jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Looks good. I added that to my Cameras > Shopping bookmarks. By the way, Amazon has it for $2 less.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

I purchased the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 because I needed low light capability (outdoor evening rodeo in poorly light small arenas) coupled with fast shutter speed. I also shoot theatrical rehearsal performance, where flash is a no-no. This means that there is some post processing involved. Budget was also a consideration, plus I knew the name Tamron from working at a defense contractor specializing in lens for high-tech imaging equipment. I couldn't afford Canon L glass, but I am absolutely thrilled with the Tamron. I've since purchased a Tamron 200-500 and 24-135 lens. As long as you stay with Tamron SP series, I believe you'll be pleased. But ... even though the Tamron is lighter, I still recommend a monopod / tripod if you're shooting anything that is lengthy ... like a rodeo, football game, etc. Here's a couple shots with the 70-200 f/2.8

Low light photo fast action ... rodeo


Rehearsal for Antigone ...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nikon for $2,400 or Tamron for $800. Oooh, tough choice. :D

I'm sure the Nikon is better in some way, but I would never spend three times more for it. Maybe if someone starts paying me to take shots at night. :D

WildBill Loc: South West Florida

Sigma ranks higher than the Tamron according to all reviews I have read on the 70-200mm f2.8 . Glad you enjoy your lens and are happy with your results but I would rather lose a stop on aperture and have the superior quality of the canon L lens for the same price.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

(I added italics in your post ...) So would I ... IF the price was the same. But they aren't. Canon is more than 3x the price and, like I said, budget was a factor. I don't fault anyone who has the $$$$ for buying the best lens money can buy, but since I don't have that luxury, I have to buy the best lens my money can buy ... and I believe I did, and I'm extremely pleased with the quality of shots I'm getting.

WildBill Loc: South West Florida

My original post was suggesting the 70-200mm f4L which is only one stop difference from the Tamron and actually costs almost 100 dollars less (679.00 vs 751.00 for Tamron) for much better image quality, build, and focus speed. Yes, the canon 70-200mm f2.8 is much more expensive but I would loss the one stop rather than going to the Tamron personally.
I am not trying to say the Tamron is a bad lens; it isn't. It is just not an option for my tastes considering the alternative.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Understood. Although it's a difference of only one stop, 2.8 just sounds so much better than 4.0.

WildBill Loc: South West Florida

It sure does LOL

capsar050 Loc: Piedmont in North Carolina

Update: I have been fortunate enough to get a 50-200 and use it on my E30 ( both Oly ) and found it is an outstanding pair for low light and FAST action.