Canon Lens Recommendation

Sorry when I refer to Knock Off I am talking of anything that is not Canon brand. I have used the Tamron and Sigma, both are fine lenses but nowhere near as sharp or as fast.

[JE3146]

Originally Posted by Junior

Sorry when I refer to Knock Off I am talking of anything that is not Canon brand. I have used the Tamron and Sigma, both are fine lenses but nowhere near as sharp or as fast.

Sigma and Tamron both have fine offerings, but like any brand, including Canon.. also have some not worth the time of day required to even put them on a camera.

Canon L lenses are typically a step above anything else, but there are a few duds in the L lineup.

Point being, never buy anything without researching it first. Regardless of brand.

Originally Posted by JE3146

Sigma and Tamron both have fine offerings, but like any brand, including Canon.. also have some not worth the time of day required to even put them on a camera.

Canon L lenses are typically a step above anything else, but there are a few duds in the L lineup.

Point being, never buy anything without researching it first. Regardless of brand.

Sorry I guess I should have phrased it better.

I owned a Tamron 28-75 for a long time before replacing it.

[hotreds]

As always, check www.fredmiranda.com to get a good idea of lens quality.

If the games are during the day, an f4 (70-200) would be fine. Attach a 1.4x teleconverter to that and you have your 300 focal distance and then some.

I do shoot Canon, and the L lens is as good as it gets. You might look into the 100-400 too if you really need the extra reach. All depends on where you're located. Feel free to ask me questions, as Canon lenses is an area I've studied for many years!

FYI- I use a 70-200f4 with 1.4x, a 400 5.6 prime, and a 17-50 2.8 Tamron.

[JE3146]

Originally Posted by hotreds

As always, check www.fredmiranda.com to get a good idea of lens quality.

If the games are during the day, an f4 (70-200) would be fine. Attach a 1.4x teleconverter to that and you have your 300 focal distance and then some.

I do shoot Canon, and the L lens is as good as it gets. You might look into the 100-400 too if you really need the extra reach. All depends on where you're located. Feel free to ask me questions, as Canon lenses is an area I've studied for many years!

FYI- I use a 70-200f4 with 1.4x, a 400 5.6 prime, and a 17-50 2.8 Tamron.

Should also note that with the 1.4x you lose 1 f stop.

[jkim05]

Originally Posted by Junior

Sorry when I refer to Knock Off I am talking of anything that is not Canon brand. I have used the Tamron and Sigma, both are fine lenses but nowhere near as sharp or as fast.

Ok, well that's a pretty broad statement. There are lenses made by both of those companies that far exceed anything Canon makes in a reasonable equivalent. Granted most of Canon's L lineup is far superior to a lot of third-party lenses, but to group all third-party lenses as crap is wrong. In addition, you're saying all manual focus lenses such as Leicas, Zeiss, Voigtlander and others suck just because they're not made by Canon. Many of these lenses have much better IQ than Canon's but don't have auto-focus.

Also, have you tried any of Sigma, Tokina or others' better lens offerings or just their lower end options? For instance, Sigma's new 50mm f/1.4 is considered by many to be superior to Canon's version. They're also releasing a few highly anticipated lenses such as an 85mm f/1.4 that could potentially be a better option than either of Canon's because of the 85L's slow focusing and the 85 f/1.8's tendency towards chromatic aberration and fringing at times. I'll say for the most part you get what you pay for, whether you buy Sigma, Canon or any other number of brands. I can provide more specific lens examples, but the important thing is to do research on each lens.