Tamron & Sigma 70mm - 200mm for action photography

C

Corruptionphoto

Messages
5
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
No
Hey everyone,

I'm looking at getting a new lens and ideally I'd like to get one of the 70mm-200mm lenses but cannot afford to get the Nikon one, as its sitting at about £1300 and upwards.

However I have been looking at the;

Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro (Nikon Fit)

or

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II (Nikon Fit)

I have found so many different reviews on these two, some say that either of these would be great for action photography (MMA/Cage Fighting specifically at the moment, moving onto Rugby in the future) and other reviews that say neither of them are any good for action.

Has anyone here used either of these for action photography and how did you find them?
This will be used on a Nikon D90 by the way.

Your help will be appreciated :thumbs:

Thanks
Craig
 
Last edited:
Have you considered a nikon 80-200mm afd? I use one on a d90 for sports and its superb. Prefer it to my old sigma and image quality is on par with the vr1 more or less.
 
The sigma will be fine for action, or anything else you throw at it. I've not used the tamron, so can't comment.

I've had the Nikon 70-200 VR. I didn't find it all that. My sigma is going nowhere.

Some people slate sigma, but I have used and owned a lot of their lenses (still do!) and never had a single issue. A lot of it is snobbery. I just want gear that works, and the sigmas do just that.
 
I've got the Tamron 70-200 but with Sony mount.

I read a lot of the reviews before I got it and watched a lot of Youtube video's. Matt Grainger in particular does a very thorough review of the Tamron vs Sigma vs Nikon.

Optically I love my Tamron. I cannot fault it. The downsides is that it does not have VR (but that doesn't bother me on a Sony body), it's the slowest of the three to focus and in poor light it can hunt sometimes.

For the price though it's a cracking piece of glass. I'm now eyeing up the Sigma 70-200 OS because i'd hate to shoot with this piece of glass with my shaky hands without some sort of stabilisation.

For action shots, I'd probably suggest the Sigma. Like you though I simply cannot justify the Nikon one.
 
I have the Sigma non-IS (Canon mount) which I use mainly for dog photography and it is a cracking lens. It recently got a greyhound flat out running straight into the lens absolutely sharp, so no problem with action photography!
 
I have the Tamron on my 60D and have been well pleased with the resluts at football although as others have said the autofocus at low light and I have found the long end is probably not as good as the own brand offerings
 
Used them both loads when and the Tamron is not the best choice, those who have only owned the Tamron say it is OK, Those that have owned the Tamron and Sigma will say the Sigma is better.
 
I had the Sigma, and hated it. It was soft wide open, not as fast as it was reported to be [at least the copy I got] and it had terrible CA at 200mm. I sold it soon after buying and bought the Nikon 80-200 - Sooooo much better, in every way. Never mind what people say about AF speed, the difference is minimal between them all, until you hit the top end Nikon 70-200, [which I now own, VRII] which is blisteringly fast, but at a price!

The new tamron 70-200 VC will be a much nicer lens than the sigma.
 
Last edited:
I have the Sigma, stunning lens.

VERY sharp at all focal ranges and apertures and super fast AF. I couldn't see any difference between this and the mk1 Canon 70-200 f/2.8.

It's a bargain too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top