Which 70-200mm lens?

[kybo]

Looking to my first purchase of a 70-200mm lens and need your advise/opinions, please.

WHICH one...

Options:
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (Non OS)
Canon 70-200 F4 L (Non IS)
Tamron 70-200 F2.8

All the other versions (Canon F2.8L, F4L IS or Sigma OS) are a tad too pricey for me.

I've seen the results/had a little play with the Sigma, The Canon is 'L' so is gonna be good but is it better? Good enough to sacrifice F2.8? What about the Tamron? I know absolutely nothing about the Tamron.

Many thanks,
Scott

[minky monkey]

Do you really need the 2.8 would be the first question. What sort of light do you regularly shoot in? The Canon is head a shoulders above the others for sharpness, contrast and IQ. I tried the sigma and at 200mm was not impressed. I have the Canon f4 is, weight is fine, 2.8 will always be quite a bit heavier.

I shoot football with my f4 and until the light really drops, it's brilliant. The only other advantage of the 2.8 is the shallow Dof.

[RobDickinson]

I have a circa 2003 sigma 70-200f2.8 EX HSM.

Its plenty sharp enough at 200/2.8 when it focuses properly, though I hear newer ones arnt as good.

Its quite a large lump of glass vs the canon f4L

Neither is weathersealed, both have ring USM focusing, the tamron 70-200 doesnt, if your subjects move forget it.

So the question is down to do you need 2.8 or is 4 good enough?

I'm tempted to swap to an f4IS, or possibly the sigma 2.8 OS. Both will be twice the price of my old lens so I'm not sure.

[kybo]

Thanks for initial thoughts.

My main hobby is motorsport so that's the Tamron out the window. I guess having F2.8 is not really a requirement as I doubt I'd use F2.8 as an Aperture value when panning, but I heard that having F2.8 speeds up lens' focusing. How accurate is that statement as that would be beneficial to me?

I have done a bit of indoor Tae Kwon Do work where flash is not permitted. I don't have expensive (large aperture) lenses and they all struggled under the lighting conditions.

It will also be used for Portraiture/wedding shots so will be used under a variety of lighting conditions, really, though neither of which will demand really high shutter speeds (from a wide aperture) but DoF might be advantageous. I have noticed that the EOS60D is far superior to my 350D in lower/low light conditions so maybe this body will somewhat negate my need for F2.8. I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 and at F4 (70mm) it seems fine at lowish light levels.

I'm tempted to go for the lure of the 'White' lens but I want it to be for the right reason, not just for the colour.

Thanks again,
Scott

[minky monkey]

I used a 350D for a couple of years, good little camera. But, the noise control is very limited when compared to modern bodys. Anything over 800iso wasn't particuarly usable IMO, unless you were looking for a grainy B&W image.

With regards focussing, whilst a 2.8 will usually allow faster focussing (in lower light), it really does depend on the lens options. I've used a 2.8 sigma which hunted for lock far more often than the f4 IS I have. The canons focussing speed was alot quicker too although I'm not sure what the 2nd gen sigma HSM lenses are like though, I've not tried one yet.

For portrait work though, I'd be inclined to look as a 2.8 as the Dof would be more useful.

Probably be worth going to a camera shop and actually comparing a few to see what you think.

[RobDickinson]

kybo said:

Thanks for initial thoughts.

My main hobby is motorsport so that's the Tamron out the window. I guess having F2.8 is not really a requirement as I doubt I'd use F2.8 as an Aperture value when panning, but I heard that having F2.8 speeds up lens' focusing. How accurate is that statement as that would be beneficial to me?

I have done a bit of indoor Tae Kwon Do work where flash is not permitted. I don't have expensive (large aperture) lenses and they all struggled under the lighting conditions.

It will also be used for Portraiture/wedding shots so will be used under a variety of lighting conditions, really, though neither of which will demand really high shutter speeds (from a wide aperture) but DoF might be advantageous. I have noticed that the EOS60D is far superior to my 350D in lower/low light conditions so maybe this body will somewhat negate my need for F2.8. I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 and at F4 (70mm) it seems fine at lowish light levels.

I'm tempted to go for the lure of the 'White' lens but I want it to be for the right reason, not just for the colour.

Thanks again,
Scott

That all points to a 2.8.

f2.8 lets in twice as much ligth as f4 and does help focusing a lot especialy in low or poor conditions. So this will help with motorsports, and expecialy in overcast conditions etc. You can also afford to throw on a 1.4 tc if you need the extra reach too.

Indoor sports f2.8 will struggle, probably best with either a prime (50/f1.8, 85/1.8 etc). Certainly a stop extra on the lens will help but IMO not enough.

For wedding/potrait I would go with f2.8 absolutly, indoors for weddings you will need the extra light, and 70-100/2.8 is a nice potrait range. 70-200/f4 can produce quite shallow DOF if forced tho but the bokeh of the f2.8 will be better.

So overall IMO go for a 2.8

[kybo]

Thanks for the information, your recommendations and for the reasons behind them.

Do either of you know if it's worth opting for the MkII sigma lens. Any benefits over the original to warrant the extra outlay? The OS version is out my price range, atm.

Thanks again,

Scott

[RobDickinson]

Sigma added 'macro' to the newer ones and some coatings, newer ones are reputed to be not as sharp at 200 as the older ones.

Mine has a MFD of 1.5-2m or something.