New lens - budget £500

T

Turnermator21

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Edit My Images
No
Hiya guys & girls,

Currently have canon 40d, nifty fifty and tamron 17-50 f2.8 in my bag and to celebrate getting a new job i have given myself a budget of £500 to get a telephoto lens for sports (motor sports) and general use...

Currently torn between canon's 70-200mm f4 L and tamron's 70-200mm f2.8 but getting mixed reviews.

Please let me know what would be the better option and what else i might be missing out on!!

Cheers!
 
If the Canon is stablized, no contest. OTOH L lens are very good IQ wise. The Tamron's no slouch but it is no speed demon auto focusing. I'd guess the Canon is better in every way but no doubt a bit more coin.
 
Turnermator21 said:
Currently torn between canon's 70-200mm f4 L and tamron's 70-200mm f2.8 but getting mixed reviews.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Of these 2 - the Canon 70-200F4 - it's an absolute belter of a lens and you can pick one up brand new well within your budget :thumbs:
 
Would the optical quality out way the advantage of the f2.8 feature?

Is the bokeh effect still great with this lens?

Mixed reviews about needing the IS ?
 
I had a 70-200 f4 L and it was pin sharp. I really regret selling it, but have put the money towards a 70-200 2.8 IS L so I'm I'll be happy enough when it arrives. If you're using IS for fast moving objects it wont help a lot anyway. I used mine mainly for wildlife (squirrels and BIF mostly) and the lack of IS wasn't a problem at all. It's light enough to use handheld all day. I've never used a Tamron 70-200 so I can't comment on that, but the Canon is absolutely brilliant.
 
The Tamron is known for being sharp but way too sluggish on the AF front for moving subjects.

The canon is a top performer, and for motorsports you often don't need the f2.8 due to panning.

That said, if you're planning on shooting track action you may well find youself wanting extra length. Within your budget, the sihma 100-300 f4 may be an option. Granted its not L glass but it may be worth a look, as would a second hand sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and 1.4x converter combination
 
Thanks guys I really appreciate the comments!

I love my Tamron 17-50mm but have never been sure on Sigma equipment.

I do feel the L lens would be worth a go but feel that maybe you more for your money with the Tamron f2.8. Is the canon f4 any good for action without the IS or would it be v important for this type of photography?

Also.. what convertors are there other than canon that would work with the lenses?

Many thanks!
 
IS won't make a difference for action as the shutter speeds are to fast to make it useful. Some lenses have an updated IS that may be useful for panning but in general it isn't needed.

If you're sure you don't need more than 200mm then I'd strongly advise the canon.
 
The Canon 70-200mm f4 L is a very good lens but also is the cheaper Tamron SP 70-300mm IS DI which has very quick AF and very good 4 stop immage stabalizer.
 
Just checked out the price for the 100-400mm canon and it seems to be double my price range.

I have a entry level tamron 70-300 but want a better quality bit of glass to improve pics
 
A little bit left field, but for about £150 you should be able to find a sigma 400mm f5.6 prime. They were designed for film eos cameras and may not stop down below max aperture but for cricket you won't want to go much below f5.6 anyway.
Just an idea
 
artyman said:
Probably the best bang for buck is the Sigma 150-500, just sold mine for not much more than your budget figure.
Click to expand...

And again the superior sigma 120-400mm OS is overlooked :)

I bought this bad boy a few weeks back and is very sharp, fast and performs well even @ f5.6 where sharpness is good (excellent @f8).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top