pistnbroke
Banned
NV Steve ...only seems to be a review ,,not tested
70mm - 200mm F2.8 Sigma, Tamron or Nikkor?
- Thread starter Samsonite
- Start date
Tested: DxOMark - Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Canon
Review: DxOMark - Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD Canon - Excellent Value and a Great All Rounder
Granted, the testing was done using the Canon mount version of the lens, but the only difference between mounts are, well, the mounts.
Mmmm interesting stuff, so would you guys say its even worth splashing out for a sigma / tamron 80 - 200 F2.8, then eventually sell it on to buy a Nikon one, or should I just save up to get a Nikon one first time round?
Its more the ''F2.8'' that interests me, because as far as focal length goes, Ive pretty much that already covered with my Nikon 70 - 300 AFS...
Its more the ''F2.8'' that interests me, because as far as focal length goes, Ive pretty much that already covered with my Nikon 70 - 300 AFS...
I've bought used if the price is good and it's local so I can test it first. Opinions vary on that.
I have not used them, hopefully others will reply, but..., If you're going to put a teleconverter on the best zoom, don't you want the best?
Well I would want the best, just wondering if Nikon would be more expensive as part of a branding exercise, rather than also being higher quality... Like the example of all jeans being made in the same factory, with different labels put on them, some are sold for $10, and others for $300 
Yes, but the bigger problem is that the VR is not so great on the borders/edges, whereas the VRII supposedly fixes that. If I absolutely had to get one of the Nikons, I'd get the VRII simply because the VRs that are out there are a bit long in the tooth. There is a big difference in price though, from $1200-1300 used for a VR, or $2300+ for the VRII (not including the current $300 off instant rebate). I'd rather go for something new & not out of warranty. Then there is the issue of focus breathing with the VRII, if that is of any concern whatsoever. I can personally afford the VRII, but I can't justify the cost-not for something I would use only a handful of times each year. For someone who normally uses those focal lengths & needs the 2.8, I think the VRII would be great. Or the f4 if one doesn't need 2.8.
The new Tamron comes very close... But it's also priced pretty close to the nikons.
I'd go for a nikon v1 on crop and v2 on full frame
Sendt fra min GT-I9300 med Tapatalk2
The new Sigma 35mm has been tested numerous times now & is better than any other lens out there in that length, so Sigma is really making a good turnaround from their previous offerings. I think Tamron also did a good job with their 24-70 and 70-200 (the new ones). But, there will always be those who refuse to look beyond their camera's brand.
I know the EU pricing for the Tamron is rather absurd. In the US, there is a $900 difference between the VRII and the Tamron, which is pretty sizeable.