What to buy: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD OR Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM

N

needair81

Messages
151
Name
Bjorn
Edit My Images
No
I have nailed down my 2 choices to the following lenses and need some opinions on which one you would get. If my budget could stretch to the Nikon 70-200 VRII i would buy that no questions asked. As far as bang for buck goes these lenses seem to be my choices.

1. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD
2. Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM

From reading reviews so far the tamron seems to do be a better lens. Am i wrong with this conclusion?
 
I have the Sigma 7-200mm and have had no issues, that said I'm sure Tamron owner will be along shortly :D:D:D:D
 
Thinking of upgrading my 70-300VR for one of the above lenses too, but my main concern is weight but I guess it is something you live with. Have ppl upgraded from the VR and been happy with visible differences in photos or is it more about getting the most from the better optics?
 
I have the Tamron, not had it all that long but so far it has really impressed me. Very sharp, pretty quick to focus and the vr works brilliantly. I chose it after reading reviews where it appears to match the Nikon for IQ.

I cannot compare the Sigma,or Nikon for that matter from personal experience. I would have no hesitation in recommending the Tamron.

The only down size is size and weight but I believe they are all bulky.
 
darkeeboy said:
Thinking of upgrading my 70-300VR for one of the above lenses too, but my main concern is weight but I guess it is something you live with. Have ppl upgraded from the VR and been happy with visible differences in photos or is it more about getting the most from the better optics?
Click to expand...
Get yourself a sling, you won't even notice the weight. Around your neck is a bit (a lot) annoying.
 
I have been looking a the prices from Panamoz and if i pay by bacs the price the price difference between the 2 is only £57 more for the Tamron.
 
needair81 said:
I have been looking a the prices from Panamoz and if i pay by bacs the price the price difference between the 2 is only £57 more for the Tamron.
Click to expand...
I looked into this extensively before getting mine.

The major difference is wide open sharpness and especially wide open edge/corner sharpness (where the tamron edges it over the nikon). I rarely bother stopping mine down.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Op - what would you rather own - the Nikon VR2 or the sigma OS??

The tamron IS the Nikon...with a different name ;)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/tamron-70-200mm-vc-usd.511412/
Click to expand...

The Tamron and Nikon and completely different lenses. Different optical design for a start.

Tamron is a great lens, not quite as good as Canon or Nikon but damn close in sharpness, focusing and image stabilisation, if not build quality. Sigma is not far behind either, the main difference being edge sharpness at 200mm below f/5.6, but since the edges are quite likely to be out of focus anyway, it may well pass unnoticed. Sigma is certainly fantastic value.
 
HoppyUK said:
The Tamron and Nikon and completely different lenses. Different optical design for a start.

Tamron is a great lens, not quite as good as Canon or Nikon but damn close in sharpness, focusing and image stabilisation, if not build quality. Sigma is not far behind either, the main difference being edge sharpness at 200mm below f/5.6, but since the edges are quite likely to be out of focus anyway, it may well pass unnoticed. Sigma is certainly fantastic value.
Click to expand...
Come on Rich, I wasn't being literal, I meant that the tamron and the nikon are so close they might as well be the same.

But...

DXO does mark the tamron sharper than the VR2...

Perhaps 'real world' is different though ;)
 
You need to get a PR job with Tamron Phil, there's no doubting its a good lens Phil but it aint a Nikon VR2, i had the chance to try a couple of my mates at the camera club while ive been off work recently (bought from Panamoz) and its a good lens, one of them was sharp wide open, the other was only fairly sharp but neither were as sharp as the Nikon (hope there aren't any QC issues), i cant think of a single situation where i personally would need super edge sharpness when shooting at f/2.8 so i never even bothered checking it, the AF on both of my mates lenses is as good as the old Nikon VRI but not as fast as the VR2, its very well made but again not as well made as the Nikon, VR/VC seems to work as good but the Tamron is a little slower to kick in, however, you can get the Tamron for well under £700 from Panamoz and if i were in the market again and not shooting field sports professionally i would certainty opt for the saving and pick the Tamron because for the price you cant go wrong, oh, i would also opt for it over the Sigma as well.
 
Gary Coyle said:
You need to get a PR job with Tamron Phil, there's no doubting its a good lens Phil but it aint a Nikon VR2, i had the chance to try a couple of my mates at the camera club while ive been off work recently (bought from Panamoz) and its a good lens, one of them was sharp wide open, the other was only fairly sharp but neither were as sharp as the Nikon (hope there aren't any QC issues), i cant think of a single situation where i personally would need super edge sharpness when shooting at f/2.8 so i never even bothered checking it, the AF on both of my mates lenses is as good as the old Nikon VRI but not as fast as the VR2, its very well made but again not as well made as the Nikon, VR/VC seems to work as good but the Tamron is a little slower to kick in, however, you can get the Tamron for well under £700 from Panamoz and if i were in the market again and not shooting field sports professionally i would certainty opt for the saving and pick the Tamron because for the price you cant go wrong, oh, i would also opt for it over the Sigma as well.
Click to expand...
I suspect that with 3rd party lenses, the caliberation is off more so than OEM's.

With my 70-200 I dial in -12, the 17-50 needs -10 but my nikkors have always been fine without AF tuning.

I don't own the nikon VR2 but have taken some shots with it since buying the tamron (and not enough to warrant a reasonable experienced answer) - can't really tell the difference on my crop sensor but if you were noticing a difference I'd first wonder about the caliberation.

I would like to swap to go out witha VR2 owner for day and swap lenses (both with an open mind), wonder what the outcome of opinions would be...
 
Phil Young said:
Come on Rich, I wasn't being literal, I meant that the tamron and the nikon are so close they might as well be the same.

But...

DXO does mark the tamron sharper than the VR2...

Perhaps 'real world' is different though ;)
Click to expand...

LOL Apologies. I thought maybe you were serious because Tamron and Nikon have actually marketed the same lens before, and their current 70-300s are spookily similar.

I'm less than confident about DxO, but that aside I've MTF tested Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Tamron stabilised 70-200/2.8 zooms twice now with the same result. Canon and Nikon really too close to call; Canon has less focus breathing and better close focusing, Nikon is a bit cheaper. Both excellent with proven high grade weather-resistant build.

Tamron VC is not quite as sharp, I've found, but there is really so little in it that copy variation could swing it either way. Sigma comes last, but again it's so close with the only significant shortfall being the edges at 200mm at lower f/numbers. But the Sigma is £300 cheaper than Tamron, and half the price of Canikon, at least in the UK.
 
Phil Young said:
It's worth noting that if you're a fan of panning, the tamron isn't for you - it doesn't have that facility of one axis stabilisation.
Click to expand...

Tamron has auto-panning detection so doesn't need a mode-2 switch. And it works very well.
 
Phil Young said:
I suspect that with 3rd party lenses, the caliberation is off more so than OEM's.

With my 70-200 I dial in -12, the 17-50 needs -10 but my nikkors have always been fine without AF tuning.

I don't own the nikon VR2 but have taken some shots with it since buying the tamron (and not enough to warrant a reasonable experienced answer) - can't really tell the difference on my crop sensor but if you were noticing a difference I'd first wonder about the caliberation.

I would like to swap to go out witha VR2 owner for day and swap lenses (both with an open mind), wonder what the outcome of opinions would be...
Click to expand...
I actually never even considered you shot with a cropped camera Phil, lenses "always appear" sharper on crop cameras because of the perceived/actual increased DOF.
 
HoppyUK said:
Load up comparisons for Canon and Nikon with teleconverters attached, that really pushes a lens' sharpness potential to the max, and you'll see that the Canikons have a bit more to give than Sigma and Tamron, especially the Canon.
Click to expand...
I'm sure if the Nikon 2xIII could attached / af with the tamron it would give the same results...? I believe there is a bit of an AF issue when it comes to TC's but don't have first hand experience of that.
 
Phil Young said:
That and...crops only use the center mostly of the lens and FF uses all...(no?).
Click to expand...

The centre will always be less sharp on APS-C than FF, as the smaller image area needs more magnification for a given size output, so the lens has to deliver higher resolution. Fact of physics is that as resolution goes up, contrast goes down (basic MTF theory) and this is why APS-C is not as sharp as FF. What happens around the edges varies according to lens.

Phil Young said:
I'm sure if the Nikon 2xIII could attached / af with the tamron it would give the same results...? I believe there is a bit of an AF issue when it comes to TC's but don't have first hand experience of that.
Click to expand...

Not really. There's bugger-all difference in terms of sharpness between different TCs/extenders, at least the quality ones from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Kenko. What you get out is 95% decided by the quality of the mother lens, and all the TC does is magnify it. The more it magnifies, the more resolution is required, so again contrast goes down. Contrast is a much more important component of what we call sharpness than resolution/pixels.
 
HoppyUK said:
The centre will always be less sharp on APS-C than FF, as the smaller image area needs more magnification for a given size output, so the lens has to deliver higher resolution. Fact of physics is that as resolution goes up, contrast goes down (basic MTF theory) and this is why APS-C is not as sharp as FF. What happens around the edges varies according to lens.



Not really. There's bugger-all difference in terms of sharpness between different TCs/extenders, at least the quality ones from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Kenko. What you get out is 95% decided by the quality of the mother lens, and all the TC does is magnify it. The more it magnifies, the more resolution is required, so again contrast goes down. Contrast is a much more important component of what we call sharpness than resolution/pixels.
Click to expand...
But if the tamron and the nikon delover very similar results, then the result from the 2x also be very similar no?
 
Phil Young said:
But if the tamron and the nikon delover very similar results, then the result from the 2x also be very similar no?
Click to expand...

How a lens performs without a telecom is certainly a very good guide as to how it will perform with one, but not infallible. With a 2x TC, you're asking for double the resolution, and while two lenses may perform very similarly at say 30 lines-per-mm, at 60 lines-per-mm they could be significantly different.

On TheDigitalPicture.com comparison widget, there are significant differences - too great for it to be the particular telecon used. So you have to conclude that the mother zoom is the main contributor. There is a reason why Canikon's best lenses cost a lot more*. Having said that, while I think TDP is one of the better review sites, some of the results there don't quite sit right to me.

*Eg, Canon has fluorite lens elements, and IMHO that's the magic dust that puts their long lenses a cut above, produced in a dedicated factory. AFAIK, no other manufacturer has access to real fluorite, despite the similar sounding marketing terms they like to use.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top