Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

    I am in the market for buying a 70-200 f/2.8 for my Nikon D300. I wanted to get people's opinion on the Tamron 70-200 and the Sigma 70-200. The is about a $100 or so difference between the two (sigma being the more expensive one) and I am wondering if anyone has any experience with these lenses or suggestions.

    Thank you

  • #2
    Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

    I've been thinking about the same thing. Research tells me that the biggest difference will be in focus speed. If you're not shooting action you'll be fine. If you ARE shooting action it'll be frustrating. I can't remember which of the two had better IQ. None of this is from personal experience though so it's not really what you asked for, but hey... it's something for you to chew on till then. I also wonder if the Sigma zoom is opposite from Nikon's like it is on their 17-50 (or whatever the range is). That's not a deal breaker for me, but it can be a deciding factor.
    Throw a little light. If it doesn't come back, it probably fell off...
    Cheers
    John
    Flickr
    Nikon D80 (nicknamed Cylopsoid)
    Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Lovin' it. I could glue it to my camera and be happy.
    Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 It's the older model w/o the AF motor and it focuses FAST. It's just like the 17-50, only longer.
    Nikkor 50mm f1.8d <------creammmmmy
    Nikkor 18-55 kit Now in a deep slumber.
    Quantaray 28-82 Somewhere in the house.
    Nikon N65 Back for the resurrection tour! Coming to defend the faith...
    (This spot being saved for hopefully a G9 or G11) Shhhh, I know those are Canons...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

      Review of the Sigma at dpreview.com: Sigma 70-200 and 50-150 f/2.8 APO EX DG for Pentax and Sony: Digital Photography Review

      review of the tamron at dpreview.com: Tamron SP AF 70-200mm Di LD (IF) Macro Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
      Without others thinking you are good, it doesn't matter how good you think you are.

      http://dkbarto.daportfolio.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

        I own the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. I love it, except it's not as quick focusing as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L. The Tamron is super sharp once focused!
        Canon Rebel XT | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 | Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 Macro | Various strobe gear
        Wishlist: Canon 5D MkII | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 | Canon 580EX

        [¯Ô¯]
        Life is like photography; you take the negatives and turn them into positives!

        My Flickr Photostream

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

          Originally posted by JaceTheAce View Post
          I own the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. I love it, except it's not as quick focusing as Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L. The Tamron is super sharp once focused!
          They're talkin Nikon foo!
          Marshall

          If I don't give you a hard time at some point then it just means I don't like you. It's all fun and games.

          Last Activity: 1 Minute Ago
          Current Activity: Daydreaming about his trips in November and December.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

            A friend of mine has the Sigma, and is quite happy with it...
            Canon 40D w/BG-E2N
            Canon 20D w/BG-E2
            Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L
            Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L
            Canon 85mm f/1.8
            Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
            Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3


            My Website

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

              I have been lucky enough to use all three, here's how I rate them personaly:

              1.Canon
              2.Sigma
              3.Tamron

              Tamron:
              If you need fairly quick focusing (especially in somewhat low light), DONT get the tamron, It will sicken you with it's sluggish focus speed, horrible tracking and missed focusing. BUT, if you are using it in a way that doesnt require fast focusing and your in good lighting, go for it, the quality is pretty good.

              Sigma:
              I have used this the least of the three, but from how much I have used it I can still say I loved it. It is much better all around in my opinion than the Tamron and is actually quite on-par with the Canon. I would seriously suggest this lens for your best "bang-for-your-buck" kind of lens.

              Canon:
              If you can afford it, go for it! It is a fantastic lens and I use it every chance I get. I plan to get one of my own in the future when I can afford it. VERY fast focus speed, tack sharp, great accuracy, and the colors really seem to pop more then the others.


              Just my $.02
              Hope it helped

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

                Originally posted by M-B-Photos View Post
                Tamron:
                If you need fairly quick focusing (especially in somewhat low light), DONT get the tamron, It will sicken you with it's sluggish focus speed, horrible tracking and missed focusing. BUT, if you are using it in a way that doesnt require fast focusing and your in good lighting, go for it, the quality is pretty good.
                I used to own the Tamron 70-200 as well and will say the same thing—the autofocus is *terribly* slow (to the point where you'll find yourself cursing at times! ) and seems to hunt quite a bit. But, when not dealing with fast-moving subjects, I was very pleased with the results.
                http://www.flickr.com/absorption_line
                http://www.tanyaharrisonofmars.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

                  I used the Tamron to shoot a high school varsity football game on a field with pretty good lighting and I'll tell you I seriously entertained the idea of detaching the lens and chucking it on the field by halftime, the focus speed and the tracking were ridiculous to say the least. But as mentioned above, for other things, the quality is quite nice.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

                    I must admit that my Tamron 70-210 is slow to focus, and hunts quite a bit, however I don't use it in situations where I require fast focus.

                    The quality of the image is excellent after focus is achieved.
                    Without others thinking you are good, it doesn't matter how good you think you are.

                    http://dkbarto.daportfolio.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

                      Heads up, lensrentals.com is selling one of their used copies of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR for $1,415.00. For any Canon users who might pop by this thread, they're also selling a used copy of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for $1,529.00.
                      http://www.flickr.com/absorption_line
                      http://www.tanyaharrisonofmars.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 70-200 f/2.8 Lenses

                        Hopefully they're not all gone by Tax refund season...lol!
                        .


                        .

                        "I've Got A Fever And The Only Prescription Is More Pictures"

                        For Quotes And Comissions Please Email Me.

                        Know Anyone Heading For Foreclosure? I Can Help!

                        San Diego Wedding and Portrait Photography



                        Last Activity: 1 Minute Ago
                        Current Activity: Banning Spammers

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X