Aftermarkt V Factory lenses for beginner

[flyin-lowe]

I am hoping to get a little more serious and plan on using my 60D a lot more. My kids are getting to the age where they are playing more sports (Indoor and outdoor). I am very much a novice but am looking at a 70-200. I am curious how much difference there is between the Canon lens and the aftermarket versions? I am guessing that at my current skill level the aftermarket lens will outperform my abilities. If I get the Canon I will probably end up with the 4.0 non IS just because of the price. I could move up to an IS version or 2.8 no IS in an aftermarket. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

 

[fmw]

It really isn't about the equipment. It really is about the photographer. Any modern competently designed lens can produce great results.

 

[TCampbell]

It sounds like you're taking these photos to preserve memories ... this makes me think you're probably not zooming in on the tiniest details (aka "pixel peeping") to critique the quality of the gear.

Canon's new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II isn't just a good 70-200... it's probably the best-in-class 70-200 available in the industry. But keep in mind the original 70-200 f/2.8 (the version I) was extremely good. The new version isn't much sharper in the center but it is a bit sharper in the corners. Also it's image stabilization performance is improved. But it's about $2100 for the new version and you can still get the original version at a significantly reduced price of about $1350. ($750 less) If you want the lottery then the version II is the lens you want - no question. But at a $750 premium... this would really need to be a lens you plan to use heavily to justify the price.

For indoor games (or even outdoor games if played at night under field lighting) the lighting isn't particularly bright and you'll want to be able to use reasonably high shutter speeds to reduce/eliminate effects of motion blur. For that... you probably want a lens that can collect as much light as possible such as an f/2.8 version.

Be mindful that you're going to lose some depth of field if you shoot at f/2.8 ... at 200mm & f/2.8, a lens focused to a subject 50' away will only have about 2' in focus. Suppose this is basketball... if you want BOTH the ball AND the player in focus at the same time, they could easily be more than 2' apart (even if they have control of the ball). In comparison to an f/4 lens... the DoF at f/4 is just shy of 3' (2.86' according to the calculator at DOFmaster.com). f/4 is giving you about 30% more DoF as compared to f/2.8. So this gain in light which results in you being able to halve the time the shutter is open does come with a trade-off.

Canon's lens (even the original EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM) is better than the Sigma & Tamron versions and a new copy is only about $50 more (in my opinion it's worth the extra $50). B&H Photo lists the Tamron & Sigma versions for $1299 and the Canon is $1349.

Sigma has made the industry take notice lately ... going from a 3rd party lens maker that offers "the lens you settle for" vs. the "the lens you want" because the "the lens you want" is too expensive. Their latest lenses are hugely improved and some of their latest lenses are "the lens you want". But their 70-200 is not one of those latest lenses that are getting everyone's attention.

If you had an abundance of light and could shoot with very fast shutter speeds (1/1000th sec or faster) then I'd say you could get a non-IS lens. But I expect you'll find the lighting is not adequate and you may be forced to shoot at slow-is shutter speeds possibly 1/250th sec or slower) and you're probably going to want IS to compensate for camera movement. This is even more true if you go with an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 lens -- where f/4 is collecting only half as much light as f/2.8.

 

[benhasajeep46 44]

For your use I think third party lenses would be the choice. Are they are great of Canon's best. Some say yes, some no. You always have the "system" purists. But for your use, even if they are not the best. They are still very good lenses!

I have had so so luck with Sigma lenses. 2 bad ones in Nikon mounts, but several good ones in Canon mount.

To me it sounds like your a good candidate for Tamrons 70-200 f/2.8 G2. Very good lens and lower priced than the top Canon glass.

 

[Solarflare]

Um ... what are "aftermarket" lenses ? Is that (a) alternative producers (Tamron etc) or (b) used or (c) refurbished ?

I would recomment against refurbished because those lenses have been treated badly by their previous owners. You can have luck and the problems have indeed been fixed. But you also can have bad luck and they develop a serious problem. Lenses are very complicated devices. A zoom lens contains hundreds of parts. Heck even some all manual not even automatic aperture Leica M prime lenses with no electronics whatsoever in them already contain hundreds of parts (I read that in an interview with a Leica employee). Thus you cannot be sure the problems the previous owners had have indeed been properly fixed.

Third party, well that depends upon the specific lens. The new Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 "G2" is certainly worth every penny. If I had to get a zoom for sports, that would be my pick.

Used is usually not a problem, however you really should use eBay or some other platform that allows you to roll back the transaction if the lens you bought has issues. Properly checking lenses is described on YouTube, for example in these videos:

 

[480sparky39 38]

You list TWO 70-300 lenses in your signature. What is it that those two don't do for you that a 70-200 would do?

 

[flyin-lowe]

I guess third party is the proper wording not aftermarket. But yes Tamaron etc. is what I am talking about.

As far as the lenses I already have they don't do much at all indoors when I have to zoom much. Outdoors with ample light they are fine but from what I understand there is a huge quality difference between the lenses I have (basically kit lenses) and the 70-200L's. I also understand that the equipment is only half the battle...... a lot of it is up to me.

 

[480sparky39 38]

So you might gain some image quality. Is it that important?

 

[Derrel]

I thought that the NEW Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G-2 model lens is like, astoundingly good, optically, as well as in performance....

Not sure about the old, non-IS Canon 70-200 f/4 USM lens, the 20-year-old one with the 67mm filter...I used a borrowed one for a week back in the 8-Megapixel Canon 20D era...I was not that impressed with it, but it is an inexpensive lens. Build quality was solid, size was NICE!

I think you might just absolutely LOVE the newer70-200 f/4 L IS USM model...yes, the f/4 model, with Image Stabilizer.

 

[flyin-lowe]

So you might gain some image quality. Is it that important?

With my current lenses it is tough to get any photos inside when there is any movement. Stationary stuff is fine with a flash but for instance at a basketball game too much blur. I could be wrong but I'm assuming I'll get more then just a little image quality.

 

[480sparky39 38]

You're not using a fast enough shutter speed. What shutter speed, aperture and ISO settings are you shooting at?

 

[Overread15 3]

For sports you want 1/620sec for a sharp shot - 1/500sec will get most of a body sharp but heads/legs will blur. That's the kind of shutter speed minimums for sports and action in a very rough way. That means indoors you will have your aperture as wide as possible (smallest f number). This is why f2.8 lenses are very popular for sports and action indoors, because you can shoot and get a useable depth of field at f2.8 whilst at the same time you get a lot more light over an f5.6 lens.

This lets you user a lower ISO and reduces noise, remembering that you'll still be using high ISOs anyway because indoor lighting is typically good for our eyes, but poor for a camera.



I would say a 70-200mm f2.8 would be what you want; Tamron or Sigma are likely going to be more in your budget than the new Canon; and should more than deliver superior image quality and performance over what you've got.

 

[OGsPhotography]

You'll love the upgrade. Either way, tamron, sigma canon. I went with the new 2.8, similar usage as you, kids portraits and sports. I still neet to add flash in some terribly lit gyms to get a shot.

My 70-300 was completely useless inside as well.