3rd party lenses?

I've been bitten by the sports bug and it looks like I will have the opportunity to shoot more hockey, soccer and basketball in the future. Currently, my longest lens is the 135L and that just wasn't long enough for hockey. 300 would be perfect for me I think. Looking at my options in Canon glass, they are currently out of my range but Tamron and Sigma offerings in the same length are lower priced. I have no experience with anything other than a Sigma 50 1.4. My other two pieces of glass are Canon.

How would something like this compare to its Canon counterpart?
http://www.thecamerast​ore.com …f2-8-II-EX-DG-OS-HSM.aspx

Also, does anyone who has experience with either options recommend shooting with a long zoom like that or do they prefer a long prime such as this?
http://www.thecamerast​ore.com …F-300mm-f4-0L-IS-USM.aspx

I want something pretty much for sports and possibly wildlife but the main thing will be sports. And I like how quick the AF on the 24-70 2.8II or 135L is so thats what I am trying to find in a longer lens.

Thanks all.

the latest version of the Sigma and Tamron 70-200's very strongly rival the great 70-200MKII. Both can be had for cheaper than the canon counterpart.

there are some here that say only buy a L lens and that you waste your money buying anything different... don't listen to them.

I have had very good luck with a lot of sigmas. I also had a few sigma duds... But I also have had some canon duds...

The sigma you posted is a very nice lens. It will produce outstanding images.

the canon 300 is also a very nice lens. If you want reach I would go with the 400 Prime. you should be able to get them for roughly the same price. You will lose IS and a stop of light. But the 400 is a bit sharper and has outstanding AF speed.

Just my .02

Dear moose,

Search this category as well as the lens sample archive for Tamron 70-200F2.8 VC lens and you find many example photos and a complete series of tests done by board member Talley.

Six months ago it was the next best thing and it is a fine lens according every review I've seen but it's place as next best thing seems to have been yielded to the Tamron 150-600 VC lens that just came out in the last week.

You can also search the same categories for the Sigma 70-200 DG/OS like the one you have pictured and find example photos and review comments too. Either 70-200 lens offers a viable alternative to the Canon 70-200F2.8 II lens at a significant savings from the Canon.

Most everyone seems to agree that the Canon series II is the best 70-200 but there are many people who are satisfied with the Tamron and Sigma offerings too. For many people it comes down to the anticipated uses for the lens vs. the price. That is something you will need to determine on your own.

To that end, if you have the opportunity, I'd suggest you visit a camera store where you can handle several of the contenders in that zoom range to see which lens fits your needs the best.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

If you prefer a zoom, I can't say enough good about the Tamron 70-300VC. Just another one to throw out there.

***EDIT - It may be too slow, especially if you're shooting indoor sports.

Thanks for your reply. I agree with what people say about the L. I just want to produce the best images I can and if I can do it with the Sigma or Tamron then so be it. I have no desire to be when one of those guys who "needs" to have a big white lens.

If I go with a long prime like the 400 I will spend a little more to get the IS with it.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16625266
If you prefer a zoom, I can't say enough good about the Tamron 70-300VC. Just another one to throw out there.

***EDIT - It may be too slow, especially if you're shooting indoor sports.

Very true. I have heard really great things about that lens.

the 100-400 is another viable option. It gives you a large range and pretty darn high quality optics. I have had nothing but good luck with my 100-400.

if you do indoor sports. the 70-200 is your king

the flying moose wrote in post #16625281
Thanks for your reply. I agree with what people say about the L. I just want to produce the best images I can and if I can do it with the Sigma or Tamron then so be it. I have no desire to be when one of those guys who "needs" to have a big white lens.

If I go with a long prime like the 400 I will spend a little more to get the IS with it.

the 400 5.6 does not have IS as an option.

the 100-400 does have IS but its only a 2 stop.

the next step is about 6K

the flying moose wrote in post #16625241
I've been bitten by the sports bug and it looks like I will have the opportunity to shoot more hockey, soccer and basketball in the future. Currently, my longest lens is the 135L and that just wasn't long enough for hockey. 300 would be perfect for me I think. Looking at my options in Canon glass, they are currently out of my range but Tamron and Sigma offerings in the same length are lower priced. I have no experience with anything other than a Sigma 50 1.4. My other two pieces of glass are Canon.

How would something like this compare to its Canon counterpart?
http://www.thecamerast​ore.com …f2-8-II-EX-DG-OS-HSM.aspx

Also, does anyone who has experience with either options recommend shooting with a long zoom like that or do they prefer a long prime such as this?
http://www.thecamerast​ore.com …F-300mm-f4-0L-IS-USM.aspx

I want something pretty much for sports and possibly wildlife but the main thing will be sports. And I like how quick the AF on the 24-70 2.8II or 135L is so thats what I am trying to find in a longer lens.

Thanks all.

Heya,

When it comes to sports, it's not just the lens, it's the camera too. A fast robust autofocus system is very helpful. Also, high ISO ability and good ISO noise handling. When shooting sports, you'll be shooting high ISO to keep shutter speeds very fast.

For a lens, you'll want as wide an aperture as possible. That will help speed up autofocus. And for the images themselves, you may find yourself stopping down a little to get better sharpness and to get a little more depth of field. Finding a long lens with aperture F2.8 and F4 for example are ideal, but expensive.

Tamron would be my suggestion for a go-to third party lens. They just make very good quality stuff.

Really though, I would just suggest you save some money and look for a used 100-400mm Canon, or a 300mm F4 Canon. You can generally find those in the $800~1100 ranges used/refurb. If you go Tamron, look to the new 600mm they just released. Otherwise, Sigma's 50-500mm is a very good lens too.

Very best,

jtmiv wrote in post #16625264
To that end, if you have the opportunity, I'd suggest you visit a camera store where you can handle several of the contenders in that zoom range to see which lens fits your needs the best.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Thanks for the reply. I would love to do that but unfortunately my location would require an 8 hour drive to the closest big store. To give an example the 5dmkIII was released in March 2012 I believe and we didn't have a store carry it locally until November 2013. Any lens I purchase will be online.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16625291
Heya,

When it comes to sports, it's not just the lens, it's the camera too. A fast robust autofocus system is very helpful. Also, high ISO ability and good ISO noise handling. When shooting sports, you'll be shooting high ISO to keep shutter speeds very fast.

For a lens, you'll want as wide an aperture as possible. That will help speed up autofocus. And for the images themselves, you may find yourself stopping down a little to get better sharpness and to get a little more depth of field. Finding a long lens with aperture F2.8 and F4 for example are ideal, but expensive.

Tamron would be my suggestion for a go-to third party lens. They just make very good quality stuff.

Really though, I would just suggest you save some money and look for a used 100-400mm Canon, or a 300mm F4 Canon. You can generally find those in the $800~1100 ranges used/refurb. If you go Tamron, look to the new 600mm they just released. Otherwise, Sigma's 50-500mm is a very good lens too.

Very best,

Sorry, I should have said this will be going on a 5dmkIII.

I own the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS EX. I use mostly for hockey and portraiture. It is a darn good lens! A little soft wide open but stop down a little bit and it is every bit as sharp as my old 70-200 f/4L that i got rid of to replace with this. Focusing with the HSM is fast enough but not USM fast. Canons 70-200 2.8 IS II is king but this lens keeps up with it in many regards, especially stopped down.

the flying moose wrote in post #16625309
Sorry, I should have said this will be going on a 5dmkIII.

Heya,

Depending on your total budget, you could do something like the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 with a Kenko PRO 300 1.4 TC. That'll get you close to 300mm, still have fast aperture, and very sharp optics. With the 5D3, autofocus will be blazing, and the ISO performance means you can throw it up to 6400~12800 no problem and keep the shutter speeds super fast, without killing the photos with grain. That's a $1100~1200 cost for that lens setup.

Alternatively, simply grab the 50-500 Sigma for $1100 straight up. Or a used 100-400mm Canon for $1100 roughly.

Very best,

Sigma 100-300/4 on a monopod?

You didn't mention budget so I'll drop a mid range alternative also. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS will give you:
- reach: 300mm,
- low light (or high shutter speed) capabilities of an F/2.8,
- fast AF: there are a lot of examples of BIF and sports in the dedicated thread,
- Prime-like image quality: not far from the mark I EF 300 F/2.8 L and
- Zoom: nothing worse than having a 300mm set up when the action is just in front of you

...all for around half the price a big white 300mm.

Good luck,
E

gasrocks wrote in post #16627237
Sigma 100-300/4 on a monopod?

I was going to throw this out there as well. I am biased becuase I have one, so that is the disclaimer. Only negative is it is big and heavy(hence the monopod comment i presume) but what tele isn't? I love this lens and will never sell it. I went all primes for my normal stuff, but I have this lens for surfing pics and if the need arises for something long. I love the thing, and bought it brand new for $680 or something like that. At the price they can be had, if you can handle a constant f4, it is optically every bit of 4 figure lenses and then some. Really worth looking into. I will post some samples when I am not on my iPad.