70 200mm 2.8

SQUINTING WINDO

Advice please with choosing between Tamron 70 200 2.8 and Sigma 70 200 2.8 in relation to dust proofing and moisture proofing as I have read in some reviews that the Tamron may not be dust proof ?
(Cannot afford Canon lens) Tks.

Corkbah

save a little longer and get a secondhand Canon (just my advice)

ImagenEstilo

Corkbah wrote: »

save a little longer and get a secondhand Canon (just my advice)

This is top advice. If I was to add anything, it would be that you should try and get the model with VR. It will make a difference when hand holding or in low light.

Corkbah

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

This is top advice. If I was to add anything, it would be that you should try and get the model with VR. It will make a difference when hand holding or in low light.

VR is a nikon thing ... IS (Image stabalisation) is Canon.

its a choice ... the IS models are more expensive and the non-IS is discontinued.

pete4130

Definitely hold off and get a Canon.

Years ago I got a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and had it sold in under 2 weeks it was that poor of a copy. Got a much older Nikon 80-200 2.8 2nd hand and have had it ever since.

3rd party lenses, no matter how good will not really compare to own brand lenses. You get what you pay for.

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

Definitely hold off and get a Canon.

Years ago I got a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and had it sold in under 2 weeks it was that poor of a copy. Got a much older Nikon 80-200 2.8 2nd hand and have had it ever since.

3rd party lenses, no matter how good will not really compare to own brand lenses. You get what you pay for.

In general I would agree but there are some new Sigma primes 35mm and 50mm which seem to be as good and if reports are to be believed the 50mm f1.4 is better than the Canon (again ...its not my personal experience but word from others that I have been told)

Pete67

I have the Sigma 50 1.4 and having tested it extensively against the Canon 50 1.4 I can confirm it is better in almost every respect. It is also more expensive, so maybe you do get what you pay for!

This is probably an exception though. I'd quite like to compare it to the Canon 50 1.2L, maybe someday!

pete4130

The problem with the Sigma/3rd party lenses is the lack of consistency with their lenses and quality control. Whereas you might have a great copy the person next to you might have a really bad copy with front/back focusing issues.

3rd party lenses are almost reversed engineered as opposed to dedicated brand lenses so they are at a disadvantage right away.

I've also had a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and had issues with it. Light bouncing around in the barrel causing coloured arcs/half moons on my image, distortion, slower focusing, inaccurate focusing etc... Again I sold it and bought the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it had non of those problems. So for the 2 main "pro" lenses that you "must have" I got really bad copies of them. It's not what I want when I spend the guts of E1000 a lens to find they are useless. It's an expensive gamble to take if you get a bad copy.

When I sold my Sigma 70-200 2.8 I went back to using my Nikon 70-300 VR 4.5-6.3 consumer lens for a while and it outperformed the Sigma PRO lens by miles!

Buying Sigma, then selling and re-buying the Nikon equivalent cost me more money in the long run. Buy cheap, buy twice is my motto.

I read all the reviews about the Sigmas being just as good and when you spend the money and find out your copy isn't just as good, that in fact its terrible. You'll wish you'd saved that bit longer and harder and got the Nikon or Canon version.

SQUINTING WINDO

After an evening of research I would like advice on a choice between Canon f/4 L IS USM and f/2.8 L IS ? As most of my photography will be outdoors and I would like to have the ability to shoot Football / Hurling / Soccer etc might the f/4 be sufficent ? How far behind is the 70 300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (non L)
Is 70 200mm enough to cover a match as above (Football etc)
Thank you for your response and patience.

chisel

Sigma vs canon: I ended up with a sigma, but before I bought I tested it out completely to make sure it was sharp etc. It's my least used lens (tend to shoot wide rather than long) but I still found my copy as sharp as the Canon f4L I had at the time.

I'd have to say go for the 2.8 every time, but do be aware that it's a good bit bigger and heavier than the f4. At least with the 2.8 you can use a 1.4x and you'd still only be back at f4. And for sports its not just the extra light you might need - its also good to throw backgrounds out of focus