70-200mm f/2.8 - Sigma or Tammy?

timmygcsc2308

timmygcsc2308

Messages
985
Name
Timmy
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at a biggie lens ;) can't afford the Nikon variant unfortunately but by the end of the month I should have £550 there or thereabouts for a fast 3rd party telephoto to replace my existing 55-200mm.

The two obvious choices are the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. Price is much of a muchness.

The Sigma I would get from Onestopdigital and this is my concern - Sigma have QC issues so I've read and if I get a soft copy is it all the way back to HK for a fix or will Sigma UK be able to look at it?

The Tammy would come from simply electronics, it is meant to be sharper than the Sigma but the AF is meant to be 'off' or certainly slower and not as good as the Sigma.

Can anyone comment on any of the concerns above?
 
Buy the sigma 2nd hand. That way you can check it with test shots first. If not... chances are it'll be ok anyway. Lots of gear fanatics out there shooting test charts and brick walls, and very little else, moaning about sigma in general to justify their nicanon obsession.

Also consider the nikon 80-200 af-d (two touch). very slightly slower AF than the sigma though, though maybe slower on the d90 because it's not got a built in motor.
 
Last edited:
Practical Photography had a test a few issues back and the Sigma came out slightly better, there wasnt a huge difference.

if you are close to Leicester Jacobs have a used Nikon 80-200 2.8 for £379, its a bit beat up and the limiter switch is cosmetically broke IE it still works, optically though its clean and takes superb pics.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Also consider the nikon 80-200 af-d (two touch). very slightly slower AF than the sigma though, though maybe slower on the d90 because it's not got a built in motor.
Click to expand...

the D90 or the lens? the D90 certainly does have a built in motor :naughty:

thanks for all the sound advice guys, I'll keep my eyes peeled for an 80-200 when the funds become available (2 weeks),

MPB have one (80-200) for £500, it's the one touch one though...whats the difference? plus it has a weird 3rd party tripod mount that looks gash so I'd have to source a Nikon one. Edit: oh no its the push-pull pants one, forget that, tis expensive too! grays have the same thing for under £400

edit: oh erm... :$ am I to assume the Sigma if I did go for one would be 'more' than 70-200 because of the 1.5x crop factor? by my reckoning 105-300mm? if it is thats a good thing because my current 55-200mm is DX and I do sometimes wish for more reach.
 
Last edited:
edit: oh erm... :$ am I to assume the Sigma if I did go for one would be 'more' than 70-200 because of the 1.5x crop factor? by my reckoning 105-300mm? if it is thats a good thing because my current 55-200mm is DX and I do sometimes wish for more reach.[/QUOTE]

Thats right,i have an HSM II one and can highly reccomend it.
 
Surely your 55-200 is actually an 82.5 - 300 with the crop factor as the focal length of lens is the same? so i dont think you will get any more reach or do Nikon mark there DX lenses to include crop factor?
 
Euan said:
Surely your 55-200 is actually an 82.5 - 300 with the crop factor as the focal length of lens is the same? so i dont think you will get any more reach or do Nikon mark there DX lenses to include crop factor?
Click to expand...

this is how I understand it, a DX lens is just that - its designed for a DX camera (APS-C sensor) and the focal lengths correspond to how they would be on a DX format camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C

Thats right,i have an HSM II one and can highly reccomend it.
Click to expand...

cool thanks! looking at this one:
http://www.onestop-digital.com/prod...id=45&osCsid=ae7e5135f260134d3aeb5dc68123d1f9
 
Last edited:
thats the same as ef-s for Canon though and a 17-55 is just that a 17-55 focal length, but has an equivalent of 27 - 88mm on a 1.6 crop.

The back of the lens has a smaller diameter and would vignette on a fullframe or aps-h thats the reason its ef-s or dx?

Ive not played with a Nikon so i may well be wrong
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
this is how I understand it, a DX lens is just that - its designed for a DX camera (APS-C sensor) and the focal lengths correspond to how they would be on a DX format camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C



cool thanks! looking at this one:
http://www.onestop-digital.com/prod...id=45&osCsid=ae7e5135f260134d3aeb5dc68123d1f9
Click to expand...

The focal length of a lens never changes whether is on a crop sensor or full frame, its the field of view that changes. A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens regardless of a DX mark or not, both a DX and a non DX lens will still be affected by the crop factor (1.5) for nikon bodies
 
oh ok..oo err confusing stuff (or not once you think about it I suppose).
Ok so same field of view from what I've got currently..ok well fair enough, thanks for the additional help a n00b answers ;)
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
the focal lengths correspond to how they would be on a DX format camera
Click to expand...
The focal length of a lens is independent of camera format. A 50mm lens has a 50mm focal length. Full stop.

What different formats give you is different fields of view. A full frame sensor gives a bigger field of view than an APS-C sized sensor with the same lens on it. To get the same field of view (FoV) on a crop sensor, you need a focal length which is longer by a factor of the crop. For example, a 50mm lens on a full frame gives the same FoV as an 80mm on a Canon 1.6x crop (i.e. 50x1.6).
 
Too slow :D
 
I have the Tamron on a D90... although happy in general don't even think about shooting anything moving fastish because of the slow AF.

If I could Marty McFly my butt then I would certainly think about either waiting and saving up for the Nikon or going for the 2nd hand 80-200.

Rog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogermbyrne
 
They are so close it becomes a preference try both take a camera and card and ask to do some test shots avoid the usual wall etc etc pixel peepeing and head out and do some REAL shooting to see which you prefer when you go home... saves time and money as you get which YOU prefer not which some peeps with a gear obsession prefer. I have a Tammy 17-50 2.8 yet I would happily use a Sigma 70-200 2.8 as was so impressed with my Sigma 70-300 4.5/5.6 lens ... but will still try out both before deiciding as handling how it feels etc on camera are all factors:thumbs:
 
I've never quite gotten the jist of the whole DX lens thing either.
Would a dx body with a dx 18-55mm set at 50mm give the same framing as an fx body with a standard non dx prime 50mm?
 
andephotographic said:
I've never quite gotten the jist of the whole DX lens thing either.
Would a dx body with a dx 18-55mm set at 50mm give the same framing as an fx body with a standard non dx prime 50mm?
Click to expand...

nope would be similar to a 85 ish I think the 18-55 is in 35mm format you have to convert to what you want silly really but keeps it consistant with lens lengths .. would be costly to convert all epescially fer thrid party manufactureres to print spereate lengths on lenses etc I guess
 
andephotographic said:
I've never quite gotten the jist of the whole DX lens thing either.
Would a dx body with a dx 18-55mm set at 50mm give the same framing as an fx body with a standard non dx prime 50mm?
Click to expand...
No. a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what body it is on. The different sensor sizes give different fields of view (i.e. framing).

FoG said:
nope would be similar to a 85 ish I think the 18-55 is in 35mm format you have to convert to what you want silly really but keeps it consistant with lens lengths .. would be costly to convert all epescially fer thrid party manufactureres to print spereate lengths on lenses etc I guess
Click to expand...
No - nothing to do with that at all. The focal length of a lens is just that - the focal length of the lens. It does not depend on sensor format. If you could screw a 50mm lens onto a compact, it would still be a 50mm lens, the field of view it would give though would be more like putting a 500mm lens (but this would depend on the size of the sensor) on a full frame camera.
 
PS. the reason for different lenses (sorry, not familiar with the Nikon naming) is that the smaller sensors have less demand optically as they don't have to focus light on as big an area, therefore they are cheaper to make.
 
arad85 said:
PS. the reason for different lenses (sorry, not familiar with the Nikon naming) is that the smaller sensors have less demand optically as they don't have to focus light on as big an area, therefore they are cheaper to make.
Click to expand...

ah!! gotcha! that was the key bit of info that was confusing me! :thumbs:
 
Go and have a look here - digital-photography-school where this is from.

If you stand in the same place with the same lens and attach it to crop / FF bodies and take a picture you would see the following FOV's

crop-factor.jpg


Black – Full Frame
Red – 1.3x Crop Factor
Yellow – 1.5x Crop Factor
Green – 1.6x Crop Factor


Read more: http://www.digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained#ixzz12KVc5es2
 
arad85 said:
the field of view it would give though would be more like putting a 500mm lens.
Click to expand...

Thats the phrase i was looking for.
 
cool..I've just had a quidco payment of £65...could swing things towards the Nikon
 
sigma Uk will happily resolve any issues should any arise (in my experience very quickly and with no fuss), no need to send it abroad.

regarding the sigma 70-200, im always keen to stat that we have 2 of the first generation "macro" versions and theyre pin sharp all the way through. i posted some examples recently i think if you want to have a rummage.. if not have a look at my WHF photos in the pets/zoo sharing section.
 
Neil that's a great answer, thankyou currently on my mobile but will certainly have a look later. I think I will end up with the siggy, 525 from onestop and if I have any cash leftover I can use it to buy a bigger camera bag! Ha!
 
arad85 said:
No. a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what body it is on. The different sensor sizes give different fields of view (i.e. framing).

No - nothing to do with that at all. The focal length of a lens is just that - the focal length of the lens. It does not depend on sensor format. If you could screw a 50mm lens onto a compact, it would still be a 50mm lens, the field of view it would give though would be more like putting a 500mm lens (but this would depend on the size of the sensor) on a full frame camera.
Click to expand...

sorry misread the Q see yer answer above I was meaning that.....:naughty:
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
the D90 or the lens? the D90 certainly does have a built in motor :naughty:

thanks for all the sound advice guys, I'll keep my eyes peeled for an 80-200 when the funds become available (2 weeks),
Click to expand...

Because the AF-D uses the motor built in to the body, these turn at different speeds in different cameras. The D2x and D3 etc will have the fastest and highest torque motors, whereas the D90 may take a bit longer, but will still be very good.
 
Yeah I get that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and that the smaller dx sensor magnifies or crops the middle of the image that the lens makes where as an fx sensor displays the full thing but I don't get why dx specific lenses don't have the 35mm equiv printed on them.
Noone's ever going to use a dx lens of an fx body so would it matter that it wasn't the actual focal length printed on there?
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Because the AF-D uses the motor built in to the body, these turn at different speeds in different cameras. The D2x and D3 etc will have the fastest and highest torque motors, whereas the D90 may take a bit longer, but will still be very good.
Click to expand...

so yea in your first post you meant no motor in the lens :thumbs: I thought at first what you meant is there is no motor in the D90 body :lol:
 
andephotographic said:
Yeah I get that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and that the smaller dx sensor magnifies or crops the middle of the image that the lens makes where as an fx sensor displays the full thing but I don't get why dx specific lenses don't have the 35mm equiv printed on them.
Noone's ever going to use a dx lens of an fx body so would it matter that it wasn't the actual focal length printed on there?
Click to expand...

The actual focal length is printed in DX lenses. You just magnify it by the camera's crop factor to get the focal length equivalent, which gives you your field of view.
 
You seem very discerning about what you want and the quality you would need. Good on yer for that. If it was me I'd shelve the Tammy and Siggy ideas save for a little longer and get the Nikon lens.

Paul
 
I've got a Tamron, not the 70-200 but I'm happy with it considering the price.
I think if you can afford it I would look for a secondhand Nikon 80-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top