Covering 70-200 Indoors.

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,435
307
fragilesi said:
I certainly won't argue with you guys on that point. But given my budget, I'm looking at the Tamron 70-200 not the Canon one OR the 135L. Would your answers be the same based on that . . . ?

I've never use the Tamron, but I think my answer would be mostly the same. I'd suggest that you take a look at the Tamron 70-200 (and Canon 70-200 with and without 1.4x) and the Tamron 150-600 before buying anything. I'm positing that a 70-200 will satisfy most of your indoor needs and that the 150-600 might suit you better if you need more reach for birding than you have with the 70-300L that you currently have. What you'll be trading is weight/compactness for greater focal length range.
 

Besisika

How can you stand out, if you do like evrybdy else
Mar 25, 2014
747
168
Montreal
Assuming that you stay with the 70D, I would try to sell the 70-300 and buy 135 f2 and Tamron 150-600, again assuming that you stay wit the 70D.
With a crop, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is important, especially if you intend to shoot at 1/800s. I prefer grainy than soft, and I prefer having 5 shots similar and able to choose rather than pray to have 1 out of 5. But that is personal preference. I am about the story, especially the expression, not the quality when it comes to sport. I really need to choose.
The 2.8 is a good stop if you are on a full frame indoor. Actually, it was not even good enough for some discipline when I was on a 5D III (example softball). All, suddenly, changed when I moved to 1DX, 2.8 became comfort, and I was even able to shoot at f4 in some well lit places.
The main challenge in using the 135 is that you are stuck at that focal length. Outodoor, you may have the ability to move with your feet, but in door, especially if your spot is fixed, you will miss the zoom big time. The only option you have left is to switch between horizontal and vertical.
So, all depends on your need, and your future budget. At this time 135 + 150-600 seem to be the best option to me, if you can wait for the 150-600.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
This may be throwing another wrench in the works, but on the budget end you can pick up a used copy of the 200 2.8L for a very good price. I nabbed the version 2 for around $500 last year, though I have heard that optically both versions are the same. I don't know about AF performance for version 1.

I can say that my copy is sharp and fast to focus. I've used it with the 2x extender III (outdoors) and I was pretty happy with the results, though I haven't used that combination a ton. I would think it would pair well with the 135. I know that means 2 lenses instead of a zoom, and that you don't get IS, but it might be a thought.
 

fragilesi

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2013
468
1
Guys, thanks to everyone who responded. All I can say is that you've given me exactly what I wanted which is a variety of insights and opinions and some ideas / combinations that I simply didn't think of plus the benefit of experience that I don't have for myself with these combos. I've read what everyone has said and can find few faults with it all.

What I would say is that if the 70-200 plus extender is not as good at the long end as the 70-300L as someone mentioned then it's not for me as most shots are at the very long end outdoors. I'm also very much hankering for that extra stop of light from the 135 for indoors. For example school plays my daughter is in.

The Tamron 150-600 calls to me, it really does, and I suspect that or the 400mm Canon could be next to tempt me once the piggy bank refills! I want to keep the 70-300 though.

One reason not mentioned much for not getting the 70-200 is that it is very "LOOK AT ME" and at family events etc like swimming galas or out and about I'm not sure I want that. I'd much rather my kit was subtler and more transportable to be honest so I can have a choice of lenses.

One day I will get the 70-200 I'm sure but to me I don't think I can lose. If I get the 70-200 I'll love the zoom but often as not regret the slower aperture on APS-C. If I get the 135 I'll love the extra stop of light and miss the zoom. Either way though I think I'll get much better pictures than today!

Thanks all!

PS Having re-read that it kind of sounds like I'm saying "Yeah I've listened to yer yacking on but I'm going to do what I first thought of anyway" . . . it's not meant to sound that way at all though ;D
 
<-- start Taboola -->