70-200 Choices

[cayenne]

I am looking to make a much needed upgraded to the 70mm+ range of my lenses. I know this is a topic that crops up quite frequently and the answer is always, quite rightly, buy the 2.8L IS II. Unfortunately my budget cannot stretch that far and is capped at £1000 which puts the Canon f4 L, Canon f4 L IS, Canon f2.8 L USM non-IS and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM in the frame.

My work is split 50/50 between studio portraiture and concert photography. Really it has to be one of the f2.8 lenses. The concert photography is a mix of relatively stationary singers and more active bands or cabaret performers where IS wouldn't really help. The studio work is often tripod mounted but I like the freedom to hand-hold where possible.

As I might benefit from IS I am tempted by the Sigma but most reviews raise concerns about corner softness, particularly with the lens wide open. Equally as the Canon f2.8 USM is an old lens there aren't many current reviews that go into the same detail so I'm unsure whether it fares any better.

Any advice from those with more experience with either lens would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

You could always wait and save a bit more $$$ and then buy the canon 70-200 L f/2.8.

I often wait and save...do without and buy the best I can on most anything I do, rather than compromise. If you have $1K...wait and save a bit more, use your current gear, wait for a sale or one of the refurbs.

Another option...many online stores allow you to have credit accounts, like the Amazon Store Card. They give you 12mos interest free payments.

Personally, I do the 12mos interest free EVEN when I have cash in hand...I put the cash into savings earn a little interest and let the stores pay for me to pay it out over a year.

In fact, I just this month paid off my 70-200 f/2.8 that I got form crutchfield. I used their interest free charge, and I'd bought my camera there so I had a lot of credits on their rewards points system..I got mine for approx $1600 on 6mos interest free.

There are deals to be had, so, my advice, wait and SAVE...and get the best.

Personally, I don't see myself ever buying another lens slower than 2.8, with the exception of the 24mm TS lens.

HTH,

cayenne

 

[ewg963]

Psssssst!!!!! Get the Canon 2.8 and never look back!!!!!!

 

[ewg963]

Get the Canon 2.8 (non IS). Or, for what you do, try out the 135L f/2.

+10000

 

[greger]

Get the 70-200 2.8 non IS first, the 6D then upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 ll if and when you can. You might get by without
IS but you may not get by without 2.8. I sometimes hit the limit with my F4 IS USM and wish I had F2.8. I hit the limit
with my 100-400 F4.5-5.6 this past weekend and needed wider F stops. If you can use a monopod at the Concerts you won't need IS. Good Luck!

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, and about the same as Canon's vII. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!

Gary W.

 

[tron]

Hey all,

Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, and about the same as Canon's vII. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!

Gary W.

Regarding "about the same as Canon's vII"

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Canon is much better at 200mm f/2.8

 

[jdramirez]

I owned the f2.8L usm for a while and I really liked it, but my issue with is sad that it was a little front focused and my camera at the time 60d didn't have afma... so I couldn't fix the problem. so I would suggest the Canon if your body does afma...

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

I don't shoot pictures of test patterns, and I guess that I must have an excellent copy, then! All I am saying is that the Canon vII is not @$800 better than the Tamron! The VC and AF are dead silent, as well!

Gary W.

Hey all,

Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, and about the same as Canon's vII. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!

Gary W.

Regarding "about the same as Canon's vII"

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Canon is much better at 200mm f/2.8

 

[jdramirez]

l

I had considered the Tamron VC as the reviews are good but the UK doesn't benefit from a direct exchange rate conversion of the US MSRP. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L USM is £969 ($1521), IS II is £1799 ($2825), Tamron VC is £1299 ($2040)!

Thanks

ouch... I paid only $1700 for my used IS mkii. I'm very pleased with it, but I also have a 5d. mkiii now, so it does go hand in hand.

 

[crasher8]

Every time I use my Tamron I am more than happy I paid only 1499 and didn't get the Canon mkll.

 

[tron]

Hey all,

I don't shoot pictures of test patterns, and I guess that I must have an excellent copy, then! All I am saying is that the Canon vII is not @$800 better than the Tamron! The VC and AF are dead silent, as well!

Gary W.

Hey all,

Get the Tamron! It is sharper than the Sigma, Canon IS vI, Canon non IS, and about the same as Canon's vII. It is also weather sealed, unlike the Sigma or the non IS Canon. At $1499, a very good deal when compared to vII and that it beats the rest!

Gary W.

Regarding "about the same as Canon's vII"

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=833&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Canon is much better at 200mm f/2.8

You don't shoot test patterns but you just say that Tamron is ... about the same as Canon's 70-200 2.8 II.

However, test patterns are pictures which show much more than simple words like "is about the same"

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Don't get me wrong... the vII is a great lens, and the Tamron, IN MY OPINION, is almost as good as the vII. There is not $800 difference, IN MY OPINION, between the two lenses.

Gary W.

 

[rs]

If you ever plan on using a 70-200 with a TC, it's worth bearing in mind the Tamron's performance falls a long way short of the Canon 70-200 II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=833&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

 

[crasher8]

That hardly looked way short to me! fwiw, I use the Tammy 70-200 VC with a Tamron Pro 1.4 TC and it is incredibly sharp. Not unhappy.

 

[fegari]

That hardly looked way short to me! fwiw, I use the Tammy 70-200 VC with a Tamron Pro 1.4 TC and it is incredibly sharp. Not unhappy.

?

That is a tremendous difference! no contest here