Tamron 70-200mm F2.8

[icassell]

a 300mm f2.8 will be a VERY expensive piece of glass! My Sigma 100-300 f4 (which I love) costs a grand (I got mine used for considerably less).
The canon 300mm f4 costs a bit over $1K, but the 300mm f2.8 costs over $4K. The sigma 300mm f2.8 is $2.6K

Remember, these lenses are fast, but they are also HEAVY!

 

[icassell]

Don't forget that you can get a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter to extend your range -- they slow the lens down a bit, but work well.

 

[Ptyler22]

Or I could go with even more zoom, and it's $500 at 47th street.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3275&navigator=3

 

[Ptyler22]

This is going to be a tough choice

 

[uplander]

^ uplander, you have a Tamron 18-200, which is one of the worst lenses from any manufacturer, maybe only behind a 28-300 or an Opteka mirror lens. Try one of their pro lenses and you'd probably feel differently about 3rd party. Don't diss till you try it.

And, again, it's your money OP, we can't tell you what to get now. Do you NEED the extra zoom or the 2.8?? Either way I'd say go with the sigma because it has USM for only 100 more than the tamron.

Once bitten twice shy. Still Tamron does not have high speed focus and untill they do I will not even glance their way.

 

[Tolyk]

I wouldn't go with the 75-300, go for the 70-300 USM if anything in that range, it's better optic quality and faster auto focus than the 70-300.. for about 30 bucks more.

Editted to add: The tokina 80-400 is also an amazing lens. No IS, and unsure if it has USM, but it seemed to focus fast for me. But it's tack sharp, and 400mm is great fun with wildlife.

 

[reg]

Once bitten twice shy.

You still can't base your opinion on an entire company on a crap "all in one" (yeah right) lens that you picked up for about $400.

That's like me saying that all Ford cars suck because I test drove a Pinto 30 years ago.\

Or I could go with even more zoom, and it's $500 at 47th street.

lol have fun losing ur moneyz

 

[uplander]

So I think the Canon is too expensive, unless I want to wait 6 months, (which I don't). So what should I go with?
Canon 75-300mm F4-5.6 $200
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 $800
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 $700
Or should I get the canon 75-300mm now so that I have the extra zoom, and save up for the Canon 70-200mm F2.8?

If you were to go the 75-300 rote ...skip your choice and get canon's 70-300 IS USM about $500.00.
if your going to to do the 70-200 f/2.8 I would go Sigma and hope you get a good copy.
But i can tell you if you wait and do the Canon 70-200 IS USM for 300.00 you can then add a Canon 2x TC and have a 400 also with unbelievable IQ.
The thing is you can go cheap now and still down the road you will either move up to the Canon or regret you didn't.

 

[Ptyler22]

You still can't base your opinion on an entire company on a crap "all in one" (yeah right) lens that you picked up for about $400.

That's like me saying that all Ford cars suck because I test drove a Pinto 30 years ago.\



lol have fun losing ur moneyz

Oh, 47th isn't reputable? I thought they had a good rating on reseller, but those can be "tampered" with. Guess I won't go with 47th street. Thanks for the heads up

 

[Ptyler22]

Right now, I am thinking 70-300mm, and save for the 2.8

If you had the choice between Canon 70-300mm (non IS) and Sigma 70-300mm. Which would you choose, assuming they are the same price.

 

[reg]

If they're the same price, I'd say Canon - no particular reason, but why not if they're the same price. Specs wise, the Canon probably has a slight edge on IQ, but they're fairly similar.

 

[Tolyk]

Canon as well. I'm all for Tokina, but Sigma doesn't make me go "ooooooh"

 

[Ptyler22]

Just for the heck of it sometime in the next couple days I am going to try and go to a photo store and see if I can try out some of these lenses, but especially the 70-300's since I will most likely be buying one of those. Thanks for the help guys

 

[uplander]

You still can't base your opinion on an entire company on a crap "all in one" (yeah right) lens that you picked up for about $400.

That's like me saying that all Ford cars suck because I test drove a Pinto 30 years ago.\



lol have fun losing ur moneyz

Still, their lack of highspeed focus keeps me from even considering looking at any of their lenses. Once you use lenses with fast focus motors and then use one without youhave to wonder how many shots am I going to miss?

Canon's 70-300 USM is fast focusing. Then you go to thier 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM and you'll be amazed how much faster this one is, Step up to the EF 400 /2.8 IS USM and your jaw will drop at its blazing speed. Why Tamron doesn't step up to plate and design some lenses with high speed focus motors is beyond me. Their build quality seems lacking too. They may be light but I want something substantial that will take some abuse in the field. I do mostly wildlife and in the field photography ( sometimes even from horseback) I don't want to be worrying about pampering my equipment.

Just because I only own one Tamron lens doesn't mean I haven't tried others (I have) and have listened to many behind the counter sales rep extoll the virtues of Tamron but in side by side comparisons on the same camera body Canon seems to always win. If it's about $ I wait and save up.