70-200 choice.

So I'm looking into getting another 70-200. id love a canon 70-200mm f 2.8l is ii but its a bit out of my budget. Right now I'm trying to decide between three. Thoughts? I used to own a 70-200 f4 L but would like something a little better in low light situations.


-Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
-Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens
-Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex dg os hsm

Whats about the new Tamron SP 70-200 VC DI USD that should be released this year? The showed it on photokina.

Maybe thats an option? Wouldn't go for a 70-200 without IS/VC - what do you photograph?

a large variety. I play in a touring band so i would like something that is decent for live music. i also shoot quite a few weddings, and every now and then i shoot for a few different automotive magazines( online and pressed).

okay, so if you shoot concerts / live music you will probably need the IS - with 200mm and say 1/20th sec it will get very hard without a IS.
So if I were you, I wouldn't buy anything without IS: Did you think about a used 70-200L 2.8 IS I ? They sell about half of the price of the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. Of consider the Sigma - it has OS build in.

Cflaisch wrote in post #15262577
So I'm looking into getting another 70-200. id love a canon 70-200mm f 2.8l is ii but its a bit out of my budget. Right now I'm trying to decide between three. Thoughts? I used to own a 70-200 f4 L but would like something a little better in low light situations.


-Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
-Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens
-Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex dg os hsm

Some available-light images from a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, the older non-stabilized version.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have the Sigma 2.8 OS version. At 1/3 the price of a Canon (II), I consider it a steal.

How far out of your budget is the 70-200 is ii? My advice, keep saving until you can afford it. I'm not saying the other lenses aren't great....its just the 70-200 ii is worth every penny, and owning it for me lifted a proverbial weight off my shoulders that my gear wasn't limiting me at all. Picture after picture with that lens leads to stunning images one after another. It truly does have a wow factor about it.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #15263665
How far out of your budget is the 70-200 is ii? My advice, keep saving until you can afford it. I'm not saying the other lenses aren't great....its just the 70-200 ii is worth every penny, and owning it for me lifted a proverbial weight off my shoulders that my gear wasn't limiting me at all. Picture after picture with that lens leads to stunning images one after another. It truly does have a wow factor about it.

I've also been considering the 70-200 2.8 IS and I'm wondering how much distortion you get at the shorter end when shooting portraits. I've seen professionals use this lens standing way back and using 200mm. What has been your experience?

James P wrote in post #15263870
I've also been considering the 70-200 2.8 IS and I'm wondering how much distortion you get at the shorter end when shooting portraits. I've seen professionals use this lens standing way back and using 200mm. What has been your experience?

I've never noticed any distortion even at shorter end, and I've done several family shoots with the lens so far. It is very pleasing at 200mm though as well!

GuitarDTO wrote in post #15265147
I've never noticed any distortion even at shorter end, and I've done several family shoots with the lens so far. It is very pleasing at 200mm though as well!

Thanks, that's what I needed to know.

I love my non-IS 2.8L. Performs great and gets the shot. Get one used, and you'll be doing really well for budget. Same design since 1995, so there are a lot of them out there.

Mine works well enough that upgrading to an IS II isn't even on my radar. This one will be a great companion to a 300mm or 400mm prime when I get one.

James P wrote in post #15263870
I've also been considering the 70-200 2.8 IS and I'm wondering how much distortion you get at the shorter end when shooting portraits. I've seen professionals use this lens standing way back and using 200mm. What has been your experience?

Your question should not be about distortion- but more - why are they shooting at 200mm ? Hint: It's not about distortion.

@ OP- of the three lenses listed- the best value for the money, IMO, is the Sigma 70-200 OS. The listed Tamron- known for being slower autofocusing. The Sigma is regarded to be in the #2 position as far as IQ is concerned. IMO, it's a close second. If the Canon mark II holds the #1 position, and the Sigma #2- then the other Canon offerings are - well- behind it.

I am in the same shoes looking for a 70-200. Am i wasting money putting it on a t2i? would love a canon but can come closer to affording a tamron.
I have done some wedding reception candids with my 18-270 tamron and trying to not use a flash, lots of blurry pictures and wrong part of the picture in focus, I assume the fixed aperture will help me speed up my shutter and get better pics?
I just got a 50mm 1.8 canon and shot some last night, this is my first non zoom lens and it was hard to get used to at firs. Like the images I just have to move more. I also have the stock 18-55 canon as well, but I seldom used it since the tamron 18-270 covered its range.

You will not be wasting it on a T2i. The lens assembles the image, and the camera records it. Nothing wrong with having a really nice lens on a good camera vs. an exceptional camera. I used a 70-200 on my T2i for two years before I finally outgrew the body a bit.

The fixed aperture buys you easier settings and easier post-processing. What buys you a higher shutter speed is the larger aperture (going from f5.6 to f2.8).

I have been in the same dilemma for the past few weeks and just decided to spend the extra cash and get the canon mark2. with the $400 rebate it's a real good deal at the moment plus if you order from adorama or b&h you get 2% back in rewards