70-200?

[Aaron]

I previously posted about getting the 70-200 and I was convinced to get the Nikon.

Unfortunately something has come up and I'm now limited to only being able to fund the tamron.

This is a good lens? Does anyone have one? What do you think?

 

[badboy1984]

also looked into a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM mkII

 

[Gary Coyle]

If you want to shoot anything faster than a snail race the AF is hopeless

 

[jpw]

I've not used one, but the general consensus is that the Tamron has excellent optics but the AF isn't up to much, and it's prone to failure according to Lens Rentals data.

 

[odd jim]

I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 mkII (canon fit) and it's a superb lens. Very fast and very sharp even wide open. Lovely super quick HSM AF as well.

Nikon is better (but not by much) but far more expensive.

Tamron seems to have nice optics but slow AF which is a crime on a 70-200!

 

[micloi]

I have a Sigma 50-150 2.8, incidentally for sale here in the forum but for Canon, which I found to be very sharp and the AF is fast and silent.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Nikon 80-200mm AF-S? (used)

 

[Davec223]

Nikon 80-200mm AF-S? (used)

iirc these still fetch approx £800 second hand.
I have a sigma 70-200 hsmII which I love, if I was buying again I would certainly be looking at a nikon 80-200 more seriously.

 

[GHP]

I bought the Nikon 80-200 EF AF-D, two ring version.
Awesome piece of glass, AF very quick, it's never missed for me. THey still make this lens, and you can get one used (Which is what I did) for not too much money.
If you are anywhere near Essex you can come and have a go with mine if it helps.
Cheers,
Gary.