70-200 2.8 advice

[kubamadej]

Hey guys,

I recently got a 6D that I'm very happy with alongside the 24-105, as well as 50 and 85mm primes (all canon). Now I'm thinking of adding a 70-200mm lens and would love that to be a 2.8. Now as much as everyone raves over the canon 70-200 f2.8 ii IS, it's simply out of my budget. So I was thinking between the Tamron f2.8 macro version (700ish), the tamron f2.8 VS version (1400ish), Sigma f2.8 HSM (750ish), Sigma f2.8 OS (1250ish), or any other lens you can recommend that I haven't mentioned. I could probably afford the less expensive lens now, but would require a while longer saving for the more expensive ones. I also plan on adding a teleconverter on whichever one I choose (probably a 2x) soon after in situations where I want more reach. Any advice you could offer me? Would be much appreciated.

As for the type of photographer I am, I don't get any money out of it but it's a serious hobby for me, that's been growing steadily. I tend to do a bunch of portraits and am shooting a wedding for a friend next year, but love and also do some landscapes, sports, nature, basically a bit of everything. All-around would probably best describe my needs.

 

[Arctic Photo]

Sorry, I don't know anything about the lenses you mentioned as I haven't tried. I had a look at the Sigma before I got my 70-200 MkII, but that was only for budget reasons, then I decided to wait until I could afford it. All I can say is that if you have the patience to save up, then do it. Even if it takes several months before you're there, Cut down on food even, you'll never regret it. I don't necessarily always have to have the best. But this time I went for it. I've had mine for over a year and I couldn't be happier. It will do everything you will ever ask of it. It has super fast AF that never fails, it gives wonderful bokeh on portraits, it deals with inclement weather etc etc. You'll be a happy camper for the next ten years or so.

I apologize for not answering your question.

 

[kubamadej]

No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?

 

[sagittariansrock]

No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?

I would suggest the Tamron (VC)- I have tried it very briefly and it is pretty good. At one point I was split between the Tamron and the Canon- they are much closer than the Sigma IMO. A lens worth $ 1400 that you can keep (you will probably have to, resale value of Tammys suck) is probably better than one worth $ 750 that you have to upgrade from as soon as you can. In fact, if you have to choose a cheaper, temporary option it might be better to go for the Canon f/4 IS which will give you everything except the f/2.8 and will have good resale value.

 

[bseitz234]

I have the canon 70-200 2.8 non-is, which I have been very happy with. It's sharp, it's 2.8, it's built like a tank, AF is awesome... and it's a lot cheaper than the canon IS mk2 version.

That said, for your uses IS sounds like it would be useful... I use it mostly for sports, so I try to keep my shutter speed above 1/500 anyway to stop action. But maybe worth considering?

 

[brad-man]

Personally, I wouldn't consider a 70-200 without image stabilization unless the majority of your shooting is fast moving objects. You'll want it for portraits. If you can live with the deeper depth of field, the 70-200 f/4L IS is the 2.8's equal in most other aspects (though much easier to carry) and can be had refurbished from Canon for less than $1100. Otherwise, I would agree with sagittariansrock and vote for the Tamron. I have their 24-70 f/2.8 VC and love it.

 

[Hannes]

Why not a used canon v1? I don't know what the used market is like where you live but here at least a used canon non-is and a new sigma os goes for about the same and the v1 canon is a £1-200 more. My experience with a sigma non-os is that it is great in one shot af but it doesn't like servo at all. If the target it moving at the right speed it will work reasonably but if it is too slow it will adjust focus constantly and most of the time it will be off. When the subject moves quickly it simply won't keep up. The newer os version might be better in that regard though. This is the same on a 400D, 40D and 1D III though the 1D does a better job as expected. My canon 24-105 is miles better when it comes to servo focus despite being a stop down in light gathering.

 

[Policar]

Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.

To be perfectly honest it's not that much better than the 70-200mm f2.8 L or 70-200mm f2.8 L IS, but it is also a lens you won't find yourself selling another lens for so you can buy it later. And it is excellent. And it makes you look cooler. And it comes in a big box with a cool case and accessories and looks and feels so nice.

That said I usually just use my 50mm f1.4.

But it's worth it if it's what you want! Resale is great, too!

 

[pwp]

Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.

Financial responsibility is an important and valuable life-skill. Nobody questions the awesomeness of the 70-200mm L II IS, but if it's a $$ reach too far, and it's not earning money for you then the alternatives must considered.

The viable alternatives I'd be looking at would be a pre-owned EF 70-200 f/2.8 MkI, with or without IS, and certainly check prices for a pre-owned MkII IS as well. These are tough, long lasting lenses. Most pros give them a solid daily workout and they last for years. The other alternative mentioned by other posters is the EF 70-200 f/4, with or without IS. Read up; this is a lens with a great reputation.

-pw

 

[AudioGlenn]

I agree that financial responsibility is important. That said, since there are no mission critical events (since you do not make a living off of your photography), you can afford to save for longer to get what you actually want (the Canon 2.8 IS II). I personally feel you should get what you want and not try to cut corners. This saves money in the long run. You'll save money NOT having to re-sell gear your used gear. You can wait for a refurbished deal or a great rebate offering.

 

[sdsr]

No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?

Reviews I've seen of the Tamron VC (you'll find some here) suggest the difference is pretty subtle, though of course whether the difference(s) matter(s) is for you to decide. But unless you really want/need f/2.8, consider a 70-200 f/4 IS or, my own favorite zoom, the 70-300L IS, both of which are optically and mechanically superb and weigh and cost a lot less than the 2.8. And if you do buy a 70-200 2.8 II, check it out carefully - I tried three, all of which were decentered, before giving up and deciding that for my purposes the other two L zooms were quite good enough.

 

[Badger]

I actually rented the new Tamron once and was happy with it but haven't tried the Canon yet. I was torn as to which to get, as I have the Canon 70-200 f/4 non IS and I'm not entirely satisfied with it for indoor sports. I too don't have all the money I need to get everything I want so the jury is out. I am leaning towards picking up an 85mm f/1.8 then waiting for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II IS. I'm sure I could be happy with the Tamron, but I know I will not second guess myself with the Canon.

Great review on the Tamron from Dustin here.
http://dustinabbott.net/2013/07/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

 

[gargamel]

Hi and hello to everyone,

I have been reading CR for quite a while, but today I finally decided to join and participate.

Regarding the 70-200 options, I have been considering the same question myself for a while, before my camera went bust. So now I need a new body, first, before I can afford to get a new lens. Anyhow, not having used any of the 70-200 so far myself, this is what I would conclude from what I have read.

#1 is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. It's best in class in every measure: optics, build quality, auto focus. Also, it's weather sealed. But all this comes at a price. For me, I couldn't justify the budget, but each to their own. Retail price a camera shop close to where I live: 2199,00 EUR.

#2 would be the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. It's not that far behind the #1, optically, only slighly slower regarding AF, not quite as robust (but good). The major difference to me appears to be that it has no weather-sealing comparable to the Canon. That doesn't mean you cannot use it outdoors, but I guess, if you travel a lot and shoot under more or less extreme conditions, the extra cost for the Canon may be a justified investment.
Also, the slightly slower AF might annoy you, if you shoot a lot of sports. As one poster said, for AF tracking of fast moving objects the Canon is clearly preferrable. But then, you want to use the lens on a 6D, which is excellent (and my camera of choice, once I have collected the budget...), but cannot track fast moving objects anyhow. Assuming you made a well-informed decision, when you bought it, you will know that, meaning that AF tracking capabilities are not a top priority for you.
From what you describe I'd guess, that the Tamron would be a very suitable candidate for you. BTW, as some others said, it's a lens to keep, as you would lose money selling it. BUT, other than some said, the street prices are so much lower than for the Canon, that this isn't a real issue, IMHO. Retail price at the above mentioned shop: 1179,00 EUR.

#3 A used (or new) Canon (pre-decessor of #1).

So, #1 is not "twice the lens" of the Tamron, but it has some advantages for professional photographers, who need the most durable hardware, need the fastest AF and/or shoot a lot outdoors. From your post, I'd conclude that you don't fall into that category, and that the Tamron would be a viable choice for you.

Again, I cannot talk based on real-life experience, I am just sharing the status of my personal shortlist. When I have a camera again, my budget will take a while to recover. After that, I'll have to decide, if a 70-200 or a super-wide-angle lens will be the next lens to purchase.

gargamel

 

[magna42]

Hi and hello to everyone,

I have been reading CR for quite a while, but today I finally decided to join and participate.

Regarding the 70-200 options, I have been considering the same question myself for a while, before my camera went bust. So now I need a new body, first, before I can afford to get a new lens. Anyhow, not having used any of the 70-200 so far myself, this is what I would conclude from what I have read.

#1 is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. It's best in class in every measure: optics, build quality, auto focus. Also, it's weather sealed. But all this comes at a price. For me, I couldn't justify the budget, but each to their own. Retail price a camera shop close to where I live: 2199,00 EUR.

#2 would be the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. It's not that far behind the #1, optically, only slighly slower regarding AF, not quite as robust (but good). The major difference to me appears to be that it has no weather-sealing comparable to the Canon. That doesn't mean you cannot use it outdoors, but I guess, if you travel a lot and shoot under more or less extreme conditions, the extra cost for the Canon may be a justified investment.
Also, the slightly slower AF might annoy you, if you shoot a lot of sports. As one poster said, for AF tracking of fast moving objects the Canon is clearly preferrable. But then, you want to use the lens on a 6D, which is excellent (and my camera of choice, once I have collected the budget...), but cannot track fast moving objects anyhow. Assuming you made a well-informed decision, when you bought it, you will know that, meaning that AF tracking capabilities are not a top priority for you.
From what you describe I'd guess, that the Tamron would be a very suitable candidate for you. BTW, as some others said, it's a lens to keep, as you would lose money selling it. BUT, other than some said, the street prices are so much lower than for the Canon, that this isn't a real issue, IMHO. Retail price at the above mentioned shop: 1179,00 EUR.

#3 A used (or new) Canon (pre-decessor of #1).

So, #1 is not "twice the lens" of the Tamron, but it has some advantages for professional photographers, who need the most durable hardware, need the fastest AF and/or shoot a lot outdoors. From your post, I'd conclude that you don't fall into that category, and that the Tamron would be a viable choice for you.

Again, I cannot talk based on real-life experience, I am just sharing the status of my personal shortlist. When I have a camera again, my budget will take a while to recover. After that, I'll have to decide, if a 70-200 or a super-wide-angle lens will be the next lens to purchase.

gargamel

I was in a similar position, since you're replacing your body that may affect your lens selection.

The newer FF bodies have better high ISO performance that can offset the 1 stop difference between 70-200 F/2.8 and F/4

For my use the 70-200 f/4 coupled perfectly with the 6D

 

[Policar]

Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.

Financial responsibility is an important and valuable life-skill. Nobody questions the awesomeness of the 70-200mm L II IS, but if it's a $$ reach too far, and it's not earning money for you then the alternatives must considered.

The viable alternatives I'd be looking at would be a pre-owned EF 70-200 f/2.8 MkI, with or without IS, and certainly check prices for a pre-owned MkII IS as well. These are tough, long lasting lenses. Most pros give them a solid daily workout and they last for years. The other alternative mentioned by other posters is the EF 70-200 f/4, with or without IS. Read up; this is a lens with a great reputation.

-pw

You can resell the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS (I spent $1800 on mine, maybe) for about 90% of its new cost. If you need a bargain wait for a sale as I did or buy from the refurb store when there's a sale at the end of the month. Or buy one used.

You can resell the others for... much less.

The total cost of ownership is lower with the better lens.

Don't overthink it. Buy it.

 

[silvestography]

As others have said, your best two options ignoring budget are Canon's v2 lens and Tamron's VC lens. If you buy the canon used or refurbished, the difference in price will be $400-500. A few months ago, I was making the decision between these two lenses, and while I was getting paid work, I wasn't making a whole lot of money. The Tamron seemed to make more sense, but I ended up going for the Canon since I got a pretty good deal.

You'll be very happy with the Tamron. It's certainly the best value for your money. The Canon, however, will give you the assurance and peace of mind that you have the best there is. Period. My opinion is that if you have the best gear for a given task, you spend a hell of a lot less time thinking about the limitations and more about shooting. That's my experience with the Canon. Oh, and I'm getting much more work now. That's something.

Don't worry about resale value or any of that nonsense. Worry about how you're going to use the lens while you do own it, and whether or not having the best will make a difference in your shooting experience.

 

[Halfrack]

Save for a used V2 - http://www.lensauthority.com/canon-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-1/

The Tamaron/Sigma aren't gonna take a teleadapter that well compared to the Canon. But if you're gonna need the reach anyways, grab the 70-300L. Your body will do higher ISO's well, so use what you have. If you do video, do the non-IS Canon since it's parafocal.

 

[NYCPHOTO]

I also suggest you look at a used 70-200 2.8 is V1

Keh has them starting at $1269

I shoot full time and am very happy with my copy

good luck!

 

[Badger]

Or buy a refurbished 70-200 f/2.8 IS II from Canon for $1999 and that includes a 1 year warranty.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses/ef-70-200mm-f-28l-is-ii-usm-refurbished

 

[Danielle]

I'd recommend going to try out a Tamron VC in a store. I'm very hesitant to suggest paying more for the canon just because it's canon. I've tried one, if I get a 70-200 then I'll buy one myself, I can't pull myself to spend up to $1000 more (in AU particularly),no way. The Tamron's are built well too. I own the Tamron 24-70, it's great, I'm sure the larger brother would prove to be too.