70mm - 200mm F2.8 Sigma, Tamron or Nikkor?
- Thread starter Samsonite
- Start date
hope I'm not going to have a bomb on duty to get it cleared 
Nikon vr1 70-200 ? I have one, don't think of putting it on anything high resolution, the edges ............ frightful! The VRll is pretty good, still over hyped with its optical performance, mine went back a couple of times before it was satisfactory. That's on D800's I have 3 of them I have had the tammy for a few weeks, its a good lens and not just satisfactory and some comments here are questioning it being a match for the Nikon variant? I would say : be afraid Nikon, be very afraid there is a Titan that delivers and it ain't got Nikon stamped on it!
What I understood is:
- the Sigma is a good lens, the Tamron a bit less
- only if you do things like wildlife and car races, the Nikon can not be beat
Hope to share some experience on race photography here.
The only difference between them really is at the extremes, so 70 at 2.8 and 200 at 2.8. I've used my 70-200 more than I thought i would at 2.8 so the Nikon has been very nice to have.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Had the Nikon 80-200 2.8D for a couple of years and sold it when I bought the 70-200VRII. Both are built like a tank. VRII lens is AWESOME! I agree with Rick, if you can't afford Nikon 2.8, check out the 70-200 f/4 (VRIII).
dddwyer1981
Senior Member
I have the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 - does everything I need it to. I'm running it on a D5000, not sure how it would do on a FX, but time will tell.
I used it on the d7000, it worked fine, the soft edges doesnt matter on dx
Sendt fra min Nexus 7 med Tapatalk