# 70-200mm F2.8 vs 150-600



## Osbornezo (Nov 11, 2014)

Hi all,

So you may think that is a stupidly easy question, however...

So i'm starting to do some low light event photography such as graduations, these require a fast lens - f2.8

I also might be doing some sport photography, this may require something with more reach, but is a bit slower.

Having 2 different lenses would be lovely, however not affordable currently.

Suggestions?

Thanks


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 11, 2014)

If you're looking for recommendation on what lens to get ... get the 70-200 f/2.8. You can shoot sports ... most sports with the 70-200, even night time sports. You just have to wait for the participants to get closer to you than with the 150-600. No matter what you do, the 150-600 will never be able to shoot at f/2.8.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty much a standard for indoor sports.

Gary

PS- The 70-200 works quite well with the 2X extender.
G


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 12, 2014)

Osbornezo said:


> .............Suggestions?...........




Post your budget.


----------



## Osbornezo (Nov 12, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Osbornezo said:
> 
> 
> > .............Suggestions?...........
> ...


Not a lot, enough to get a sigma 70-200mm or something like a tamron 150-600mm


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 12, 2014)

Well, with a firm number you might get better suggestions.  Like "Look into a used Flaremaster 70-200 and you should be able to get it AND the 150-600......"


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 12, 2014)

have you considered buying used?  As Gary said, 70-200 with a 2X extender will still get you decent reach for the days when you need more reach, you'll obviously need good light for that but that'll be the case with the Tammy 150-600 as well.


----------



## bratkinson (Nov 12, 2014)

Although I've not done sports photography, I do know you'll need some fairly fast shutter speeds...1/250th and faster to freeze action.  The other 2 parts of the exposure triangle have to 'make up the difference' to get a satisfactory exposure.  You'll have to have a fast lens (f2.8, for example) and/or a camera capable of high ISO speeds with little noise, like ISO 4000-6400.  And, of course, when shooting wide open at f2.8 with a 70-200 or any other lens, the depth of field gets fairly thin, so accurate focusing is a requirement. 

In short, unless your sports photography is limited to outdoors on a fairly bright and sunny day, an f5 lens will still require some high ISO speeds due to the fast shutter speeds needed.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Nov 12, 2014)

Trust me, you'll need a LOT of light with the tamron. Keep that in mind depending on what you'll be shooting.


----------



## ruifo (Nov 12, 2014)

Why not the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with a teleconverter?
A 1.4x TC would turn it into a 98-280mm f/4 lens, and a 2x TC would turn it into a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.


----------



## runnah (Nov 12, 2014)

I've done 2 football games with the Tamron and while the reach is very nice I am right at the max of my ISO. If I had to do it over again I'd get the 70-200 and the 2x tele.


----------



## goooner (Nov 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> I've done 2 football games with the Tamron and while the reach is very nice I am right at the max of my ISO. If I had to do it over again I'd get the 70-200 and the 2x tele.



Wouldn't that give you similar ISO values, with less reach?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> I've done 2 football games with the Tamron and while the reach is very nice I am right at the max of my ISO. If I had to do it over again I'd get the 70-200 and the 2x tele.




Hmmmm


140-400 f/5.6 v 150-600 f/5-6.3.  Only 1/3 stop difference.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 12, 2014)

480sparky said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I've done 2 football games with the Tamron and while the reach is very nice I am right at the max of my ISO. If I had to do it over again I'd get the 70-200 and the 2x tele.
> ...



Not even.

400mm at f/5.6  vs. 400mm at like f/5.7-5.8 or so.  375mm on the 150-600 should be at f/5.6


----------



## runnah (Nov 12, 2014)

Yes it would net a similar overall result but the IQ from the Tamron is a bit shoddy compared to canon glass.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 12, 2014)

Ill tell you this,  my sigma 150-600 is not good at all in low light.   on a cloudy day  I end up with ISO 4000-6500    I do need to shoot at f/8 and 1/650 or faster though to get the sharpest images out of the lens and stop motion of birds that I shoot.   on a sunny day I am usually at ISO 400-1600 with those settings.   If I widen the aperture I can get a little lower ISO and most shots still turn out pretty good but I do find f/8 gives me the best results on that lens.   I have not really shot anything but wild life with that lens so I am not sure what settings would give you good images for sports.   my main point here is in lower light you are going to expect high ISO with  either the sigma 150-500 or the tamron 150-600  

one thing you could do is try to find a place where you could rent the lenses you are thinking about buying and that way you will know which one is going to work out best for your sports photography.


----------



## ByronBrant (Nov 12, 2014)

Sigma 50-500 night BB game


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 12, 2014)




----------



## ByronBrant (Nov 12, 2014)

????


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 12, 2014)

Needed to have the white point set.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 13, 2014)

70-200 f2.8 for sports, 150-600 tamron for wildlife.


----------

