Canon or Tamron or ????

Does Tamron come in 2 versions: VC and non-VC?

Kaval wrote in post #17649991
Does Tamron come in 2 versions: VC and non-VC?

Yes. The non-VC is an older model. It retails new at $769 (B&H).

I own very few 3rd party lenses at this point,. and one of them is the Tamron 70-200mm VC. It is better than my old Canon 70-200mm IS MkI, yet cost less

Now onwards, i will look out for this lens at online selling places.

Depending on the lighting in the arena where you will be shooting, you may be able to get away with a 70-200 f/4 instead of a f/2.8 telephoto if you have a body with decent high ISO performance. I occasionally shoot at our local rink, which previously hosted the Ontario Hockey League's Plymouth Whalers and now is home to the U.S. National Development Team. I can get 1/1250sec shutter speed at ISO 6400 using my 70-200 f/4 IS. I've been using my 5D3 there with that lens for a couple of seasons, as it does very well at ISO 6400. I plan on trying out my new 7D2 in this upcoming season.

Here is an example from the Whalers final home game (the team is relocating to Flint, MI next season). Connor McDavid, the first overall pick in the NHL Draft this summer, puts the moves on a defender.

Don't kid yourself the best 70-200mm f2.8 is the Canon version II with IS. I have all three of these lenses. I use them side by side.
I would not take any lens made if I could not have my EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. Period.

The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (A009 version) is in 2nd place. The Sigma close behind in 3rd place. All of these lenses are good. I doubt you will see a huge difference in your photos except when you are at the limits of each.

Oh, BTW, the Sigma dose not focus faster than the Tamron as somebody indicated. They are nearly even in everything with the Tamron being slightly better.

Tamron is far better, sharper and with VC. No brainer for me.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17650108
I own very few 3rd party lenses at this point,. and one of them is the Tamron 70-200mm VC. It is better than my old Canon 70-200mm IS MkI, yet cost less

While not owning any third party lenses, Cyber and others have been saying the same for quite a while. Can't argue that.

Scott M wrote in post #17650143
Depending on the lighting in the arena where you will be shooting, you may be able to get away with a 70-200 f/4 instead of a f/2.8 telephoto if you have a body with decent high ISO performance. I occasionally shoot at our local rink, which previously hosted the Ontario Hockey League's Plymouth Whalers and now is home to the U.S. National Development Team. I can get 1/1250sec shutter speed at ISO 6400 using my 70-200 f/4 IS. I've been using my 5D3 there with that lens for a couple of seasons, as it does very well at ISO 6400. I plan on trying out my new 7D2 in this upcoming season.

Here is an example from the Whalers final home game (the team is relocating to Flint, MI next season). Connor McDavid, the first overall pick in the NHL Draft this summer, puts the moves on a defender.

Very nice, sadly our lighting isn't that good, I was getting shutter speeds of about 1/200sec last night at ISO 12800 and f/5.6 and they were still under exposed slightly, f/4 wouldn't give me enough of a jump to the shutter speed,let me lower the iso and get the exposure right. I'll keep saving and have either the Tamron or the Sigma soon

Thanks for all the comments / help everyone

One from last nights practice, straight from the camera

Image hosted by forum (745988) © PBest78 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Yes, you definitely need a faster lens if you can only get 1/200 at ISO 12800 and f/5.6. That last shot is still under exposed, as the ice looks gray instead of white. Even an f/2.8 lens may not be enough under the conditions you are shooting in if you want to obtain a decent shutter speed (1/200 is not fast enough).

Have you considered the EF 135mm L f/2? I have used this lens occasionally for ice hockey, too. It will give you another stop over an f/2.8 lens, and the auto focus is quite fast. If you need additional reach occasionally, it will also take a 1.4x TC very well and still give you an f/2.8 aperture and good AF performance.

Here is a shot with the 135L plus a Kenko 1.4x TC at f/2.8:

PBest78 wrote in post #17647149
Hi Everyone,

I'm finally looking to invest in some better glass and really cant decide between the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L (non IS) or the Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 Di VC USD, both are about the same price via DigitalRev.

I will mainly be using the lens for Sledge Hockey so I'm thinking I definitely need the f/2.8 but do I really need IS? Also is it worth spending the extra to get the Canon or will the Tamron be just as good?

Any comments/advice appreciated.

Thanks

Peter

I sold my 70-200 OS for an EF 70-200 f/4L non-IS. I need IS at 200mm. I sent it back and got the IS version. Happy camper now.

Nothing better than being able to slam the shutter down to 1/30th at 200mm when you are in available light and trying to capture people that are relatively still. IS/VC is a must imho on anything higher than 15mm

I have 15-300mm covered by VC/OS or IS whatever you want to call it.

Talley wrote in post #17695817
Nothing better than being able to slam the shutter down to 1/30th at 200mm when you are in available light and trying to capture people that are relatively still. IS/VC is a must imho on anything higher than 15mm

I have 15-300mm covered by VC/OS or IS whatever you want to call it.

While I normally agree with getting IS on any telephoto lens, in this particular case the OP is attempting to capture action in very poorly lit conditions. Based on the example, he is about 1 stop under exposed at f/5.6, 1/200 and ISO 12800 on a 70D. Ideally, he should have a shutter speed of at least 1/800 and an ISO of 3200 (6400 at worst) with the 70D body he is using. Even an f/2 lens will be a compromise, as it would yield a proper exposure at f/2, 1/400 and ISO 6400 under his conditions.

I doubt the OP wants to spend the amount required for a EF 200mm f/2 IS lens. In this particular case, I think the 135L is probably the best "affordable" solution.