Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Lens Conundrum: Sigma 135mm Art vs Tamron 70-200mm G2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 622557" data-attributes="member: 13196"><p>My comment comes from being a more practical kind of person. The thing with sexy sports cars is there is a time and a place to drive them. They are fun and get the adrenaline going. However, there are times when driving a sports car just isn't practical--ice storms, snow, and a little off-roading to name a few. That's when you need something more practical to drive--something that is dependable and roadworthy no matter what the weather.</p><p></p><p>Looking at your list of gear, if you get rid of the 70-200mm f/2.8 range, that only leaves you with an 85mm lens in the telephoto range for FX. And even that isn't a reliable pickup truck. I'm not factoring in the 18-140 lens because I'm under the impression it is DX. That really won't cut it on your FX body.</p><p></p><p>My suggestion is to go with option 1 or 2. Either keep what you've got and put away a little $ here and there to eventually get your sexy two-seater, or upgrade to the new 70-200mm f/2.8 to relieve some of your frustration. </p><p></p><p>I was in a similar situation a while back. At that time, I had the Sigma OS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 which really wasn't cutting it for me (at times it front focused while other times it back focused plus its contrast was lackluster). I really wanted the Nikon version as well as a fisheye lens. The 70-200mm was really more of a necessity over the fisheye. The lower image quality from the Sigma 70-200mm made the decision for me. At least two years later, now I have both the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 as well as a fisheye.</p><p></p><p>IMHO what you need to do is to weigh the pros and cons between the two versions of the 70-200mm Tamron lenses. Is your image quality suffering enough that you throw away a decent number of images? Or are the issues you have with the lens more about using it? So in my opinion, if your current 70-200mm is giving you great images, then squirrel away some money and eventually get the Sigma 135mm. But if the overall image quality of your current 70-200mm is questionable, then go for the upgrade. </p><p></p><p>You've posted many times about LOVING your 70-200mm Tamron lens. Can you really do without one? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hark, post: 622557, member: 13196"] My comment comes from being a more practical kind of person. The thing with sexy sports cars is there is a time and a place to drive them. They are fun and get the adrenaline going. However, there are times when driving a sports car just isn't practical--ice storms, snow, and a little off-roading to name a few. That's when you need something more practical to drive--something that is dependable and roadworthy no matter what the weather. Looking at your list of gear, if you get rid of the 70-200mm f/2.8 range, that only leaves you with an 85mm lens in the telephoto range for FX. And even that isn't a reliable pickup truck. I'm not factoring in the 18-140 lens because I'm under the impression it is DX. That really won't cut it on your FX body. My suggestion is to go with option 1 or 2. Either keep what you've got and put away a little $ here and there to eventually get your sexy two-seater, or upgrade to the new 70-200mm f/2.8 to relieve some of your frustration. I was in a similar situation a while back. At that time, I had the Sigma OS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 which really wasn't cutting it for me (at times it front focused while other times it back focused plus its contrast was lackluster). I really wanted the Nikon version as well as a fisheye lens. The 70-200mm was really more of a necessity over the fisheye. The lower image quality from the Sigma 70-200mm made the decision for me. At least two years later, now I have both the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 as well as a fisheye. IMHO what you need to do is to weigh the pros and cons between the two versions of the 70-200mm Tamron lenses. Is your image quality suffering enough that you throw away a decent number of images? Or are the issues you have with the lens more about using it? So in my opinion, if your current 70-200mm is giving you great images, then squirrel away some money and eventually get the Sigma 135mm. But if the overall image quality of your current 70-200mm is questionable, then go for the upgrade. You've posted many times about LOVING your 70-200mm Tamron lens. Can you really do without one? :confused: [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Lens Conundrum: Sigma 135mm Art vs Tamron 70-200mm G2
Top
