hj Loc: Florida

I'm familiar with the Buy/sell/trade portion of the forum but I'm posting here that I'm wanting a 70-200mm f2.8 lens to use on my Canon 80D DSLR. Mainly I'm curious what the forum members think as they compare the Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses? How do they compare in image quality before I start researching prices? I will use almost exclusively to shoot college soccer games on the sideline. Currently I'm using the Canon 70-200mm f4L lens and am thinking the f2.8 might be better. Because I'll be shooting with a high shutter speed around 1000 or 1200 I don't feel I really need image stabilization.

Bill_de Loc: US

https://www.lightandmatter.org/2010/equipment-reviews/best-70-200mm-lenses-for-canon-comparison/

--

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The focal length 70-200 is one of those zoom lenses that define the entire product line. The Canon f/2.8L IS versions set the standard for the EF mount. The Tamron f/2.8 version is an excellent lens too.

But seriously, what situations demand an f/2.8 lens? Unless you're shooting events indoors, where the Canon f/2.8L IS III lens is the gold standard, you'd be better served with the 100-400 L II. You mention college soccer, daytime or night or both? If f/4 is too slow at night, you may find the f/2.8 is better. I've had success at HS sports at night at f/4 and I'd expect college lights to be even better.

Within the Canon lenses, the many f/4 and f/2.8 lenses are all very sharp, nearly equally sharp. You can pick out the f/2.8 with knowledge of where / how it differs. But, the primary differences are the weight and 1-stop difference (and cost), not sharpness in the results nor AF speed.

For roughly the same cost you can achieve a much more versatile lens in the 100-400L, that can be extended with a 1.4x and retain AF on your 80D. Where you need f/2.8, the 100-400L is not the option. Your specific needs and shooting situations will determine which is really the better option. You should consider too whether you can go a touch slower on the shutter where 1/1000 may be unnecessarily fast. Certainly, sports action would allow for no need for the IS. But, what the IS can do for you in low light at f/2.8 and speeds down to 1/30 - 1/60 will justify having this do-it-all-indoors tool in your arsenal, when indoors is your usage need.

OviedoPhotos

I have both an F4 and F2.8 that I use on my Nikon D800 and D850. Frankly for the weight, and low light capabilities of either body I'm using the F4 more and more.

david vt Loc: Vermont

Hi

I have the nikon version of that lens, and while fine if you are right on the sidelines shooting mid-field, find it a bit short for shooting from the corners or goal line in terms of filling the frame with individual athletes or close in action. As for the step from f4 down to f2.8, it really depends on how close you are. At 50ft, DoF is +/- 2.2 ft. At f2.8, +/- 1.6. I find that my shooting skills to get sharp focus and for the depth of action, I often shoot at f4. You may not need the extra stop, and may be better putting your money into extra reach.

My comments also echo chg_canon above in terms of reach. I am shooting outdoor daytime HS sports this year with the 70-200 lens with a TC1.4 on it on a crop camera wide open, so I am getting about 180-450 FF equiv at f4. Very happy with the results, and I then have it without the TC when I don’t need the length and/or want that extra stop of light.

Cannot help with N vs T vs S with direct experience, but I have seen good comments on the S version of this lens

the best advice I can give you is to search the sports sections for Jules Carney and some of the sports shooters whom focus on soccer or football in the same light you are shooting (day vs night). Almost always you can see what equipment and settings they are using (common in that section). This will give you an idea of length and light

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I met a pro NFL photographer who used the Canon 1DX pro camera. He said the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L lens was his most used lens. This was about 3 years ago. A brand new Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 lens is not cheap. Unless you get a refurbished or used. You may save some money. Another option is third party. A friend bought a new Tamron 70-200mm G2 for $1400. He loves it. Sigma, not being out of the competition, now has a newer sports model 70-200mm f2.8. I have not seen this newest model yet. You may want to check out reviews on both the Tamron G2 and the Sigma. If cost is a factor. Good luck.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I shoot with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens a lot. The version III is now the newest. I also use mine with the 2x Extender III which gives me f/5.6 at 140-400 on my FF body. I usually try to shoot this around f/7-f/8. This combination is plenty sharp in my experience. The Extender III is $450 new but you can get used and add it when and if you need it. It really comes down to what else you want to use the f/2.8 for in addition. It is a very versatile lens and nice for portraits too.

The 100-400 II is a great lens but I don’t care for the fact that it changes length as you zoom. It is also not as fast a lens but it is in the same price range.

khorinek

I have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. I shoot college soccer on the sidelines as well. Both lenses do very well for sports, unless it starts getting dark, then the f/2.8 is my preference. Also I use a 2x extender. With that extender you lose 2 stops so the f/2.8 lens works better because i still have f/5.6 if needed. I like the Image Stabilization on both lenses and would not buy a lens without it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

A 70-200 f2.8L IS is one of the most versatile lenses, and you’ll find one in most pro sports shooter’s bag - the later ones are a bit better, but all are good. If you find the weight too heavy for long events, a monopod may be useful. While I like the versatility, I find that I’ve been using my 135 f2L prime a lot recently and keeping a Canon 1.4x mk II or III extender in my pocket when I need close to 200mm @ f2.8. It’s half the weight of the 70-200 and sharper, even with the extender added.

John Matthews Loc: Wasilla, Alaska

I have both the the 70-200 canon f4 and 2.8 (both nonstablelized). The f4 is noticeably lighter and smaller. Both lenses are sharp but for best picture quality the 2.8 is better.
I shoot a lot of high school soccer from the sidelines. I think you do want the 2.8 aperture available. Both for low light situations and because I find that focal length to be somewhat short to cover the field and thus a teleconverter can be useful.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

If you want the BEST for your Canon, buy Canon's latest version, IMHO. I'm a Nikon sports shooter and actually have both the 2.8 and 4 versions. This is one of my most used lenses for outdoor sports. Best of luck.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First things first.... Get the Image Stabilized lens... PERIOD! You might think you'll always be using 1/1000 or 1/1200 shutter speed... until you're not! You will have much more versatility with an IS lens, than with a non-IS. Also, the non-IS 70-200mm f/2.8 is by far the oldest (1995) design among all the Canon 70-200s and there have been a number of improvements in the many years since. Also, all the Canon 70-200s (and many of their other telephotos) use fluorite for premium image quality and to minimize chromatic aberrations. EXCEPT for two: the non-IS, f/2.8 version (the oldest) and the first IS f/2.8 version (also discontinued years ago). All three f/4 versions, the f/2.8 IS II and f/2.8 IS III versions all use fluorite. (The latest Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR "FL" also uses fluorite. NONE of the third party 70-200s use fluorite.)

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "II" and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "III" are virtually identical. The "III" has enhanced coatings both internally (air sphere, to minimize flare) and externally (fluorine to help make front and rear elements more dust/water/fingerprint resistant and easier to clean). The "III" also got some cosmetic changes to the labeling and an updated color of paint. But in real world use the "II" is virtually the same lens, offering almost identical image quality.

The Canon 70-200mm f/4 lenses are about 2/3 the size and 2/3 the weight of the f/2.8 lenses. They are equally sharp, just not able to blur backgrounds quite as dramatically. Are you prepared to handhold a 3+ lb. lens versus the less than 2 lb. lens you're using now? I've lent my f/2.8 IS lens to some people who decided to buy one of the f/4 lenses instead. I also use the f/4 IS... bought it as a backup for the f/2.8 lens but find I now use the f/4 lens more often! Of course, you may feel differently.

All the Canon 70-200 lenses are real "work horses"... built to take abuse and heavy use, as well as Internal Focusing designs that are highly weather/dust resistant. They also all use high performance "USM" ultrasonic focus drive.

The f/2.8 lenses come with a tripod mounting ring. The f/4 lenses don't (but one is available separately). The f/2.8 lenses' tripod mounting ring is a different design that's clamps more strongly onto the lens to more fully lock it in place and requires removing the lens from the camera to remove the tripod ring. The f/4 lenses' tripod ring is "hinged" to allow it to be installed or removed from the lens without having to remove the lens from the camera.

The original f/2.8 IS lens was rated to have 2 to 3 stops of assistance from it's Image Stabilization system. All the other IS lenses are rated to provide 3 to 4 stops of assistance.

Ranking Canon's 70-200s for image quality, from best to worst.:

#1. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS "III" (2018).
#2. EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS "II" (2010, very little difference).
#3. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS "II" (2018, very little difference).
#4. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS (2006, very little difference).
#5. EF 70-200mm f/4L non-IS (1999, very little difference).
#6. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (2001).
#7. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (1995).

Note: Models currently in production are bolded. The first five models have nearly identical image quality (other than depth of field differences, comparing f/2.8 vs f/4 lenses wide open). As previously noted, all five of those models happen to use a fluorite element, too.

You can compare the image quality of the best Canon with the worst Canon yourself here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 That compares the 70-200mm f/2.8 II or III IS with the old 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS. You can particularly see the differences toward the 70mm end of their focal length ranges. Note that all these magnified comparison shots are done using a full frame 50MP 5DsR, the high resolution of which is extremely demanding of good glass. That high resolution will show up any short-comings a lens might have, more than lower resolution cameras will. Using the lenses on a 24MP 80D actually has similar or greater pixel density, but being an APS-C camera it "trims off" the corner of images, where image quality of most lenses tends to be its weakest.

The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC G2 appears to be quite good too. It rivals the image quality of even the best of the Canon. It also uses "USD" ultrasonic focus drive and features "VC" image stabilization. Tamron's more recent lenses, this one included, now have an Arca-Swiss compatible dovetail built right into the tripod mounting ring. You can compare image quality for yourself, with top of the line Canon versus the Tamron G2 here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=1116&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS "Sport" is also quite good... It uses their "HSM" ultrasonic drive and features OS images stabilization, too. Again, see for yourself here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1393&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Sigma is the heaviest of the bunch, tipping the scales at 4 lb. The Tamron lenses weighs the same 3.3 lb. as the Canon f/2.8 IS III. The Canon f/4 IS II lens is the lightest current model at 1.7 lb. (but probably is around 2 lb. with the tripod ring added).

All the f/4 lenses use 67mm filters. All the f/2.8 lenses use 77mm filters, except for the Sigma which uses an 82mm.

With the Canon lenses you are assured they will be fully compatible with past, present and future EOS SLRs and DSLRs (and, apparently, with the Canon mirrorless cameras... via adapters). Canon states that's the case with all L-series lenses, by definition (although recently Canon has been introducing some RF-mount L-series lenses, which certainly won't fit any of the EOS SLRs, DSLRs or the APS-C M-series with their EF-M mount lenses).

There is no such assurance with third party lenses. There have been issues in the past, when a newer camera wouldn't work correctly with an older 3rd party lenses. Sometimes the lens manufacturer is able to update the lens to work properly.... sometimes not. Sigma has had the most compatibility issues (but also has made the most different models of lenses). Tamron has had some, too.

EDIT: Lensrentals.com has extensively tested multiple copies of 70-200mm lenses from all the manufacturers and posted the results in their blog, here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/07/just-the-mtf-charts-70-200mm-f2-8-zooms/

Toment Loc: FL, IL

The 70-200 f4 from Sony is lightweight (relatively) and very sharp in the mid range at f5.6.
The 70-200 f2.8 (which I do not own) is heavier and more expensive but probably better.
My two cents
Have fun!

ggab Loc: ?

I would suggest getting a lens with IS. The reason, well shooting at 1000 to 1200 will stop action I often shoot at 650 to 800. It stops the body action, yet shows some movement in the feet, arms and ball. This gives more of an "action" effect. Download and look at the rear foot and ball. You can also see some movement in her arms.
This is a shot I could not have taken with my 70-200 f/2.8 III.

Often I will take static pictures in cloudy low light conditions at much slower shutter speeds with this lens. IS really helps.

EF 100-400 IS USM L II 1/800 f/5 255mm

(Download)

hj Loc: Florida

We receives lots of recommendations to have IS (image stabilization) on the lens. Guess I didn't mention in my original post that my Canon 70-200mm f4L IS lens does have IS. Thanks to everyone for all the great informative suggestions. Guess I will give a little more effort with this lens to squeak out better IQ with my settings before I decide whether to get the f2.8L. Guess my need for the f2.8 isn't as pressing since I only shoot daylight games. I am especially pleased to learn the IQ of the f4 lens is nearly the same as the f2.8 lens. Special thanks to amfoto1 for his extensive response with great info.