Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...
I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!
I think all of us said that f/2.8 is a minimum. F/2 is better. Do you really think more reach and less light is the right decision?
Well, at what I can afford right now....yes.
Thgmuffin....check this link out for a comparison of the tamron 70-300 at 300 vs canon 70-200 with a 1.4x at 280mmhttp://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=757&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3
The canon will focus faster and it's clearly sharper.
Also, the tamron lens will be almost worthless in 10 years, but the canon will still be worth $750 ballpark....so what's the better choice financially when you consider that the canon also will give you much better pictures?
This is my suggestion:
1. Used 70-200 2.8 ....you need 2.8 for indoor sports. NEED.
2. Buy a 1.4x extender. Now you have a 98-280 f4 for field sports....and if the lighting is poor at a night football game you can still get great shots with just a 70-200 at 2.8. (You'll just get less of them, but trust me, I've shot plenty of football and the 70-200 works just fine.
3. Work on your editing. 99% of sport shots require some editing. Cropping, sharpening, and the light.
With the three shots you posted I took the liberty of doing a 2 minute edit on a couple of them.
3. Light changes and contrast
4. Sharpen and detail Jdramirez and Paul walnuts both offered some solid advice....and I agree....don't buy a tamron 70-300 for sports
With the first pic I would normally crop tighter, but didn't have enough pixels to do it, which sometimes happens. That's when I try to crop less and tell more of a story with the shot....with this one I wanted to leave the goalpost in the picture to show that it's a possible touchdown catch.
Edited and then the original. (done with free software on an iPad)