How does this lens compare to the Canon version? Mainly want for indoor sports? Would you spend the extra money for the Canon version?
124500
Jamie, I had the same question. Truth be told I don't have the Canon version. I am interning this summer with one of the nation's best commercial photographers and I asked him. He told me that the Canon lens is built a little better but he has both and he uses both. He told me I wouldn't be disappointed in this lens and I haven't been.
124501
Following something indoors is difficult. I used to shoot basketball games and would zone focus at midcourt. When a player reached my focus zone .... CLICK.
124502
Hi I am a Nikon shooter , but I am very happy how it compares to my Nikon 70-200 2.8 that died at half the price . A have done a lot of indoor shots and very happy with it. Good luck
124503
I don't have any idea on how it compares to Cannon. I shoot with Pentax equipment. I know that it is an exceptional lens that provides high quality images at a reasonable price. I use it for indoor sports and it performs well. If you are shooting for personal use I would say buy the Tamron. If you shoot professionally then go for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras by Canon. This lens is about $2,000.00. You can pass the cost to the clients.
124504
I think it compares very well to the canon version. I was using mine in a giant cave to film rock climbing and it worked great with little to no noise. So for indoor sports where there are lights you'd be fine, plus its half the price.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
2180990
I just sold my older tamron 70-200 and got this newer version. If you do sport, I say yes it is worth it. The faster focusing motor helps for tracking and the VC here is unbelievable. If you shoot portrait, other still photography in good light then the IQ isn't much difference. This is my action sport lens, the newer version taht I couldn't afford with the nikon VR2 model. I could of gotten a used older vr1 version.
1796747
Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half circle on the bottom of the picture. Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half... » Read More Any lens with a Canon mount will work with the camera. What you want is a good zoom lens with a good range. A lens from 18 mm to 200 mm is a very good all around lens that will work for both the ball game and indoors also. But, more than the lens, it is the camera that must be set correctly. For the ball game, you need to use the sports mode which causes the camera to have a high shutter speed to capture the action. Indoors you want to boost your ISO a bit for the lack of light. If you use the camera's flash do NOT use the lens hood since it will block some light and give you a dark half circle on the bottom of the picture. « Show Less
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
812301
Its an excellent lens which works very well in low light. I have not used it for indoor sports shooting though. The IS is great for things that don't move much but won't help freeze the action at all. An f2.8 zoom would be much better than a kit lens.You might also want to consider a fast prime lens like the 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or perhaps a 30mm fast prime. These will buy you an extra two stops at a much lower price.
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
2060159
I use this lens with a Nikon D5100 and have found that it focuses quite fast indoors but I have shot mainly my kids lego tournament and choir in gyms. Others have taken basketball and volleyball photos - check out photos posted to pixelpeeper.com and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM group on flickr.com
1955942
I have a canon and it was one of the best lenses I ever used for the price. I bought a canon 18-200 and gave mine to my son and have thought about getting another. I think as long as you get the one for your camera you can't go wrong.
118285
The "White Box Version" should be cheaper than the so-call Kit lens version. The white box version is the same lens but without the fancy packaging from Canon.
1260706
This lens is only to be used with tripod (a very stable one) this is the only use for indoor sports I recommend to use a lens with stabilization or you will seriously struggle unless you can deal with cranking up the ISO and the shutter speed above 1/500 or even more and see how lucky you get you will seriously struggle for that kind of activity. as much as you can try to use a 70G200 or a 18 to 200 mm if you use Sony or above they will not be as cheap option as this one but to be honest this kind of lens is kind of going back to the 70`s and the definition you will get will not be as good and you will have to manually fine tune for each shot. I got it to experiment a bit though I feel like a paparazzi when I used it :-S I will only use this on daylight, outdoors, on a tripod and to a fix distance otherwise will do my head in. I hope you find it useful. P.S. This Opteka is the same cheap lens and Samyan, Rokinon, etc....so to me it is like a white label product cheaply manufactured in China with very simple design, not bat quality build but not a proper lens. Put your money on a piggy bank and get a proper lens for the desired activity. Cheers!
2041778
There are a couple of differences, but the real question is what are your needs as a photographer? I'm guessing that since you are asking what the differences are between these lenses, your needs are not of the professional nature, but I don't want to assume. The F1.2 is a pro lens. It is a stop faster, has sharper optics, manual focus override with just a twist of the lens, and from what I've heard nicer bokeh. Generally Canon puts everything it has into its "L" lenses. Better optics, build quality, and finish. I do not own the F1.2. I don't need it. To quote a friend of mine that shoots models all day in L.A., "If someone hadn't stolen my F1.4, I would not have purchased the F1.2". For someone who shoots portrait and magazine covers all day and makes a living at it, the subtle differences of the F1.2 are worth the extra money. For someone like me, who shoots portraits on occasion or shots for web sites etc., the F1.4 is a wonderful lens. It's very fast, handles well, and produces great photos. Not to discount the F1.2; it is an amazing lens and if money were no object of course I would own it. Hope this helps. Happy shooting!
352468
For indoor go with the fast glass. On a DX sensor the 17-50mm is perfect. Tamron for the money is half the price of the equivalent Nikkor. Also the Tamron produces nice bokeh for portrait work.
501124
I'm in the same boat. I have a 40d as well and I just bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 but found that I was always "stepping back" to take a lot of indoor shots. I am leaning towards either the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon 24 f2.8. The 24 got a good review at the photozone.de site. Here's a direct link if Amazon will let it through: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=2.They review just about every lens. Check it out. Again, it's photozone (dot) de
176998
You can have a look on canon website for the specs but the lens that comes with this kit is the stm version which produces pretty sharp images for kit lens. Again there is a ton of reviews out there if you research. This lens is obviously not going to be better than L lenses if you do a comparative. So it's really about what situation and output you are shooting for.
1789042
For indoor sports, the extra stop the f2.8 provides could mean the difference between a blurry image (or noisier at a higher ISO) and a very good one. As noted, IS won't help freeze action so you might find the wider aperture more useful for your purposes. The larger f2.8 isn't quite as easy to tote around as the f4 though.
2072504
F. Dudek,This lens would be ok. The speed of the lens is ok, as far as f/stops go. The focus speed might not be up to the task. Also the focal length of the lens might be a little short for what you want to do. However, at $100 you wont find a better value lens, it is worth having. My suggestion would be buy the lens and try it. If it doesn't work it will still be great for home indoor photography. If it doesn't work look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, it has just as fast aperture, has faster ring USM focus, and has a little bit longer reach. For even more reach look at the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM Telephoto Lens. F. Dudek,This lens would be ok. The speed of the lens is ok, as far as f/stops go. The focus speed might not be up to the task. Also the focal length of the lens might be a little short for what you want to do. However, at $100 you wont find a better value lens, it is worth having. My suggestion would be buy the lens and try it. If it doesn't work it will still be great for home indoor photography. If it doesn't work look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, it has just as fast aperture, has faster ring... » Read More F. Dudek,This lens would be ok. The speed of the lens is ok, as far as f/stops go. The focus speed might not be up to the task. Also the focal length of the lens might be a little short for what you want to do. However, at $100 you wont find a better value lens, it is worth having. My suggestion would be buy the lens and try it. If it doesn't work it will still be great for home indoor photography. If it doesn't work look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens, it has just as fast aperture, has faster ring USM focus, and has a little bit longer reach. For even more reach look at the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM Telephoto Lens. « Show Less