moving from Canon 70-300 IS USM to 70-200 non IS F2.8 Tamron or Sigma

Depends what you shooting?

sports etc than I would say you dont need the IS anyway as its a moving shot and high shutter.

If you doing still shot at this range I would say you would miss it.
 
as said, depends on what you shoot and depends on if you shoot out doors or indoors.

I have IS on my 17-85 and love it. Its really good in low light when you are taking photos of static objects, but get something that moves and you have had it.
 
ummm , looking to do all sorts of stuff with whatever i choose to replace the 70-300 IS USM , i knew it wouldnt be easy :help:
 
paulyoung666 said:
ummm , looking to do all sorts of stuff with whatever i choose to replace the 70-300 IS USM , i knew it wouldnt be easy :help:
Click to expand...

1. What problems are you finding with the 70-300 at the moment that can be improved with another lens? Is it quality or aperture etc?

2. How much money can you spare?
 
Robbo said:
1. What problems are you finding with the 70-300 at the moment that can be improved with another lens? Is it quality or aperture etc?

2. How much money can you spare?
Click to expand...

struggling with the max aperture of the 70-300 , stop it down a couple of stops and then you have a real slow shutter speed , its ok for static stuff but anything sports orientated then you have had it

as an example i am generally happy with this



but have never been over happy with faster moving stuff

money is also an issue , it would have to be secondhand and that limits me to the tamron or sigma :thinking:
 
Even with a fast lens, say 2.8, its only faster at 2.8, if you set them both the same e.g.to F 8 (average best aperture in most cases) you will get the same shutter speed. And most lens wide open will be generally slightly softer than stepping down.

How ever the 2.8 will always give you faster focus and a better focus shooting at centre point.

I would say if you can afford it go for the IS....it will always come in handy
 
Robbo said:
Even with a fast lens, say 2.8, its only faster at 2.8, if you set them both the same e.g.to F 8 (average best aperture in most cases) you will get the same shutter speed. And most lens wide open will be generally slightly softer than stepping down.

How ever the 2.8 will always give you faster focus and a better focus shooting at centre point.

I would say if you can afford it go for the IS....it will always come in handy
Click to expand...

cheers :)
 
Lets put it this way, I would take aperture over IS every single time, in fact I don't currently own an IS lens, however the majority of my day to day lenses are all F2.8 or faster.
There simply is no substitute for gathering more light
 
iancandler said:
Lets put it this way, I would take aperture over IS every single time, in fact I don't currently own an IS lens, however the majority of my day to day lenses are all F2.8 or faster.
There simply is no substitute for gathering more light
Click to expand...

Thats only for consistent AF thought. unless you constantly shoot wide open?

If you step down to F8 your sill slowing your shutter speed down to the rate any other focal range would at that aperture during the actually shot of the image.

If your in low light, still shots and/or need to use a stepped down F number then IS is great. Especially at the focal range the OP is on about.

i agree 2.8 or fast is awesome to have, but I personally wouldnt put it above IS in the OP focal range and shooting style.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top