I've been seriously looking into a 70-200 or possibly a 50-150 since I use a 30D. If I can get a Canon 70-200 2.8 for around $800 i'm just gonna splurge, otherwise i'm wondering if anybody has experience with the sigma 50-150, sigma 70-200, or Tamron 70-200(all 2.8). If so how well do they focus? I'm planning on shooting cars that are coming at me so i'll be using AI servo. Which has best focusing speed and accuracy?
All advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much to everybody here who helps.
Tamron 70-200mm is sort of notorious for bad auto focus. I would go for the 70-200 f/4 IS if you can afford it, otherwise get the Sigma 70-200mm or the magic drainpipe (old Canon 80-200mm f/2.8).
You'll get the best AF performance with an f/2.8 lens - more light and the center AF point will have higher precision with a faster aperture. Can't beat the Canon if you can find one for $800. The IS would be nice for panning, but that's a technique you can also gain with time and practice.
I have the Sigma 50-150mm. Great little lens. Autofocus is fast enough to catch BIF. Also much smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm 2.8.
My copy backfocused and so I had to send it in to be re-calibrated but now it's sharp, accurate, and takes great pictures. For the price, I would only trade it in for a magic drainpipe.
my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty darn nice.
What I wish it didn't do when hunting was going from min to max focus distance, i wish it had a meter stop switch like the canon does.
when shooting motorsports i don't need it to go to min focus distance when everything I'm shooting is far away lol
To the OP - if you buy a Sigma or Tamron version of this zoom lens you will always second guess yourself whether you would be better off just buying the Canon. I would bite the bullet if I were you, get a Canon and be done with it. If, after using it a while, you decide to get something else (that happens and happens a lot, BTW) you will get most of your money back and consider the difference as a rent fee. With the others, I am afraid that you will take more of a financial hit.... Just my 2 cents.
If you buy a Sigma / Tamron / anything else now, you'll end up buying the Canon later. It's much cheaper to get it right the first time.
+1
Could not afford the canon 70-200 2.8 IS or Non IS unless i could find a vey beat up 1 (still lost out on a couple of those). I tried the sigma (a friends) but then found an 80-200 2.8 magic drainpipe and with the exception of the FTM Focus it beats the sigma hands down and cost me less.
I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and think it is the best value sports lens made. YMMV
Of course you could buy one of the Canons and continually be asking yourself if you paid
more than you should have for a 70-200 lens...
Ed Peters wrote:
I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and think it is the best value sports lens made. YMMV
Of course you could buy one of the Canons and continually be asking yourself if you paid
more than you should have for a 70-200 lens...
as your profile shows both the sigma and the canon 2.8 IS i would say you have a good vantage point on them.
The version I used that was my friends was the macro which I gather was not the best (replaced by macro 2 now).
Interestingly my friend used my drain pipe and is now on the look out for one to replace his siggy.
Thanks for all the advice. ageojo you've convinced me. Luckily I'm still young and have some awesome parents that might be willing to go halves on the canon 2.8
. Just my 2 cents.
Buy the best (Canon) you can afford...costs less in the long run.