hj wrote:
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.
I'm familiar with the Buy/sell/trade portion of th... (
show quote)
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=1The 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=0The 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/