70-200mm lenses

Looking for some thoughts on an impending lens purchase...

I have narrowed down my focal length to one of the 70-200mm lenses, my budget does not extend to an IS version so at present I am looking at the following.

Canon 70-200mm f4L
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Tamron 70-200mm f2.8

I have pretty much decided on the Canon in my mind, I don't shoot a great deal in low light situations although am tempted by the extra stop for the rare occasions when I do.

I shoot with a 50D and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC) and Sigma 50mm macro at present, looking for thoughts on pros and cons on the Sigma and Tamron

Cheers in advance

Brian

Im looking at the canon right now. The refurb ones went 20% off the other night and sold in hours. Im bummed now. 450 bucks for one straight from canon. Shoot

bronic wrote in post #15652958
Im looking at the canon right now. The refurb ones went 20% off the other night and sold in hours. Im bummed now. 450 bucks for one straight from canon. Shoot

I'm based in Central Europe so have a different cost base to work from, I am British but live in Hungary where prices are horrifically inflated. I will be ordering from the UK and then getting friends to bring it with them when they come over at the end of April.

Used copies in the UK seem to be going for the equivalent of 480USD whilst a used copy in Hungary will cost me the equivalent of 600USD. Simple decision to make really

llareggub wrote in post #15652940
Looking for some thoughts on an impending lens purchase...

I have narrowed down my focal length to one of the 70-200mm lenses, my budget does not extend to an IS version so at present I am looking at the following.

Canon 70-200mm f4L
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Tamron 70-200mm f2.8

I have pretty much decided on the Canon in my mind, I don't shoot a great deal in low light situations although am tempted by the extra stop for the rare occasions when I do.

I shoot with a 50D and Tamron 17-50mm (non VC) and Sigma 50mm macro at present, looking for thoughts on pros and cons on the Sigma and Tamron

Cheers in advance

Brian

Pictures from a non-stabilized Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Thanks DCfan, exactly the sort of feedback I am looking for

I had been a little concerned about the Autofocus on the Tamron and wondered how it stacks up against the Canon USM and the Sigma HSM systems, from what I have read Sigma seems to be about 10-20% slower than the Canon but having no real world experience of any of the lenses I have no idea what that means.

Depending what you want the lens for, you might want to consider weight. The f2.8 lenses are large, heavy beasts - very different from the Canon f4. I used to own the Sigma f2.8, and ended up selling it in large part because of the weight (the other reason was the lack of IS). I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just because I didn't want to carry it around. I replaced it with the Canon f4 IS, which is an outstanding lens in every respect, and which I still own and love.

As for AF: I found no real noticeable difference in AF speed between the Sigma and the Canon. Before buying my Sigma, I tried out the Tamron and found the AF to be much slower and less responsive.

As you don't shoot much in low light, the Canon seems like a great choice. It's small, light and easy to carry. The Sigma is a very nice lens too, but if you're considering it seriously, I'd suggest you handle one (if you haven't already done so) before making a final decision. The size and weight don't bother some people, but they did bother me.

ceegee wrote in post #15653308
Depending what you want the lens for, you might want to consider weight. The f2.8 lenses are large, heavy beasts - very different from the Canon f4. I used to own the Sigma f2.8, and ended up selling it in large part because of the weight (the other reason was the lack of IS). I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just because I didn't want to carry it around. I replaced it with the Canon f4 IS, which is an outstanding lens in every respect, and which I still own and love.

As for AF: I found no real noticeable difference in AF speed between the Sigma and the Canon. Before buying my Sigma, I tried out the Tamron and found the AF to be much slower and less responsive.

As you don't shoot much in low light, the Canon seems like a great choice. It's small, light and easy to carry. The Sigma is a very nice lens too, but if you're considering it seriously, I'd suggest you handle one (if you haven't already done so) before making a final decision. The size and weight don't bother some people, but they did bother me.

Thanks Ceegee, unfortunately handling one where I live is not really an option, I live in the arse end of nowhere and rarely make the long trip to the City... It is something I have considered but all of the stores have to order in product so it is not freely available.

Weight should not be an issue as I will not be using it as a walk around lens but something to take with me when I know I need the extra reach at local events etc

I am definitely erring towards the Canon though, thanks for the info!

Brian

I've only used the Canon 70-200 4L so I can only speak about it. While it is a technically superb lens - it's created some of my favorite photos in my portfolio -, it mostly collects dust here. I just cant push it as far as I'd like to. I'm about to get rid of mine and get a 2.8 for that reason.

From my experience, the /4 has great contrast and color. It's clean everywhere with little vignetting or corner softness, even wide open. It can be a bit slow with AF sometimes though.