Choosing 70-200mm F 2.8 Zoom Lens: I have a Canon T3i camera (which I plan on upgrading to a better Canon camera next year), and am trying to decide which 70-200 mm F2.8 zoom lens to...

Rockyguzman

I have a Canon T3i camera (which I plan on upgrading to a better Canon camera next year), and am trying to decide which 70-200 mm F2.8 zoom lens to buy in order to take better night football and basketball games of my grandkids. Trying to decide between a Sigma, Tamron, Canon without IS and the Canon with IS which would be considerably more expensive. If I decided on the Canon lens without IS, would I be more likely to suffer on my picture quality? Thank you!

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Probably one of the best if not the best 70-200 available is the Canon with IS and it's a bit pricy. Personally I'd advise against going without some sort of image stabilization, vibration compensation or whatever the manufacturer calls it. If the lens will be used for the grandkids sports activities and not for shooting weddings, although you could, my suggestion is the Tamron. I own both the Tamron and Canon (with IS) 70-200 and although the Canon is a bit faster and sharper, the Tamron holds its own. On a scale or 1 to 100, the Canon being 100, I'd give the Tamron a 94 and it's several hundreds of dollars less expensive than the Canon. The Tamron is well built and can take a pretty good beating. It's no where near as well sealed as the Canon but then its not a canon L series lens. It is a good alternative to the Canon if you don't need the extra performance you will get from the Canon. Take the money you save and put it towards something a bit more up to date that a T3i.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I'll just mention that at a recent pro seminar presented by our local newspaper (who has 11 pros on staff), every one of the 4 presenters had a Canon 70-200 F2.8L as one of their 3 go-to lenses in their kit. Having said that, the question for me would be, given say an $1,100 budget, would I buy the non-IS MKII or the IS MKI? (I chose the latter, and have never regretted it, but that's just my personal choice)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm with TriX on the idea of looking at the Mrk I w/ IS. It will be used as a discontinued model. KEH.com is one of several sources for pricing.

Islandgal Loc: Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Canada

It is one of the 5 top lens. Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS L More expensive, yes... but worth it! My favourite lens so far and what I shoot most with!
I would give Tamaron a go as well.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Rockyguzman wrote:

I have a Canon T3i camera (which I plan on upgrading to a better Canon camera next year), and am trying to decide which 70-200 mm F2.8 zoom lens to buy in order to take better night football and basketball games of my grandkids. Trying to decide between a Sigma, Tamron, Canon without IS and the Canon with IS which would be considerably more expensive. If I decided on the Canon lens without IS, would I be more likely to suffer on my picture quality? Thank you!

The Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC is pretty much a no brainer, $1399 NEW, and that includes the BEST warranty in the industry at 6 full years coverage. Why spend close to that for a used lens with little or no warranty coverage?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

MT Shooter wrote:

The Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 VC is pretty much a no brainer, $1399 NEW, and that includes the BEST warranty in the industry at 6 full years coverage. Why spend close to that for a used lens with little or no warranty coverage?

No brainer?!?!
Tamrons are black......, what if someone mistook it for a Nikon?????
He would not be able to live that down without BURNING the lens in question!!!

SS

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You'll find good info here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9ju8LmRfU
http://www.diyphotography.net/great-24-70mm-f2-8-shootout-pits-nearly-identical-canon-nikkor-pentax-sony/

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

TriX wrote:

I'll just mention that at a recent pro seminar presented by our local newspaper (who has 11 pros on staff), every one of the 4 presenters had a Canon 70-200 F2.8L as one of their 3 go-to lenses in their kit. Having said that, the question for me would be, given say an $1,100 budget, would I buy the non-IS MKII or the IS MKI? (I chose the latter, and have never regretted it, but that's just my personal choice)

Yes, this is a lens of choice for NFL photographers pairing it with the Canon 1DX.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

From what I have read, the big three, Canon, Sigma and Tamron, are toss-up. The consensus seems to be they are comparable. I know you will find partisans for one brand or another but regardless you choice, you will not go wrong. You might want to rent them so you can compare yourself in the way you shoot.

As for me, I proudly own the Sigma. While I have not compared it to the others, I will say it is very sharp and gives me wonderful sport and stage pictures.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

abc1234 wrote:

I know you will find partisans for one brand or another but regardless you choice, you will not go wrong.

That's what's nice about modern photo gear. It really doesn't matter what you buy. It takes detailed study to find differences in quality.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

jerryc41 wrote:

That's what's nice about modern photo gear. It really doesn't matter what you buy. It takes detailed study to find differences in quality.

And then how much does it matter in the end? The viewer is not going to know.

To change the subject, I am going to stick with Sigma because of the Dock. Too bad this lens does not have it. I think it gives more value than Tamron's six-year guarantee or Canon's weatherproofing (unless you really need it).

Mick 53 Loc: Minneapolis

If your budget allows go with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. Great fast sports lens. You see many white lenses on the sidelines at pro sports. On my other Canon body, I use the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens for my walk around and portraits also. They compliment each other very well.

hj Loc: Florida

I too shoot a Canon T3i for night-time under the lights SOCCER.... A FAST GAME.... and use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L WITHOUT IS. I am very satisfied with the results. If your main shooting is sports you don't need IS as you will be shooting with a very fast shutter speed. Save big bucks without IS. Of course there are always those who think spending lots of money on equipment equates to better results. Not so.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I have the f/2.8 IS II. I sold version I and purchased II about 1.5 years ago. I would not sell or trade this lens for any other currently on the market. It is fabulous. I shoot lots of action sports of my grand kids too, with it mounted on my Canon 7D M II. The autofocus system of the 7D MII is pattered after the 1Dx. The lens is pricey and so is the camera, but for sports they are the best combo available. You may be ale to find refurbished at Canon - save a few dollars - or a used one on eBay or KEH, Adorama, BHPhoto.
I've attached a couple of images - circus.
Good luck in making your decision.
Mark

Rockyguzman wrote:

I have a Canon T3i camera (which I plan on upgrading to a better Canon camera next year), and am trying to decide which 70-200 mm F2.8 zoom lens to buy in order to take better night football and basketball games of my grandkids. Trying to decide between a Sigma, Tamron, Canon without IS and the Canon with IS which would be considerably more expensive. If I decided on the Canon lens without IS, would I be more likely to suffer on my picture quality? Thank you!

(Download)