Nikon, Sigma and Tamron 70-200, my thoughts!

N

nictry

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,194
Edit My Images
No
Had a play with all 3 lenses yesterday in BH Photo over in NYC as I am keen to pick up one of these beasties soonish!

The Nikon is clearly the winner (and it should be for the price) it is now $1900 over here and TBH it really doesnt feel like it is worth over twice the price of the other two!

The Tamron really did seem to have the slow AF issue apparant even with my short time playing with it, it also spent ages hunting when used within the shop (and the lights were pretty bright) so that was scratched off my list straight away!

Interestingly though (and I know I couldn't compare actual IQ in store (at least only on the LCD screen of the D300 I was using) the Sigma was top dog in my opinion, the AF was pretty quick, very little hunting and kept focus pretty well on some poor souls I tracked round the store!!!! In addition it felt the lightest and most well balanced of the three (even against the Nikon, prob because of the extra weight from the VR) and this was with the collar on which obviously if you werent using on a tripod you could remove to save even more weight!

Anyway wanted to post my thoughts as I know there have been a few threads on here about this range of lens.

Now just go to decide if I want to splash the cash on the Sigma :thinking:
 
I'm with you on the slow Tamron AF.

I really rate Tamron's optics, but this motor they are using needs to be put out to pasture quick smart. Did you find the 70-200 making small micro adjustments before settling?

On pure ecomomic terms the 70-200 VR isn't worth the extra - I think £1000 max is the natural price point - the Tamron 70-200 can go toe-to-toe with it optically - if they sort out the slow AF and add their superb VC implementation they'll have a knock-out IMHO.
 
puddleduck said:
I'm with you on the slow Tamron AF.

I really rate Tamron's optics, but this motor they are using needs to be put out to pasture quick smart. Did you find the 70-200 making small micro adjustments before settling?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly that and that was on a single focus point with no other 'traffic' so how it would manage on moving objects etc. is beyond me!

Really did like the Sigma though so may have to invest in one soon
 
tbh, I'd consider the sigma 100-300mm f4. Seems sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 throughout and give 100mm of extra reach.
 
rrfierce said:
tbh, I'd consider the sigma 100-300mm f4. Seems sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 throughout and give 100mm of extra reach.
Click to expand...

excellent lens and super good quality but weights a tonne, and it's absolutely massive.
 
puddleduck said:
if they sort out the slow AF and add their superb VC implementation they'll have a knock-out IMHO.
Click to expand...

one can only dream :) i really don't understand why sigma and tamron don't implement the OS and VC technology into their popular lenses and also the more expensive ones. why don't they just put it in all of them :D
 
ricky1980 said:
one can only dream :) i really don't understand why sigma and tamron don't implement the OS and VC technology into their popular lenses and also the more expensive ones. why don't they just put it in all of them :D
Click to expand...

No idea, but I can can tell you that Tamron's VC really is impressive.

On the Tamron 28-300 VC, you can get critically sharp shots at 300mm f/15 consistantly, and the VC just locks immediately with a rock steady viewfinder.

Its works in 3 axis rather than two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top