Printable View
Looking at upgrading in the telephoto category. currently have a Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 and i am looking to upgrade to either a Canon 70-200mm f/4L or the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro. I know the Canon is going to have better quality. but i was curious to see if anyone had used the Tamron. I don't need IS and will be shooting sports, so the faster the better. Sadly the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is far out of my price range, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro is also another option
I would suggest reading the reviews for all three on this site. I haven't used the Sigma or Tamron, but I can vouch for the Canon f/2.8 and f/4 as top notch in every regard.
The review here indicates that the Tamron autofocus is lacking. The Sigma has HSM, but all three copies Bryan tried had front-focusing issues. If you have a body with microadjustment, you can correct for that.
f/2.8 is important for sports, so I think you're on the right track trying to get it if you can.
As you mentioned the Canon EF70-200MM f/2.8 L IS USM is awesome, but expensive. Icarry mine to almost every shoot. I have a friend who is getting very nice results with the CanonEF70-200MMf/4, so I think you can have good confidence in it as well.
I own one Tamron and two Sigma lens and none of them produce bad results. Unfortunately mine are not the specific ones you are looking to buy. At high magnification, you may notice some differences versus the Canon "L" series,but they canbe very workable. If you don't venture into 16x20 or 24x36 territory, you may notnoticethe IQ difference.
I really notice the difference in build quality across the manufacturers. The Canon L-seriesbuild is very solid...and I have seen two of them DROPPED good distances and survive. Even when they are damaged, Canon seems to be able to repair them at somewhat resonable cost.
i dont reccommend the tanmron at all to be honest.. get the sigma if necessary the image quality is 5x better.