Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8???

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by allstar25, Aug 13, 2008.

  1. As the title says, what do you suggest that I purchase for sports use, since the Nikon version is out of the question money wise right now?
     
  2. Why not the Nikon 80-200f2.8?
     
  3. The AF-D won't AF on his D40 from his signature line. I'm presuming he needs AF. There's always the AF-S version though they're generally more expensive used.
     
  4. Tough call -- maybe some of the recent Tamron buyers can comment on its AF speed.

    All indications are that the Tamron is better optically. But sports shooting really benefits from fast, accurate focus, and that's where the Sigma should be better.

    Joe (taat2d) had a Sigma 70-200 but it was damaged and he bought the Tamron. Since he shoots his son's soccer he can provide some comparison here.

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=182161
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  5. Neloho

    Neloho Guest

    I have only had the Tamron for a couple of days so I can't comment on sports shooting unless you consider keeping up with a moving 2-year-old to be a sport.

    I am very impressed with the optical performance of the Tamron.

    Here are a couple of shots of the family at lunch yesterday. Both at f/4...

    2762536854_3964d37079_o.jpg

    2762537000_0c67472d8a_o.jpg
     
  6. kiwi

    kiwi

    Jan 1, 2008
    Auckland, NZ
    Without a doubt the Sigma, its HSM motor is going to be significantly faster, about the same as AF-S
     
  7. Paulesko

    Paulesko

    90
    Jul 23, 2008
    Spain
    That´s only if speed is important for you, if optics is the important think he should go for the tammy

    edit: forget my comment, I didn´t read carefully -> he wants to shoot sports :)
     
  8. I went thru a few copies of the new II version of the Sigma. I would agree with Phil's(dpreview) review about close focus issues, and perhaps needing to stop down a bit overall. I never kept the lens.

    Just my results.

    If I was in the market for either of the two, I would give the Tammy a try out too.

    mike
     
  9. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The Tamron looks to be optically one of the best 70-200 zooms now, although the Sigma isn't far behind and the HSM model I had, had decent focusing speed.
     
  10. I had one of the old Sigma 70-200s (pre DG) and was happy with it, but found the close focus limiting, then I got one of the 70-200 DG APO Macro (not II), and was also happy with it, but decided I didn't need its weight, and went back to an f/4 L. The focus on both Sigmas was really good, and optically I was happy with both of them. Even with a cheapo Tammy 2x tc on, it performed admirably well. Can't comment on the Tammy, but the Sigma would do well.
     
  11. The Tamron 70-200 looks like a real contender optically.

    The newer "Macro" Sigma's seem like a backward step optically compared to the non-macro EX and EX DG versions.
     
  12. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    those are very impressive shots
     
  13. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    why ?
     
  14. I am also looking at the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens. its about $699 at BH Photo. And for a D40 better make sure that you get the model with "Built in Motor". The model with "built in motor" is relatively new and not a lot carry them. The HSM of the Sigma is its equivalent and costs about $799. The Nikon 80-200 AF-S should be better but its costs about $900 used. Someone was selling it here last week. I am not sure if he has sold it yet.
    Goodluck!
     
  15. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    All Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 models come with a motor I think?
     
  16. I'm not so sure but Tamron have a very old model of it's 70-200 that shouldn't have AF motor
     
  17. Why what?

    Elucidate, kind Sir :)
     
  18. Why does
     
  19. Well Sigma really should be answering that, but my guess is that they sacrificied wide open performance at distance to get the "macro feature".

    Many lenses do not perform well close-up (for example the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 isn't as it best there), so my theory is that to get the "macro" feature they threw the baby out with the bathwater in other areas.
     
  20. I suspect you may be right - there must be a reason that none of Canon's 4 70-200 lenses focus closer than 1.5m. . .