Standard Zoom Lens For Sports

[Photo-John]

I just got my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L repaired and the continuous AF performance is better than I ever remember it being. That has me thinking about my standard zoom lens, or lack thereof. I've got a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, which has great image quality but the AF speed isn't the best and I think the AF is pretty far off right now. I mainly use it for manual studio product photography now. My other option is my 18-200mm IS zoom - a great all-pupose lens but not up to the same speed or optical standards as the 70-200mm.

So, after having the 70-200mm repaired and finding how good it can actually be, I'm thinking about another L lens - either the 24-700mm f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L IS. And then today I wrote an article about the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and I'm thinking I should take my own advice and consider that lens as well. After all, it's been in our top five most popular lens list for years, I think.

So what do you guys think? Consider that I'm looking for a lens that can keep up with cyclosts and skiers in AI Servo continuous auto focus mode. And price is a factor. I know someone who will sell me the Sigma for $525. That's over half of what either Canon L lens would cost me - a pretty strong motivator. But if it's going to let me down on AF then it's probably not the right thing to do. My recent experience with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM has me feeling pretty good about the high-end Sigma lenses. I shot cyclocross with that lens last winter and it was rock solid.

I'd be grateful for any feedback. Thanks

[Chris350]

Personally I'd go with the 24-70 2.8 L but I have a serious need for speed. Plus you and I both know AF speed in sports is critical.

[Photo-John]

Personally I'd go with the 24-70 2.8 L but I have a serious need for speed. Plus you and I both know AF speed in sports is critical.

If money wasn't an issue I'd do it in a heartbeat. And someone I know has offered to sell me a used Sigma, in great condition, for less than half the cost of the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Makes it a tough decision. I felt the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 performed very well last year at the Herriman CX race. Otherwise I wouldn't even consider the Sigma. But for less than half the price of the Canon, I'm thinking it's probably the right thing to do.

[groovehouse]

I have found my Tamrons more reliable than my Sigmas and you're right the Tamron 28-75 is a heck of a lens. I used it for a long time before I upgraded but once I did, there was no turning back. I thought the images from the Tamron were sharp, and they were but there is a NOTICEABLE difference when you go with a Canon L series lens. My images were way sharper and my post production time was cut down immensely.

I would go with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L - in the long run, you will be happier with the better quality build, optics and results. The money spent will be well worth it.

[Photo-John]

Thanks, groovehouse. Your post addresses one of my main fears - that I'll eventually end up buying the Canon, anyway. But the cost of the Sigma is soooo much less and I really don't have a lot of money right now.

Do you own the Canon 24-70mm now? I think I remember you posted football photos taken with it. Have you written a review for it?

[groovehouse]

But the cost of the Sigma is soooo much less and I really don't have a lot of money right now.

Do you own the Canon 24-70mm now? I think I remember you posted football photos taken with it. Have you written a review for it?

Look into some of these Bill Me Later/PayPal things... BML has a 6 month no interest thing going and if you are approved, could really help you pay it off.

I do own the Canon 24-70mm right now. I have not written a review for it. I'll have to look into doing that, I can't get real technical or in depth but I can give an honest opinion. Also, if I write a review for that lens, I'll have to write one for my 300mm f/4.0 L lens as it is a beast and I love it so much.

[Photo-John]

Look into some of these Bill Me Later/PayPal things... BML has a 6 month no interest thing going and if you are approved, could really help you pay it off.

I do own the Canon 24-70mm right now. I have not written a review for it. I'll have to look into doing that, I can't get real technical or in depth but I can give an honest opinion. Also, if I write a review for that lens, I'll have to write one for my 300mm f/4.0 L lens as it is a beast and I love it so much.

For user reviews, all we ask is you offer your own honest opinion. It takes all types and we don't expect everyone to be willing or able to get super technical. Lately it seems like people would rather post their gear experience on the forums and we need to channel some of that activity back into the reviews because they're more searchable and include ratings. As far as the 300mm f/4L (the second Canon EF lens I ever bought) - write reviews for all your gear!

[mjs1973]

I just got the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens and I can't wait for my nephews basketball season to start so I can test it out. In the past I have used my 24-70mm f/2.8 for his games. I have been able to pretty much stand right on the side of the court, so getting close wasn't a problem. I haven't used it much on AI servo mode so I can't comment on how well that performs and besides, I'm sure I'm not using the same body as you so the performance wouldn't be the same. That being said, I'm very happy with the way the lens performed for me. It's not a cheap lens, but you can find some decent deals on them.

www.lensrentals.com just listed a used one (8.0/10 rating) for $1120. Still twice as much as what you can get the Sigma for, but better than paying full price. That's where I bought my 70-200mm from.

[Photo-John]

I'm throwing another lens in the mix - the Canon E-FS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's basically a crop-sensor version of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, which works fine for me an my 7D. However, it won't work with a full-frame sensor camera like the new EOS-1D X, which I am very interested in. It also doesn't have any weather protection. But then again, neither do any of my other lenses. And I don't think I can justify the 1D X's $6800 projected price tag, anyway - especially not when my 7D really works fine for me. A couple of benefits of the E-FS 17-55mm are that it's a about $200 cheaper than the 24-70mm, it's a bit smaller and it has image stabilization, which will make it a better tradeshow and portrait lens. The Sigma is still very tempting but overall, I'm really liking the look of the Canon E-FS 17-55mm f/2.8. I even took a look at it a couple of days ago at the local pro dealer and it feels like it's built to nearly L standards.

[pbr]

My 24-70L was pretty good for a while but then just started sucking- issues with soft images for the most part. I just sent it back to Canon, hopefully getting it and the 7D calibrated together will make it truly badass.

almost $500 for the repair though. ouch. Should see it next week.

-Jason

[Liz]

So, after having the 70-200mm repaired and finding how good it can actually be, I'm thinking about another L lens - either the 24-700mm f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L IS. And then today I wrote an article about the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and I'm thinking I should take my own advice and consider that lens as well. After all, it's been in our top five most popular lens list for years, I think.

So what do you guys think? Consider that I'm looking for a lens that can keep up with cyclosts and skiers in AI Servo continuous auto focus mode. And price is a factor. I know someone who will sell me the Sigma for $525. That's over half of what either Canon L lens would cost me - a pretty strong motivator. But if it's going to let me down on AF then it's probably not the right thing to do. My recent experience with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM has me feeling pretty good about the high-end Sigma lenses. I shot cyclocross with that lens last winter and it was rock solid.

I'd be grateful for any feedback. Thanks

Well, reading the rest of your posts, I'm assuming you're not still considering the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS. I'll give my 2 cents worth anyway!

I was going to say that the 24-105 L lens was one of my favorite Canon lenses - however, I did find that it is a bit slow, and for what you want it for, I don't think it would work. I loved this lens, but eventually sold it (to JETA) because it was a bit heavy for me.

Liz

[SmartWombat]

I can barely work the micro four thirds systems at the moment, so I'm struggling with the f/4 to f/5.6 aperture.
As a result, had to push the ISO up to 3200 for some night karting here in las Vegas.

For me the Canon L f/2.8 lenses are standard.
I bought the lenses when I had a 20D and am still using them on the 1D bodies.
The investment was worth it.

I tried a Sigma 80-400 and returned it after Goodwood and le Mans 24h, bought the Canon L IS 10/400 instead. The dealer gave me a good deal, no restocking fee and the Canon at list price, taking the Sigma back no questions asked.
For me trying the low cost option has me returning to the L glass in the end.

[JETA]

Well, reading the rest of your posts, I'm assuming you're not still considering the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS. I'll give my 2 cents worth anyway!

I was going to say that the 24-105 L lens was one of my favorite Canon lenses - however, I did find that it is a bit slow, and for what you want it for, I don't think it would work. I loved this lens, but eventually sold it (to JETA) because it was a bit heavy for me.

Liz

If interested PJ I have Liz's lens and would sell it for a fair price. It's in the same condition as when I bought it from Liz. I have it as a backup lens for my 24-70 and haven't needed to touch it for over two years.

I have no clue how it works for sports. I only used it for portraits.

[Photo-John]

Jason-
Please make sure to let us know what the results of the repair are. And write a review for the lens, too. I have heard lots of reports of back-focusing with that lens. Hopefully you get it back and it's perfect. I just sent my 70-200mm f/2.8L in for repair and it came back better than I ever remember it.

[cozmocha]

For a crop camera (7D)

24-70mm 2.8 is good for basketball and other sports that you get real close to the action.

24-105mm 4 is a good lens but sometimes you'll have to slow the SS or high iso.

16-35mm 2.8 II is by far sharper then these lenses but it is quite wideand $$.

If you want to do close up shooting of people the 24mm+ focal range will be pretty tight if this is the only lens you have.

BH has a pretty good deal on the 24-70 right now. Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM 8014A002 - crap... it was $1,199 yesterday.

16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 is the industry standard that you'll see in about every pro shooters gear bag.

EDIT: Here's the $1,199 24-70 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Ca...t/EMBL2470/N/0