Alternative to Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

I currently own a Canon 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. I now want to upgrade to an f/2.8 WITH IS, however, don't really want to spend the $1,700 or $1,800 for a brand new one.

What are your thoughts on the Sigma and/or Tamron version of the above. Looks like those may be $600 or more less expensive (Brand New). I would appreciate any comments.

Alternatively, would looking to buy a USED Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II also make sense as those as the market in the $1,400 - $1,500 range.

Thank You.

If I could not have my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens I would buy the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens for Canon EF. As a matter of fact I have both. Most of the time I doubt you can tell the difference in your shots. Unless you are a pixel peeper that is.

if you can find one the Sigma 50-150 2.8 os hsm is a beast and laser sharp .

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/THiG​75

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AQus​RB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ahna​3n

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AAbk​Rr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Au4e​f3

I had one of those too. I also thought it was a great lens. I no longer have a crop body so I sold mine. But it certainly was a favorite.

I’d be looking into the new Tamron G2.

Or maybe, just maybe, you could buy my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM! $650 and I'll take care of PP fees and USPS shipping.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1489855

Thanks but I already have an f/4 which I want to unload for an f/2.8.

Bogino wrote in post #18529454
Thanks but I already have an f/4 which I want to unload for an f/2.8.

In that case, I can vouch for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM. I used it for a year or two, and found it too big/heavy for me. Very fast AF, , good OS, and excellent wide open from 70-175 or so. Past 175mm, I needed to stop down to f/3.2 to boost sharpness. Darn good lens for the money.

Just get a used Canon. It focuses faster and more reliably than the alts. Its the only Canon lens I have left.
Another option is to see what focal lengths you use based on your ƒ4 experience. The 200 2.8 prime II is better at 200 than the zoom.

Beware the weight difference. I really regret selling my 70-200 ƒ4LIS for the 2.8 II. If you need 2.8 then you need 2.8...

Just don't shoot birds with it. It actually still works if you aim it somewhere more interesting.

mcluckie wrote in post #18529491
Just don't shoot birds with it. It actually still works if you aim it somewhere more interesting.

I have always respected you, McCluckie, but this comment of yours is offensive. Why would you feel the need to put down something that many people find so very interesting? Just because you don't like to photograph birds doesn't mean that you should say something negative about bird photography.

I have almost no interest in photographing people, and can't understand why other photographers spend so much time taking people photos - I just don't get it. But that does not mean that I have the right to say that people are not interesting. I understand that others really like that kind of subject matter, and enjoy photographing it immensely. And I respect that. Likewise, you should respect people's endeavors with bird photography, even if you have no interest in it.

Encourage others to pursue the things that they love. Don't take the thing that they love and put it down. To do so is hurtful and mean-spirited.

.

Sorry, I forgot to add a smile. I apologize.
I spent some time looking at long lens forums a short time ago, and absolutely every shot was a bird. Seemed like the only way these lenses work is to point it up. Like a bird-seeking lens.
Thanks for calling me out, Tom. It was deserved as presented.

mcluckie wrote in post #18529524
I spent some time looking at long lens forums a short time ago, and absolutely every shot was a bird. Seemed like the only way these lenses work is to point it up. Like a bird-seeking lens.

Well, I agree with you on that point.

Long lenses are so wonderful for a wide variety of subject matter, and if someone is ONLY shooting birds with their long lens then they are missing out. . Just like people can miss seeing the forest, for the trees, they can also miss seeing the sky, for the birds.

.

At the short end Mcluckie

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zdsr​Uj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zfkH​5v

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wwrF​yW

I photographed a fox one time w/ my 500, and then a deer another time. Oh, and a raccoon. Otherwise, it's all birds, all the time My 70-200 shoots nothing but people though, so that balances things out.

Beautiful shots!