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="spb_stan" data-source="post: 622780" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>Elope....solves all problems :>)</p><p></p><p>Depending on the range of shooting you do, my general feeling it is make sure the basics are covered and then go for the specialty lenses. That meant I filled out the Trinity 2.8 lenses before getting deeper into fast primes. I think you did the right thing in getting G2. </p><p></p><p>The Nikon 70-200 2.8 was the second lens I got when I got into Nikon when the D90 came out, and used it for everything from portraits to theater, events and street. With 14-200 covered I stated adding where I had a specific need, like 135 2.0 dc, 85 1.4, and a bunch of different types of 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 plus a 1.2. All the specialty lenses are good but the majority of shooting is with the 2.8 pickup truck zooms.</p><p></p><p>Two posters commented about the 85 1.8 being a weak lens. I thought those were strange comments, as one of Nikon's best performing primes. I have the 1.4 which is very good but used only when having the need to put in the bag before heading out, to save weight and bulkiness of the already large and heavy bag. I bought a 85 1.8G as a lighter walking around lens and found it to be very impressive and the 1.4 sits on the shelf. What is weak about it? The Nikon 1.8 primes are almost all very good lenses, particularly the 20mm, and 85.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 622780, member: 43545"] Elope....solves all problems :>) Depending on the range of shooting you do, my general feeling it is make sure the basics are covered and then go for the specialty lenses. That meant I filled out the Trinity 2.8 lenses before getting deeper into fast primes. I think you did the right thing in getting G2. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 was the second lens I got when I got into Nikon when the D90 came out, and used it for everything from portraits to theater, events and street. With 14-200 covered I stated adding where I had a specific need, like 135 2.0 dc, 85 1.4, and a bunch of different types of 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 plus a 1.2. All the specialty lenses are good but the majority of shooting is with the 2.8 pickup truck zooms. Two posters commented about the 85 1.8 being a weak lens. I thought those were strange comments, as one of Nikon's best performing primes. I have the 1.4 which is very good but used only when having the need to put in the bag before heading out, to save weight and bulkiness of the already large and heavy bag. I bought a 85 1.8G as a lighter walking around lens and found it to be very impressive and the 1.4 sits on the shelf. What is weak about it? The Nikon 1.8 primes are almost all very good lenses, particularly the 20mm, and 85. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Lens Conundrum: Sigma 135mm Art vs Tamron 70-200mm G2
Top