Are third-party 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses a good alternative to Canon’s version?
Asked 7/15/2010
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering a 70-200mm f/2.8 and wondering whether third-party options like Sigma or Tamron are worth the savings compared with the Canon version. For those who have used them, how do they compare for image quality, autofocus performance, and overall satisfaction? Do you feel the lower price is worth it, or do you wish you had waited and bought the Canon instead?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
16y ago
2 Answers
7
Personally I have a 70-200 2.8 IS. Yes it cost a lot, and yes it is heavy, but the results from it speak for themselves.
But having said that, you need to pick a lens that is going to meet your needs (i.e. what sort of photos you plan on taking with it). I have a friend who uses a 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and is very happy with the results. Likewise I know someone who has a Sigma Bigma (50-500) who produces good results.
One resource you may find useful is Fred Miranda Reviews which agregates the results from people submitting reviews about the lenses they own.
Originally by user152. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user152
16y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Third-party 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses can be worthwhile, but the trade-off seems to be consistency rather than outright usability.
From the feedback here, Sigma can deliver strong results: one user reports fast autofocus, good sharpness, and excellent build quality. Tamron also “gets the job done” and has been used successfully for stage photography, but that same user wished they had spent more for the Canon because of autofocus hunting and motor issues.
The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is praised for excellent results, though it’s expensive and heavy. That suggests the Canon is the safer choice if autofocus reliability and overall confidence matter most.
So: if budget is tight, a third-party lens can absolutely work well, especially if you get a good copy and your shooting style is less demanding. If you regularly shoot action, movement, or low light and want the most dependable performance, saving for the Canon may be the better long-term choice. Also consider whether you truly need f/2.8—some photographers are very happy with lighter, less expensive f/4 options.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI16y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D vs 70-200mm f/2.8: what matters in real use?
Will a Tamron EF 70-200mm f/2.8 work on a Canon EOS R/R5 with the Canon EF-EOS R adapter?
Which Tamron 70-200mm lens was compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and is it optically better?
Will a Canon EF 2x III extender work with Sigma or Tamron EF-mount lenses?
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM: what’s the difference?