70-200mm Tamron Lenses for Canon

[jacobrosenfeld]

I am interested in buying a Tamron 70-200mm lens however I cannot decide which one to buy. Price matters to me which is why I am stuck on what to do (and not looking at the Canon branded version).

I am deciding between the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens for Canon ($1499.00) and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Canon EOS DSLR Cameras ($769.00)

The main differences between them are the autofocus, image stabilizer (VC) and the over look and feel of the lens.

I am wondering if it is worth double the price for the upgrade. I will be using the lens mainly for indoor sports games.

Thanks in advance.:thumbup:

P.S. I am shooting with a Canon Rebel T2i.

 

[JerryLove]

From what I've read on many (though not perhaps these lenses): It will likely depend on the shutter-speed you are shooting with.

Without IS on a 200mm lens, the Rule of thumb is no slower than a 1/200sec shutter speed. I can pull that off reliably at 200mm.

If I'm being more "quick and dirty" with the shooting: try to move up to 1/400sec. At that speed: I (an amateur) doubt IS (VC) is going to do anything to help you.

OTOH: If you are shooting at lower shutter-speeds: IS (VC) is supposed to be a significant gain. Indoors (dark) makes me thing "yes VC", but sports (fast) makes me think "unneeded". I'm sure someone more experienced will follow this up with something better.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well first in the interest of full disclosure I'm a Nikon shooter, and my 70-200 mm is a Sigma rather than a Tamron. The thing about VC/OS/VR/IS - any form of image stabilization, is what sort of shooting situations you find yourself in often. For me I do a lot of shooting at the zoo, where the lighting conditions can be pretty terrible. Now if I can I can boost my ISO to give me enough shutter speed that having VC/OS wouldn't really matter that much, however I often find myself in shooting situations where this really isn't the case. I can't really push the ISO that high or I start introducing to much noise into the image, so as a result I have to shoot at a lower than desired shutter speed (Less than 1/200).

This is when VC/OS really comes in handy, it will eliminate the camera shake when I have to use these lower shutter speeds. Now if I used a monopod or tripod of course this wouldn't be a concern, but I prefer to be able to shoot handheld on my zoo walks because I just don't find it terribly convenient to carry a monopod all the time. So for me the extra I spent getting the OS version was definitely worth it. In your case though it might not be, if you don't find yourself shooting in lower light conditiions so you can keep your shutter speed high or when you do carrying a monopod or tripod wouldn't be to much hassle then it might not be worth the extra for you. If most of what you are doing is indoor sports you'll probably want a monopod anyway, I do some indoor sports shooting and I always take my monopod with me for that, it's just too nice to have to keep the camera trained on the action without having to hold it all day/night.

So really you'd need to think about what other types of shooting you do and decide if you do enough handheld in lower light that the extra cost would really be worth it. As to the autofocus speed, hopefully someone that has used both can give you some opinions on that one.

 

[NedM]

You can the buy Canon 80-200mm f.28l (Non-IS) for cheap on craigslist. I've seen some for as low as $400

 

[JerryLove]

You can the buy Canon 80-200mm f.28l (Non-IS) for cheap on craigslist. I've seen some for as low as $400

I've seen the F/4 approach $400; But even the trade-in value on the f/2.8 is $743. You find me one at $400 and I'll grab it up.

 

[ruifo]

If you can, get the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.

Here some samples shots with it:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - a set on Flickr

 

[Braineack]

VC or bust.


Jon on Phone by The Braineack, on Flickr

Camera	Nikon D600
Exposure	0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	200 mm
ISO Speed	6400

I don't think I could have got this shot without it. Not that it's anything special, but it was very low light, at 200mm, image is cropped in, and it's still very sharp.

While I haven't used it much, but even shooting at 1/125 and 200mm, I can still be VERY sharp: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/12567284333/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I find VC to be worth the cost. YMMV.

 

[Dao]

For indoor sports, so I assume you want to capture fast action type shots. If that is the case, the VC won't help too much since you may want to shoot with a fast shutter speed anyway. However, from what I read, AF of the NON-VC Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is kind of slow. So the newer version of the lens maybe better just because of the AF speed. Whether it worth the extra is up to you.