Canon, Sigma, or Tamron 70-200mm

WPoch

WPoch

Active member
Don't know if repost (searchbarred nothing came up), but I am having trouble looking for a new fast telephoto lens to film on.

I have heard of these 3 different 70-200mm and I cant really find any videos on what the differences are between each of them regarding videos (in low light, clarity, IS).

I was kinda looking to get one and would love to hear your input on which ones are better for the cost, because I know that the canon is a lot more expensive than the sigma or Tamron.

Thanks!
 
For video, honestly you can go with any of them. You don't need IS, so throw that option out the window and save money.

The Canon will have the best focus ring, but the Tamron's not bad. I'm not sure whether you're speaking of the new Sigma or the old one, but the old one was pretty sticky.

1080p video on a Canon won't be able to out resolve any of these lenses on a level of sharpness, and they are close enough otherwise that you can sorta just go for which ever one feels best or costs cheapest to you.
 
13119899:DingoSean said:
For video, honestly you can go with any of them. You don't need IS, so throw that option out the window and save money.

The Canon will have the best focus ring, but the Tamron's not bad. I'm not sure whether you're speaking of the new Sigma or the old one, but the old one was pretty sticky.

1080p video on a Canon won't be able to out resolve any of these lenses on a level of sharpness, and they are close enough otherwise that you can sorta just go for which ever one feels best or costs cheapest to you.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but when I got a Canon 70-200 IS I was not planning on using it mainly for video. HOWEVER it is has made taking photos super fun for me, and definitely opened up some new possibilities in that respect.
 
13119945:mvf said:
Probably true, but when I got a Canon 70-200 IS I was not planning on using it mainly for video. HOWEVER it is has made taking photos super fun for me, and definitely opened up some new possibilities in that respect.
Click to expand...

Sorry.... I WAS planning on using it solely for video.
 
Another lens to consider... Canon 80-200 f2.8L

You can usually find them around 700$ used, and are fantastic lenses if you can find one.

Plus they're black, instead of the white paint - which drives me nuts.
 
13120010:DingoSean said:
Another lens to consider... Canon 80-200 f2.8L

You can usually find them around 700$ used, and are fantastic lenses if you can find one.

Plus they're black, instead of the white paint - which drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

Is there a big difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200?

Besides the 10mm difference
 
13120058:WPoch said:
Is there a big difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200?

Besides the 10mm difference
Click to expand...

1. Price. It's way cheaper than the other f2.8 zooms.

2. No manual focus override, you have to use a switch. If you're shooting video this is a non-issue.

3. It's black. Stealth.

4. it's louder at focusing - about as loud as the 50 f1.8.

5. Much harder to find one in good shape.

Other than that, optically just as good as the 70-200L's, and just about as heavy.
 
If you're going for just video, consider a nikon 80-200 2.8 the push pull version is about $300 and the two ring version is $500-600 + a $10 metal ring adapter.
 
I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I shoot video and photos as well. I looked at the Canon f/4, but for me an extra stop of light was more important than a slightly sharper lens, and my lens is still sharp as fuck even at f/2.8, though I don't really have a point of reference other than my 17-50. For video, the VC isn't very helpful, hopefully you wouldn't think of using a 70-200 handheld, but for photography it can be great, specifically in low light. I will usually throw mine on a monopod for extra stability as well.
 
13121141:pussyfooter said:
If you're going for just video, consider a nikon 80-200 2.8 the push pull version is about $300 and the two ring version is $500-600 + a $10 metal ring adapter.
Click to expand...

Is this a great, sharp lens even though it is such a low cost? Seems to good to be true haha
 
13122831:WPoch said:
Is this a great, sharp lens even though it is such a low cost? Seems to good to be true haha
Click to expand...

The reason the push pull version is so cheap is because people dont like operating it, no AF etc its a super old lens. The 80-200 2.8 ED has a zoom ring and focus ring, its an awesome lens but its older and people have to have the new hot gear so the nikon 70-200 gets more attention so the 80-200s stay cheap.

You could also do some quick research and see tons of examples of how good the nikon 80-200 lenses are.
 
13122847:pussyfooter said:
The reason the push pull version is so cheap is because people dont like operating it, no AF etc its a super old lens. The 80-200 2.8 ED has a zoom ring and focus ring, its an awesome lens but its older and people have to have the new hot gear so the nikon 70-200 gets more attention so the 80-200s stay cheap.

You could also do some quick research and see tons of examples of how good the nikon 80-200 lenses are.
Click to expand...

I've looked quite a bit into it and it looks like a killer lens. I've looked at some review videos and it has a couple of downsides too like slow focus and its fucking loud haha. Its looks nice either way, but one video I looked at says it needs an AFS motor to focus? Will an adapter ring on a t3i do the trick? Or will I have to give up on AF and just use manual?
 
13122847:pussyfooter said:
The reason the push pull version is so cheap is because people dont like operating it, no AF etc its a super old lens. The 80-200 2.8 ED has a zoom ring and focus ring, its an awesome lens but its older and people have to have the new hot gear so the nikon 70-200 gets more attention so the 80-200s stay cheap.

You could also do some quick research and see tons of examples of how good the nikon 80-200 lenses are.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have the Push-Pull 80-200. As much as I'd like the 2 touch, it's another 200$ and I mostly use it for video.

It's a friggin fantastic lens though... I just hate the size for general photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top