, and look at the Tamron and the EFII.

BTW, it is the Sigma that is noticeably shorter than 200mm, not the Tamron. I have a 60D, too. Is that relevant here?

Wow guys awesome adivce.. so if im doing mostly portrait right now, and the occasional landscarpe, maternity etc.. I like the price of the Canon F4 non IS but I havent reallly practiced without IS.. I am using a freinds 70-200 IS 2,8 this weekend and wil turn off IS and see how I do..

Price wise I like the Canon F4 IS or non.. but that Tamron is tempting although the 2.8 VC is close to the price of the Canon f4 IS.. my thing is just sharpness and using focal length to make the subject pop as uOpt mentioned earlier. I will have to rent it..

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16432285
BTW, it is the Sigma that is noticeably shorter than 200mm, not the Tamron. I have a 60D, too. Is that relevant here?

Very relevant, becuase that's what im shooting on

digitalduck wrote in post #16432326
Wow guys awesome adivce.. so if im doing mostly portrait right now, and the occasional landscarpe, maternity etc.. I like the price of the Canon F4 non IS but I havent reallly practiced without IS.. I am using a freinds 70-200 IS 2,8 this weekend and wil turn off IS and see how I do..

The IS and non-IS versions of Canon's f/4 are significantly different. It's much more than IS.

Unless you absolutely need f2.8 and don't mind the weight of the f2.8 lenses, it's very hard to beat the 70-200 f4 IS. It's an outstanding lens in every respect - it does everything well, from sports to portraits. I sold my f2.8 non-IS mainly because of weight considerations, and replaced it with the f4 IS. I've never, for one second, regretted doing this. The lens is a star.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16432053
Someone mentioned the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM OS, too. I seem to recall it was also offered in non-OS version... maybe non-HSM, too. The thing I find odd about this lens is that it's a crop only lens that's just about the same size and weight as their 70-200/2.8 HSM OS that works on both crop and FF. I guess I'm just not sure what purpose the 50-150 serves... it if were smaller and lighter it might makes some sense, as a crop only alternative. But since it's the same size, the only diff I see is a somewhat lower price tag.

Like I said earlier; Its sharp (the sigma 50-150 OS), great IQ, has beautiful bokeh, gives a 'FF 70-200mm field of view' to crop shooter, and is less expensive then any of the 70-200 f2.8 choices.

The second to last point (the field of view) is a big one for crop shooters. In doors 70mm is quite long where 50mm can be very useable. The 50-150 OS is a damn big lens though. The older non-OS version is far smaller. My guess is sigma used the same lens barrel as their 70-200 to save production on costs. Still, couple the 50-150 OS with their 18-35 f1.8 and you have an amazing crop combo!!

digitalduck wrote in post #16432326
I am using a freinds 70-200 IS 2,8 this weekend and wil turn off IS and see how I do..

A word of warning with that. The f4 is quite a bit lighter then the f2.8 so hand holding with the f2.8 will be a little tougher then with the f4.