Best Converter for my Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8

From what Ive seen the Tamron is optically excellent, AF may suffer a little but it depends on what you photograph.
 
I have seen some fantastic sports shots with the tamron..yes its reputed to be slower than the nikons but not that much slower than the sigma by all accounts.I watched the 4 part review on it as linked to earlier in the thread and it didnt do bad at all...wouldnt mind trying one for the money.
 
 
StuartH said:
I have seen some fantastic sports shots with the tamron..yes its reputed to be slower than the nikons but not that much slower than the sigma by all accounts.I watched the 4 part review on it as linked to earlier in the thread and it didnt do bad at all...wouldnt mind trying one for the money.
Click to expand...

here's the link for the test tamron v sigma v nikon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt_VsEH_T8o
the tamron is about £150 less than the sigma as a grey at around £540
but with no VR IS OS or what ever they like to call it, it should be cheaper
 
Last edited:
tbh at the end of the day Phil wants a Cheapish Fast 70-200mm f/2.8 and you could keep saying its only £150 more but you just keep going up and up just for VR ? when hes got a D7000 With Brill ISO and the lens is F/2.8.
 
I don't have either but the test I swear by gives the evidence that tamron is much sharper than all the sigma’s all over wide open - its literally so close to the Nikon vr 2 optics its hard to believe.

I understand that if you own a lens you want to put it in the best light even when the evidence is against it but as someone impartial looking at both 3rd party manufactorers, optically the tamron is sharper and I'd go for sharpness over AF (assuming the af is good enough).

I'll have a look at the links later but as far as 70-200mm’s go, the optics look much better in the tamron.
 
Yes They Would Have Stuart your find you dont need it on as your using high speeds and for night games aswell you cant afford to have the VR thingy on to miss the shot. Also if you have good hands you dont even need it!
 
Phil Young said:
I don't have either but the test I swear by gives the evidence that tamron is much sharper than all the sigma’s all over wide open - its literally so close to the Nikon vr 2 optics its hard to believe.

I understand that if you own a lens you want to put it in the best light even when the evidence is against it but as someone impartial looking at both 3rd party manufactorers, optically the tamron is sharper and I'd go for sharpness over AF (assuming the af is good enough).

I'll have a look at the links later but as far as 70-200mm’s go, the optics look much better in the tamron.
Click to expand...

The Focusing Speed is Fine! This is Prove!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS8A27hsl20&feature=related
 
The tamron also focuses fair bit closer than the others doesnt it?
 
Rebel did you even watch all the reviews? I did, and no where did Matt slag the Tamron... in fact he said at the end in his conclusions, if you want macro and on a budget, the tammy hands down. Also, factoring out the Nikon, the tamron/sigma are pretty much comparable IQ wise, slight edge to the sigma in AF, and fare very well against other lens out there (think canon, tokina, etc). Fact is most experts I've read agree the Tamron is the best bang for the buck (depends on where one lives I suppose since in the US the tamron is $769 compared to sigmas $1399. Thats a fair chunk of change).
 
How does the speed compare with the 70-300mm's from all 3 brands?
 
Myrdhinn said:
Rebel did you even watch all the reviews? I did, and no where did Matt slag the Tamron... in fact he said at the end in his conclusions, if you want macro and on a budget, the tammy hands down. Also, factoring out the Nikon, the tamron/sigma are pretty much comparable IQ wise, slight edge to the sigma in AF, and fare very well against other lens out there (think canon, tokina, etc). Fact is most experts I've read agree the Tamron is the best bang for the buck (depends on where one lives I suppose since in the US the tamron is $769 compared to sigmas $1399. Thats a fair chunk of change).
Click to expand...

I watched them all
I haven't slated the tamron go back and read my posts
I have stated the facts the af is slow and noisy and the mf clutch engagement and disengagement is clunky and primitive reminds me of the Jimmy Savil adverts clunk clip every trip lol
using a tele converter will make matters far worse
the tamron is a vauxhall vectra the sigma is a ford mondeo and the nikon is a bentley continental gt

I am neutral this argument anyway as I only have canon cameras and have the choice of the ef 70-200L range of which I bought the f2.8 IS
 
Last edited:
No problem. The Sigma does seem more 'civilized' but the Tamrons optics are still good. If it were me, for the same money Id go Sigma.... again (for the 4th/5th time), but I need the faster AF.
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
tbh at the end of the day Phil wants a Cheapish Fast 70-200mm f/2.8 and you could keep saying its only £150 more but you just keep going up and up just for VR ? when hes got a D7000 With Brill ISO and the lens is F/2.8.
Click to expand...

I can highly recommend the ef canon 70-200L range but that would be about as much use as an ash tray on my motorbike on this nikon thread
or a tamron 70-200 f2.8 at a wedding :LOL::LOL:
 
I love how I've managed to hijack the thread and even Joe is trying to help mwuhahaha.

I'm going home to see these videos.

Have a look here folks at the tamron compared to any sigma. Its worth looking into seriously, I reckon its unfairly dismissed regarding AF and the fact that the optics are so incredibly sharp (and I seriously dislike tamron...) surely outweights the slightly slower af?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=806&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
what we actually need for the op is some tests on the tamron with a 1.4x and 2x tele converter
had he not been the Nikon enemy lol I would quite happily have lent him one of my sigmas or kenco's 1.4x or 2x or both
but I am a canon man so that offer is of no use
 
Last edited:
The tamron is good for the money but the older micro drives in these lenses never mind speed are notoriously poor for focus accuracy! Their speed and ability to lock on is poor. I wouldn't trust it with anything that moves and needs continuous AF. Especially something I'm being paid for
 
Phil Young said:
I love how I've managed to hijack the thread and even Joe is trying to help mwuhahaha.

I'm going home to see these videos.

Have a look here folks at the tamron compared to any sigma. Its worth looking into seriously, I reckon its unfairly dismissed regarding AF and the fact that the optics are so incredibly sharp (and I seriously dislike tamron...) surely outweights the slightly slower af?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=806&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

:D was awaiting that link
 
My mistake. I forgot the Nikon version uses the crappy micro motors so that lens is somewhat noisy and slow as I recall from some one I know that has one on his 5100. In fact the non motor version on Sony or Pentax is faster and and maybe even quieter (Been awhile since I've shot with my Nikon friend so I'm not sure about the quieter but speed definately, I think he's jealous of my Sony ;pp). On my A65 in decent light, AF is quite fast, only in poor light or where contrast can fool AF does it hunt more than I'd like (should have a limiter) and while there is some screw noise, it's not terribly noisy.
 
Last edited:
Have to admit, the sigma OS is the best value.

I thought we were talking about the older versions which I would be skeptical about...

Shame though because tamrons optics are clearly up there with the canikon tops.
 
I must say that the tamron IQ appears extremely good and it is a shame about the AF but if you can cope with the AF it really does appear to be a bargain as far as IQ goes it punches well above it's weight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top