Lense confusion.... in the 70-200 to 70-300 range

Ok, so here's what I have, what I plan to do with it and where my confusion is...

I have a Canon t3i with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 di non-IS lens. Started off thinking I was going to do more dslr video stuff, so figured that lens would do majority of what I wanted. Turns out I'm getting more into the still photo side of things now.

I mainly want to shoot action from mountain biking, skiing, to some motorsports, rally, motocross, and things like that.

So I've been afraid to pull the trigger on a tele lens since I have no idea what I'll need. I have been pushing my Tamron way past it's limits, but even then I'm impressed with it.

So here's what I'm thinking for future tele lens....

Used, Canon 70-200 L f4 non IS for around $500
Used, Canon 70-200 L f4 IS for around $850.... max limit of price range
New, Tamron 70-300 DI VC f4-5.6 around $450
New, Tamron 70-300 SP f2.8 VC... have to wait till I can afford
New, Sigma 70-300 f2.8 EX DG OS... have to wait a little less than for the Tamron..haha

Oh and I live in the PNW so I'd say light levels are not always ideal.

Not sure if I should wait and just keep pushing on with what I have until I can afford the better lens... or if buying one of the cheaper options in the $450 range would do me well for now. It's a lot of money for me right now and just trying to spend my money wisely.

I've searched and read reviews on most of these lenses on here, but none of them had them in this layout or comparison, so I thought I'd ask for your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

Of the list, I'd go for an EF 70-200 f/4 USM for $500 or so. You don't need IS for applications where you are panning and using a relatively fast shutter speed.

If allowed to go off the list, I'd seriously consider a 400 2.8II, and a Sigma 120-300 2.8 for the closer stuff.

Yeah, I appreciate any other info too, I'm new to it all and just trying to educate myself as much as I can.

I'll try and shoot most things hand held and at faster shutter speed... Since most of what I'll be shooting requires that. Just wonder if with the darker winters and forests here will limit me to having to use higher iso to keep the shutter speed fast enough for "sports" with a f4 lense.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17190383
Of the list, I'd go for an EF 70-200 f/4 USM for $500 or so. You don't need IS for applications where you are panning and using a relatively fast shutter speed.

If allowed to go off the list, I'd seriously consider a 400 2.8II, and a Sigma 120-300 2.8 for the closer stuff.

Both of those are waaaaaaay out of his price range; he said $850 is the max.

I had a Canon 70-300 non L on my 50D before I could afford L lenses. It did quite well for a relatively inexpensive lens. I mostly shot fast boats from a rocking, non moving boat, so the IS was helpful when the light was getting low and I forgot to watch how low my shutter speed was getting. I printed some heavy crops as large as 13x19 and they came out quite well. I purchased that lens used for around $350

archer1960 wrote in post #17190410
Both of those are waaaaaaay out of his price range; he said $850 is the max.

Not true.

I've seen several 120-300 2.8 sigma lenses sell for under 1,000. This is the non OS model that is still a decent performer.... allowing the use of 1.4 and 2x extenders on his T3i

here is a offer for one thats 1200 which is still over his budget but I have seen a few sell for under 1,000

http://www.ebay.com …enses&hash=item​2ed76bafff

EDIT: that can't be canon mount.... but the deals are there if you search and wait.

What part of the PNW are you in? I've got a 70-200mm f/4L IS for sale and I'd do $850 face to face. I've also got an f/2.8 IS version that you can play with to see the differences in person.

Personally, between the 70-200mm lenses I like the f/2.8 despite it being heavier. I got the f/4L IS thinking I would take it hiking, but I either only take one wider lens or if I want the extra weight I opt for the f/2.8L. In your case, shooting bikes, skiing, and motorsports you might be better served with a 70-300mm for the longer reach. Canon has a 70-300mm IS USM for around $400 used I think.

Cutwater,
I was looking at those and that's where those Tamron lenses fit... for about the same new and from what I've read and heard they are about as good quality.... granted that seems to be up to interpretation. Thanks for that info.... I'll definitely keep my options open, as it might be a gap filler until I truly figure out what I want... all though it seems no matter what, what I want is always a moving target..haha.

Kawi_200 Well I live in Bellingham but work in either Everett or Edmonds. Like I was saying to Cutwater I'm looking at the 70-300 in Tamron.

snoco1 wrote in post #17190402
Yeah, I appreciate any other info too, I'm new to it all and just trying to educate myself as much as I can.

I'll try and shoot most things hand held and at faster shutter speed... Since most of what I'll be shooting requires that. Just wonder if with the darker winters and forests here will limit me to having to use higher iso to keep the shutter speed fast enough for "sports" with a f4 lense.

Your T3i can produce good results at ISO 6400. Don't be afraid to crank it up.

archer1960 wrote in post #17190410
Both of those are waaaaaaay out of his price range; he said $850 is the max.

Right. Did you read what you quoted?

I have no experience with the Tamron or Sigma lenses, but for action photography I would want their USD (Tamron) or HSM (Sigma) versions. These use a focus drive that's most similar to Canon's USM...

That said, the Canon 70-300mm IS USM that sells for about $650 new or somewhat less used, would probably be my first choice. I know folks who have used it for sports and found it able to keep up in most situations. It's a variable aperture f4-f5.6 lens, which isn't ideal, but is the same you'd be getting with some of the third party lenses you are considering, and isn't all that different from a non-variable f4 lens... You really won't see a lot of improvement with less than f2.8, and as you've noted those are all pretty pricey.

No matter the lens, with a T3i, for action photography you will need to restrict the camera to center AF point only. That's the only "cross type" point on the T3i. The rest are slower to acquire and won't track movement as well.

snoco1 wrote in post #17190360
Ok, so here's what I have, what I plan to do with it and where my confusion is...

I have a Canon t3i with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 di non-IS lens. Started off thinking I was going to do more dslr video stuff, so figured that lens would do majority of what I wanted. Turns out I'm getting more into the still photo side of things now.

I mainly want to shoot action from mountain biking, skiing, to some motorsports, rally, motocross, and things like that.

So I've been afraid to pull the trigger on a tele lens since I have no idea what I'll need. I have been pushing my Tamron way past it's limits, but even then I'm impressed with it.

So here's what I'm thinking for future tele lens....

Used, Canon 70-200 L f4 non IS for around $500
Used, Canon 70-200 L f4 IS for around $850.... max limit of price range
New, Tamron 70-300 DI VC f4-5.6 around $450
New, Tamron 70-300 SP f2.8 VC... have to wait till I can afford
New, Sigma 70-300 f2.8 EX DG OS... have to wait a little less than for the Tamron..haha

Oh and I live in the PNW so I'd say light levels are not always ideal.

Not sure if I should wait and just keep pushing on with what I have until I can afford the better lens... or if buying one of the cheaper options in the $450 range would do me well for now. It's a lot of money for me right now and just trying to spend my money wisely.

I've searched and read reviews on most of these lenses on here, but none of them had them in this layout or comparison, so I thought I'd ask for your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

Dollar-for-dollar the Tamron 70-300mm vibration control lens is a very good choice. Actual examples from one of the Tamron lenses:

Keep in MIMD that the canon f4IS is not just the f4 with an IS unit strapped on. Its a newer optical design and was canons sharpest zoom until the 2.8II came out. Its worth the extra cash.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17190577
Keep in MIMD that the canon f4IS is not just the f4 with an IS unit strapped on. Its a newer optical design and was canons sharpest zoom until the 2.8II came out. Its worth the extra cash.

I found the non IS and the IS versions of the F4 to be equal in sharpness. I owned both equally.

The IS might be nice for panning on those sports you mentioned.

I haven't used the others, but the f4 IS is also sharp enough at f4 to not bother stopping down for sharpness. That does help in low light - at least you're not trading speed for a much softer image.

I know the f4 IS (and I assume the non-IS) are super fast AF. Fast enough for anything I can imagine you encountering.

Talley wrote in post #17190600
I found the non IS and the IS versions of the F4 to be equal in sharpness. I owned both equally.

As did I, but you had a different experience than many of us.