Which 70..200mm?

pearce_jj

pearce_jj

Messages
1,854
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all

Canon 5D (classic). Am going to chop in my very rarely used 24..105mm F4L for a 70-200mm, but which one?

What's the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro like?
Or stick to the trusted Canon F4L (or possibly the 2.8)?

Cheers!
 
Sigma is super fast but can be soft
Tamron is super sharp but can be slow

Its personal preference and how much dosh you got and what you are shooting
I use the tammy and caught a very low fast (208 mph) flypast the other day and its uber sharp yey if I had the siggy it would have caught it also but would have been soft compared to the tammy
 
I've got the Canon 2.8 non IS. Fantastic lens. Not regretted the choice fo a second. Fast and sharp. One thing I wish though, is that it was black. You stick out like a sore thumb with a big white lens. Or biege as my wife calls it.

Remember that it is a lump and half to carry round all day long. So bear that in mind.
 
fabs said:
Just curious, but how can one lens be faster than another if they are both the same focal length and aperture?
Click to expand...

I think he means focusing speed rather than aparature 'fast'......the tamron has been criticised for it's slower autofocus motor (and is discussed here)
 
Thanks for the input :thumbs:

My budget is basically the worth of my 24..105mm F4L.

Speed is important to me - I do use servo mode quite a lot.

Thanks!
 
For my 2 penneth...

I have a 70-200 F4 IS L. It is ultra sharp at all apertures and the AF is very fast. Unless you really NEED 2.8 it is an excellent choice.
 
a while ago when the tamron 70-200 craze hit somebody promised a comparison of that with the sigma.

I'm in the same dilema - cant afford Nikon VR version, need 2.8 and primary use would be sport. Which to go for? :bonk:
 
If you can stretch to it, the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS would be the one to go for. Fast aperture and real long-lasting quality. If not, and you dont need the wide aperture, the F4 non IS is a cracking deal - light weight but really sharp.

I wouldn't buy a non-Canon lens after my nightmare with a Sigma 120-300 2.8. The Canon L lenses are much better in my opinion. And if you're shooting anything moving, I dont think you need the IS either so save yourself a few hundred £££s.
 
Tobers said:
I wouldn't buy a non-Canon lens after my nightmare with a Sigma 120-300 2.8. The Canon L lenses are much better in my opinion. And if you're shooting anything moving, I dont think you need the IS either so save yourself a few hundred £££s.
Click to expand...

the 120-300 is supposed to be bomb-proof. just bad luck possibly..? bit of a shame to right them off tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top