Hi new to forums....Need some advice on lenses...Currently have Tamron 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 and Canon 100-300mm 5.6...I would love to get a "L" lens with 2.8 for kids sports and walk around...Is a 2.8 70-200mm to much for that? Can any one offer their opinions or advice...my body is a canon rebel xt 8mp...Any advice will be helpful...thanks cowski54
For me this is just a hobby but I desired and could afford the 70-200L f2.8, so I bought it. The lens was my first L(ove) and now many many L lenses later, I have no regrets.
Cowski, 70-200 f:2.8 is a very good lens indeed. Some might say, even brilliant. But whether you "need" that is another question. Besides, your cam is now getting rather long in the tooth, and you would get a better result with a less expensive lens and a new body, such as, for example, a T1i plus 70-200 IS f:4.0. The lens offers just as good IQ as it faster sibling, and the cam will more than make up for the one-stop loss in speed. Just my $0.02.
Basically, there are no Tamron or Sigma equivalents to the Canon 70-200, which are considered by some to be the best tele zooms ever made, whether F:2.8 or f:4, with or without IS. Again, others are free to think and say otherwise.
most people that I know who buy this lens for your uses find it to be too big and too heavy after the initial excitement of owning an L-lens wears out.
I use a little 135SF and Kenko pro 1.4... sold my 70-200/4L
philber wrote:
Basically, there are no Tamron or Sigma equivalents to the Canon 70-200, which are considered by some to be the best tele zooms ever made, whether F:2.8 or f:4, with or without IS. Again, others are free to think and say otherwise.
I beg to differ. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is just a capable as the Canon 70-200 2.8.
philber wrote:
Basically, there are no Tamron or Sigma equivalents to the Canon 70-200, which are considered by some to be the best tele zooms ever made, whether F:2.8 or f:4, with or without IS. Again, others are free to think and say otherwise.
I do think and will speak otherwise.
The image quality of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is better than the 70-200 f/2.8 by Sigma and Tamron. However, it costs 50% more and for amateur photography that extra touch of sharpness means very little. So yes there are Sigma and Tamron equivalents, they are only slightly behind the Canon in quality.
I have owned the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L without IS and rented one with the IS. Both are heavy, the IS model particularly so. It's an entirely workable rig to handhold but you're definitely giving up the convenient portability with a lens of this class.
The 70-200 f/4 is a good bit smaller and more affordable but still larger than the lenses you have now. If you aren't shooting in low light conditions then this is probably your best choice. The IS option is up to you and your budget.
Keep in mind that while kids sports photography is a generally approachable hobby, certain kids sports venues are extremely challenging. Many indoor facilities (school gyms, hockey rinks, etc) have lighting that is stripped down to be just acceptable for gameplay and it really puts a crimp on good photography. Even pros with very expensive cameras and lenses can struggle in these conditions. Before you make a big investment take a moment to consider where you intend to shoot and whether it will be practical.
Are you wanting L glass just to have L glass, or are you needing faster glass than what you currently own (since you mentioned shooting kids sports)? If it's faster glass, the Sigma EX 70-200/f2.8 lens is a very capable option for getting faster glass. And, no, the 70-200 range is not too much for shooting any kind of sports. Sure, it will be really short for field sports, but I don't know a pro sports photog who doesn't have one in their arsenal.
You will be hard-pressed to notice a huge difference in the final images taken with a Sigma 70-200/f2.8 compared to a Canon 70-200/f2.8. IMO (and experience with both lenses), any differences are certainly not worth the price difference.
BE CAREFEUL going down this road! This is how I started. My kid was playing football - so I bought a camera and a 300mm zoom lens. All his games were daytime and I really didn't have a clue what I was doing, so anything worked.
Then my kid got to High School and suddenly all the games were under the lights and a 5.6 300mm wouldn't do it. While I was at it, might as well get a decent body - Suddenly I'm looking at THOUSANDS of dollars of equipment to shoot my kid. Then I figure I might as well get more serious about this hobby of mine and start learning. Then I need another lens... then a body - then I get asked to do some team pictures and am in need of studio equip.
This can be a very expensive road to start down! However, it's extremely enjoyable.
Back to the question. As dgeesaman touches on, if you're going to be doing sports inside or under outdoor lights, you'll need the f2.8. If not, the 4.0 is much lighter and more affordable. For sports you don't need the IS, so save yourself some $$ there.
If you're looking at football, beware, 200mm is not long enough.
... just a personal note... when I went to my kid's last soccer game, I was late and forgot my DSLR and longer lenses and got there with only an old Kodak Retina (in my glove box)... this is just a 50mm fixed lens camera. Oh well... it was either drive back home to get my gear and miss the beginning of the game or make due... I made due and just shot when the action was close enough... and got enough shots to keep... and got to enjoy watching my son more while there were where I couldn't shoot... FWIW, photographing everything, especially when it is a kid's activity removes you from the moment...
dgeesaman wrote:
I do think and will speak otherwise.
The image quality of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is better than the 70-200 f/2.8 by Sigma and Tamron. However, it costs 50% more and for amateur photography that extra touch of sharpness means very little. So yes there are Sigma and Tamron equivalents, they are only slightly behind the Canon in quality.
David
David, it seems to me that, once you say that, in this instance, Tamron and Sigma lenses are "only lightly behind the Canon in quality", you have defined what I would call "no equivalent. As it happens, they offer other benefits in exchange, which you rightly point out, such as lower price and weight. This can make them as attractive or even more attractive than the Canon to some shooters, but equivalents, they aren't IMHO.
Philber, if you use the meaning of equivalent to mean equal, I agree with you.
However equivalent can also mean comparable. It seems to me that we're discussing with a beginner who hasn't studied the Canon/Tamron/Sigma lens catalog, therefore it would be a great disservice to not mention the Tamron and Sigma 70-200s simply because they are not equal in every way.
cowski54, Is there a particular sport your kids are in to? For basketball, I've found the 85mm 1.8 to be very good. I have the Canon 700-200 2.8, but prefer the 85mm 1.8.
To the question of what to get. If shooting sports you WILL need to eventually go to a 2.8 lens. Having said that, and I'm fully in the same boat here, with limited funds, get used gear. I have moved from cheap long lenses 28-200 tamron to a less cheap Canon 70-300 IS , to a better built Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Used lenses tend to hold their value quite well. So as I upgrade (if I feel the need) I really haven't lost the initial investment.
I will soon sell the Canon 70-300 and the Sigma 70-200 and get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
Dan Fleury wrote:
To the question of what to get. If shooting sports you WILL need to eventually go to a 2.8 lens.
I don't think that's the case at all. If you're shooting outdoors and have decent light it's not needed at all. That 70-300 Canon is a great choice, as is the Canon 70-200 f/4.
If you're referring to indoor sports or under the night lights, yes 2.8 is probably a minimum. f/2.0 or f/1.8 is often required, and the most sensitive camera body you can afford. This is a more challenging environment to shoot both skill and equipment-wise, so if you intend to shoot like this just understand that it will take both practice and investment. Not all amateurs are interested in going that far.
cowski54 wrote:
Hi new to forums....Need some advice on lenses...Currently have Tamron 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 and Canon 100-300mm 5.6...I would love to get a "L" lens with 2.8 for kids sports and walk around...Is a 2.8 70-200mm to much for that? Can any one offer their opinions or advice...my body is a canon rebel xt 8mp...Any advice will be helpful...thanks cowski54
There are many AM's on here that would bring more/better gear to an event than the designated pro's. so whatever you want/can afford to bring is not too much.
For sports 2.8 is great and while the XT (I had one) is lacking in the AF department and also the FPS/buffer as well is still capable of some very nice shots. you just have to choose your moment more carefully.
As for 70-200's here's the list to look at
1 70-200 2.8L IS
2 70-200 2.8L non is
3 80-200 2.8L
4 70-200 4L IS
5 70-200 4L Non is
6 Sigma 70-200 (in this order DG non Macro, non DG, DG Macro 2 , DG Macro)
7 Tamron 70-200 2.8
I have put the above list in the order that seems to make the best sense re IQ v VFM (VFM also includes probable resale value against what you originaly paid for it )
If you dont mind F4 and want a bit longer then the Sigma 100-300/4 is also a great lens
I want to thank all of you very much for all the advice...still pondering...lens/or new body now A lens will cost $1000+-...A kit with body + 18-55/55-250mm will cost $1000...I understand that the lenses in the kit will not be f2.0 but will they be enough? I will continue to read the forums for advice ...thanks again...Cowski54
The 70-200 2.8 is a very nice lens, but it is pretty big and bulky. I find it too big for family outings. The 70-200 f4 or f4 IS are much more appropriate for this task.
