70-200 question: F4 L or Tamron/Sigma 2.8

javig999 · Dec 11, 2008

Contemplating a 70-200 lens. I have read the f4 L is amazingly sharp, light for carrying, and can be had for about $500 used - a great L value.

On the other hand, I have really enjoyed my Tamron 28-75 (as a 3rd party lens) and f2.8 would be nice on the 70-200 lens for certain compositions. It sells for about $100+ more.

To any who have used either, or both especially, what are your thoughts? Which way would you go?

BTW - I do not typically shoot in low light or require shallow DOF when I reach for a longer lens like this (the ability to do so might change that though) and am a total hobbyist. No staged portraiture, or anything of the sort. Want the reach mostly for candids, etc.

Thanks in advance...

FidelCastrovich · Dec 11, 2008

Sounds like the f4.
Great value, outstanding performance, proven reliability, light and small.
F2.8 for you seems like an unnecessary bulk, and of questionable quality at that.
Sigma is "burned" for me - i had their 70-200 f2.8 EX mark I and mark II - they were replaced 4 times and repaired another dozen times. Back focus, front focus, irreparable focus issues, err 99, malfunctioning diaphragms - you name it, i had it. Never buying anything that has Sigma written on it, ever again.

If you don't use it professionaly - go with the best quality at the lightest weight. And there's no question which lens gives you that.

Applefanboy · Dec 11, 2008

I have a tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and love it! It's very sharp at f/2.8, incredibly sharp at f/4. Autofocus is not the best, but still quite useable. I highly recommend it.

Zatodragon · Dec 11, 2008

I've heard good things about the canon 70-700 f4 L, and i'd sway a little more toward that. The tamron/sigma are great lens, but i think the L series will have a little better coatings and focusing speeds, especially if your not needing to shoot in low light.

Pure · Dec 11, 2008

Zatodragon said:
I've heard good things about the canon 70-700 f4 L, and i'd sway a little more toward that. The tamron/sigma are great lens, but i think the L series will have a little better coatings and focusing speeds, especially if your not needing to shoot in low light.

WOW. 70-700mm f/4. DAMN. I'd switch to canon for a lens like that!

Haha, the 70-200mm f4 is a nice lens, a lot of people say good thing about it, however, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is nicer

ksmattfish · Dec 11, 2008

Applefanboy said:
I have a tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and love it! It's very sharp at f/2.8, incredibly sharp at f/4. Autofocus is not the best, but still quite useable. I highly recommend it.

That's my experience too.

prodigy2k7 · Dec 11, 2008

Pure said:
WOW. 70-700mm f/4. DAMN. I'd switch to canon for a lens like that!

Haha, the 70-200mm f4 is a nice lens, a lot of people say good thing about it, however, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is nicer

ahahaha.. i read right past.. it didnt notice..:lmao::lmao: :lol:

Josh66 · Dec 11, 2008

javig999 said:
It sells for about $100+ more.

For that you could get a new 70-200 f4L...

I haven't used the Tamron (...or any 3rd party glass), so I really don't know how it compares - but the 70-200 f/4L is great.

javig999 · Dec 16, 2008

Ended up with the Tamron...

Shot them both at Canoga Camera and trying out the f4 vs f2.8 makes a difference. Admittedly, the AF on the Canon is superior. The Tamron is not super sharp at 2.8 but sharpens up nicely by f4. It is nice to have the 2.8 should I need it, but shoot at the sharper f4 when light and situation allow (which would have been the Canon's limit anyhow).

Thanks to applefanboy for the sample pics - it made me take a second look at the Tamron and am I glad I did.

Off to the Bahamas for two weeks to test this pig out...Happy Holidays all...

jlykins · Dec 17, 2008

I just bought the Tamron. I have gymnastics to shoot this weekend and I needed a 70-200 2.8. Do you guys think the autofocus will have issues during the gymnastics?

javig999 · Dec 17, 2008

I have only had it a couple of days and do not really shoot anything of that nature so cannot say. Based on what I have seen it all depends on the lighting. With enough light the AF is fast (enough) - in low light it takes a second to get fully focused...

jlykins · Dec 18, 2008

javig999 said:
I have only had it a couple of days and do not really shoot anything of that nature so cannot say. Based on what I have seen it all depends on the lighting. With enough light the AF is fast (enough) - in low light it takes a second to get fully focused...

Thats alright. I'll take it and hopefully I will be ok. It's pretty well lit in there so I may be fine. I'll let you know.

jlykins · Dec 21, 2008

I just shot all weekend (13 hours a day for three days) with the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I was pleasently surprised. The AF isn't quite as fast as the Nikon but I was able to adjust a little and make it work. The photos are TACK sharp and the IQ is great. I am really happy with it. With the extra money I saved over buying the Nikkor I'm going to go pick up the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Don't be afraid to buy this lens. It's nice.