Faster tele — 200L or Tamron 70-200 2.8?

Right now I own a Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS. I'm interested in a faster telephoto lens but am not in a position to get a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L either with or without IS.

Would you look to the Canon 200L or the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8? Or would you consder both of those to be downgrades and I should wait until I can afford a 70-200 f/2.8L?

No need to go into prime vs. zoom. I shoot a variety of subjects mostly as a hobby, and I am comfortable going either way.

[Edit: I am talking about the cheaper f/2.8 200L, not the much more expensive f/2.]

I'm not familiar with the Tamron, but the Canon 200mm is a great lens.

The EF 200L f/2.8 is a great lens for a good price. I rented it to evaluate it but found that at 200mm I really need IS with my hands. That is very individual though, some people pull it off without a problem while I struggle even at shorter focal lengths (even though using 2.8 or faster lenses).

I suggest you rent it. There is no substitute for first person experience.

I would find the 200mm prime too limiting, what about the sigma 70-200 2.8 non-OS? Or is that out of your buget?

135L + 1.4 teleconverter ?

I think i read somewhere that the tamron 70-200 has really slow af!

Thanks all for the thoughts so far...

Sirrith wrote in post #11792772
I would find the 200mm prime too limiting, what about the sigma 70-200 2.8 non-OS? Or is that out of your buget?

It looks like that Sigma runs about the same price as the 200L or the Tamron 70-200 so it wouldn't be out of the question. I tend to shy away from Sigma but I'd look at that one if people speak highly of it.

tomme wrote in post #11792819
135L + 1.4 teleconverter ?

I think i read somewhere that the tamron 70-200 has really slow af!

That's a good point, and slow AF seems even more annoying on long lenses than wider ones.

I hadn't really considered the 135L because with a worthy TC, it's in the same price range as a 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS. And once you account for the loss of light from the TC, wouldn't that negate the added speed I was going for?

I had the 70-200 f4 IS and returned it and got the 200 2.8 prime. I have only had it a short time but like the improved sharpness and the 2.8 is really nice. I do miss the IS and am learning to adapt to not having it. I look for bracing where I can find it, have used a monopod and have even sat down and used my knees as stabilization. When I can't do that I raise my ISO. Some people might call me a pixel peeper but I do a lot of cropping so the sharper the lens the better.

edit: I guess I should mention I am using it on a crop body as well.

dmnelson wrote in post #11793636
Thanks all for the thoughts so far...


It looks like that Sigma runs about the same price as the 200L or the Tamron 70-200 so it wouldn't be out of the question. I tend to shy away from Sigma but I'd look at that one if people speak highly of it.

Right, I didn't actually check the prices :P

The sigma gets good reviews, and it has USM which is faster than the tamron's AF.

Are you talking the 200 2L?

...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11794079
Are you talking the 200 2L?

Oops, I forgot there was more than one 200 "L". I am talking about the f/2.8. If I could afford (and justify) the f/2, then we would not be having this conversation.