70-200 2.8 advice

[sagittariansrock]

I'd love to give all these a try, sadly (or rather amazingly) I currently live on a small island on the tip of sicily (favignana), so renting is impossible.

Amazingly is more appropriate. I'd prefer great subject to great equipment any day
In your case, I'd suggest sticking to Canon. As I said, more reliable (although many on this forum will not agree).

 

[pwp]

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

Yep. Pretty huge difference.

Really? Do you have realistic evidence for this? Based on one example?

There are always going to be minor variations from copy to copy in any manufactured goods, even with high levels of factory quality control. If there was a "huge" difference, professionals and astute enthusiasts across the planet would be avoiding the usually stellar IS version of this legendary workhorse in their 1000's. I don't see this happening.

Personal and anecdotal experience right here at CR would suggest that most copies of both lenses are exceptionally sharp.

-pw

 

[Policar]

Not wanting to confuse you, and also not to extend the scope of discussion arbitrarily, but if f/2.8 is not a must, you might find this interesting, too:

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VS Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 VC - AMAZING RESULTS!!

It can be had really cheap and seems to be surprisingly good. This is not to say that it's up to any of the 70-200s, but amazingly close, it seems. (Well, yeah, this is a Canon forum, and the video is from "that Nikon guy"...)

gargamel

The Tamron is GREAT but very soft at 300mm f5.6 relative even to 200mm f2.8 on the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS. That said, if you stop down even half a stop it's good.

And the lens overall is fantastic, small, and light. I HIGHLY recommend this lens if you plan to shoot mostly outside and don't need the lightning fast AF of the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.

 

[cayenne]

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.

Try to work a deal if you can.
I ended up getting my 70-200 f/2.8 II, for about $1600.

I bought my 5D3 and a 85mm f/1.8 lens from Crutchfield. I signed up at that time for the rewards points and found a code to get double points for new person.

So, I got a ton of points on that purchase, I waited till Canon had a sale/rebate on lenses.

So, when this happened, I used those points, plus auto rebate..and I used Crutchfields 12mo interest free financing....

I got the lens delivered, tax free for about $1600...

So, there are ways to get deals, you just have to plot, plan and be patient.

HTH,

cayenne

 

[Grumbaki]

if your math is just ratio price/quality then just go for the Tamron as many said.

if you factor in the resale value and the emergency (do you really need it for the period of time necessary to save up 400$?) then the Canon might be a non brainer.

I chose the second option and don't regret it.

 

[cayenne]

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.

When it comes to thinking between lenses and bodies....err on the side of spending more on lenses.

You can't go wrong investing your dollars on good glass. You can do with a lessor body, but you will do well to save those extra dollars, wait a bit longer...and splurge on the good glass.