Which 70-200 2.8?

Heya,

For the cost, on you 70D, the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. It's about as good as the Canon MKII, but way less. No sense getting a MKI or lesser model, when for the same cost, you can get a new F2.8 VC from Tamron. It's a solid wonderful lens. Heavy. Get ready for F2.8 zooms. Big and heavy.

Very best,

I just red this thread => https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1384687
Make your opinion

I agree with those who said "try, then buy". In my experience, the Canon has superior AF capability for AI Servo tracking, and that is more important to me than raw image quality. Your requirements for the lens may be totally different, and therefore the Tamron might suit. But it's really hard to tell based on others' (well-meaning) recommendations. Until you have that lens in hand and take some demanding shots, you'll never be sure.

GregDunn wrote in post #17002873
I agree with those who said "try, then buy". In my experience, the Canon has superior AF capability for AI Servo tracking, and that is more important to me than raw image quality. Your requirements for the lens may be totally different, and therefore the Tamron might suit. But it's really hard to tell based on others' (well-meaning) recommendations. Until you have that lens in hand and take some demanding shots, you'll never be sure.

Yea, I would go the try it route if there were places near me to try them out at - no real camera places near me. Anywho... I ended up going a different route and pray that it works well for me!

I found a Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS Canon mount brand new from a Sigma Authorized retailer for $869 =) Reasoning? Reading reviews even Roger Cicala praises it - and I tend to lend his reviews and posts some serious weight. Found it intriguing that the more I read that I had to stretch to find someone doling out a negative on the lens.

Then I spent the extra 200-400 I saved on that purchase to Purchase a Samsung Galaxy Pro 8.4 Android tablet and DSLR Controller

So for ~$1125 after shipping I have a high res tablet and a decently reviewed 2.8 zoom.
Figured although I lust after full frame I won't be headed there for a while because the cost in upgrading lenses. a 50-150 will provide me similar FOV to 70-200 on FF so when I do move up I won't feel as if I lost the reach... The Sigma has a zoom and focus ring that turns in the same direction as Canon lenses the Tammy 70-200 2.8 VC does not. The Tammy and Siggy in several reviews including Roger Cicala ones are stated as not being true 200mm and closer to 178ish... so that also narrowed the zoom gap for me in some ways between the 50-150 and 70-200

Still have to get some time to play with this lens in a place that isn't as dark as a cave (aka the inside of my house) but until my kids get bigger I don't think I need the extra 50mm on the long end yet.

Thanks for the advice everyone! (PS I am deeply impressed by how I could actually SEE objects even in a dark room while in manual focus compared to my 55-250 STM lens) Also I realized in less than 10 minutes that this is going to be a massive workout with the body lens flash combo weighin over 5 lbs - didn't realize how light my kit was before this!

Congrats. I was in the spot as you (although debating between the f4 IS and the Tamron). Went to my local store to buy the Tamron. However they were out of stock (they just had one in two days before). As I was walking out I saw a used 70-200 IS mkI. I know the Tamron is better, but he Canon was only $795 so I couldn't pass it up. Resale value is there if I do decide that I need something better, and will then decided between the Tamron and he Canon mkII.

I think you will like the focal length. I never realized how nice that length is till I used it on a full frame. Two completely different lenses from crop to ff. Good luck and post up some photos!