Which 70-200 2.8?

Aside from color... Which one of these two would be the better purchase and why? *Main goal is shooting wide open in low light for indoor sports and dance recitals.

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mk1

or

Tamron 70-200 2.8 di VC

A new Tamron seems to run around the same as a used mk1... unless I get lucky and hit upon one of those wondrous sales everyone talks about that I always miss... but my luck with non Canon lenses gives me a slight bias towards Canon lenses...

Yes I do WANT IS/VC so am not looking at non IS models and yes I need 2.8 as it I am specifically looking to use it indoors for sports and recitals. Since I am shooting on a 70D I am most likely to be shooting wide open in these situations in order to keep shutter speed up... so comments on it's low light AF performance would be helpful...

But after reading reviews I am not certain I am dialed in on the better option and was hoping someone could provide the info needed (I usually see it compared to the mk2 so wasn't sure how it stands compared to mk1)

*Note* I am purely a hobbyist and do not do this for cash so the mk2 Canon is out of the conversation unless I get lucky and find a used one for cheap as dirt :P

Have you looked at the Sigma?
I have their 70-200 f2.8 OS and couldn't be happier. Here in New Zealand it was the best value for money 70-200 I could find.

I am in the same boat and have read not good reviews of the soggy.

I am in the same situation...

From all reviews I read its Canon MKII -> Tamron -> Canon MKI -> Sigma

But the Canon MKII and Tamron are very very close in image quality so hard to swallow the $800 price difference!!

werds wrote in post #16998844
Aside from color... Which one of these two would be the better purchase and why? *Main goal is shooting wide open in low light for indoor sports and dance recitals.

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mk1

or

Tamron 70-200 2.8 di VC

A new Tamron seems to run around the same as a used mk1... unless I get lucky and hit upon one of those wondrous sales everyone talks about that I always miss... but my luck with non Canon lenses gives me a slight bias towards Canon lenses...

Yes I do WANT IS/VC so am not looking at non IS models and yes I need 2.8 as it I am specifically looking to use it indoors for sports and recitals. Since I am shooting on a 70D I am most likely to be shooting wide open in these situations in order to keep shutter speed up... so comments on it's low light AF performance would be helpful...

But after reading reviews I am not certain I am dialed in on the better option and was hoping someone could provide the info needed (I usually see it compared to the mk2 so wasn't sure how it stands compared to mk1)

*Note* I am purely a hobbyist and do not do this for cash so the mk2 Canon is out of the conversation unless I get lucky and find a used one for cheap as dirt :P

If yoiu want a less expensive 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, there are two options available.

For reference, here are actual examples from the second least expensive 70-200mm f/2.8 lens available, the non-stabilized Sigma model.

non-stabilized Tamron unit.

get the tamron 2.8 vc. Theres a reason why its compared to the canon is ii. I bought the Canon before I saw all the good reviews for the tamron. I decided that if my copy didnt really shine then I would try out the Tamron and pick up a sigma art for the same price. From everything Ive seen on the web and reviews the Tamron is just as good as the Canon with the exception of af speed. I just kinda figured why change out a good lens for an unknown lens, whether its Canon or Tamron you always have a small small risk in what you get. i have something good so im just going to hold on to it

If I'd have to get one today, I'd go for the Tammy. It's around half the price of the Canon MkII and it's very good. Apart from extreme corners you probably won't notice the difference apart from edge/corner performance.
If you plan to use it with a TC, you might want to look at other alternatives, but within reasonable budget, the Tamron seems like the one to go for now.

If you happen to come across a cheap and good used Canon Mk1, that could be a good option as well, but the price would have to be significantly lower than a Tamron imo.

I was also debating between the Canon and Tamron. The Tamron has comparable vibration control, and the optics are almost as good. The AF is fast and quiet. The main factors that got me to go with the Canon is the $300 rebate, less vignetting, and there's no issue of "actual focal length". Both the Tamron and Sigma apparently don't frame like the Canon. Is the Canon worth the extra money? Well only you can answer that!

If I was looking at a used mkI Canon vs a new Tamron, I would get the Tamron. You get the assurance of it being new and under warranty, and it's being compared with the new Canon IS II.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI

I bought the tamron 70200 2.8 vc over the canon 70200 2.8 mk1 or 2 because of:
6 year warranty
black
good af, color and sharpness

If you're limited on budget, Sigma is a good alternative. I read reviews and really didn't have good reviews. But I bought it anyways, and I must say, I'm really impressed. It's not as bad as people say. Canon mkii is obviously the best, then Tamron, then Sigma.

Tamron any day of the week.

@ DC Fan - Yea, I have constantly been looking at the non-is models of both Tamron and mostly Sigma, but barring me finding one at a ridiculously good price I have counted them out of the purchasing process simply based on the benefit that IS can bring in poor lighting situation that I do not get from these. I definitely have seen a lot of great frames from the Non-IS counterparts, just always read here from people that loved their non-IS models of X but soon as they got the IS models say they could never go back. As this being a long term purchase I plan on getting the IS model of something - again, barring finding a ridiculously good deal!

As to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 most reviews say it acquits itself well but not standing shoulder to shoulder to the Mkii and the Tammy - so with the price of a used or new being only a 100 or 200 off from the Tammy I have also stopped looking at it as a main contender barring a ridiculously good price on one (Also having used Sigma lenses I always worry about the lottery).

Thanks to everyone else as far as helping me fill out an understanding of what is what - so basically the reason I see the Tammy compared to the mkii has more to do with it being close to that quality and not because the mki is no longer in service?

Looks like right now I am going to look for a good Tammy deal and hope I don't get impatient in the process The all black and 6 year warranty also do attract me as the black is more low key in public...

I don't know. I used the Tammy and the Siggy and chose the Sig and I'm still thrilled with it almost 2 years later. It's really a matter of personal taste. Try them all out then buy the one you like best.

I have owned the Sigma, which I liked but sold to finance a 100-400. I have since bought two Tamron lenses that have been great deals vs the competition, and am waiting on a Tamron 150-600. I have also considered getting a 70-200 again, and concluded that the Tamron VC model is the best quality/price combo out there. And, the 6-year warranty is great for peace-of-mind.

I use a Sigma OS. No complaints.