Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ABoon" data-source="post: 346791" data-attributes="member: 25505">You stated that the Nikon variant was sharper and had better AF than a proposed Sigma lens which does not exist. Perhaps you are thinking of the current Sigma 70-200, which by all reports is a relatively weak lens; the original post was however referring to a hypothetical future re-iteration of the 70-200 2.8 from Sigma.Regarding AF; it is in most cases likely that Nikon lenses will function better than third party lenses, however the differences are barely distinguishable in many cases. In fact I have noted comparisons between the new Tamron 150-600 and the new Nikon 80-400 which measure the Tamron to be faster with regards to AF. Also, the Tamron 70-200 is barely slower than the Nikon version. It certainly is not &quot;slooowww&quot;. I don't have to personally experience a direct comparison; youtube video footage of the lenses side-by-side will show me just how massive the difference is (Note it's not a $1,000+ advantage).Regarding prices, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the cost for Nikon products is due to the 'Nikon' tag. The differences in performance do not reflect the differences in cost.I don't think third party products should be written off, especially not before they have even been released.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ABoon, post: 346791, member: 25505"] You stated that the Nikon variant was sharper and had better AF than a proposed Sigma lens which does not exist. Perhaps you are thinking of the current Sigma 70-200, which by all reports is a relatively weak lens; the original post was however referring to a hypothetical future re-iteration of the 70-200 2.8 from Sigma. Regarding AF; it is in most cases likely that Nikon lenses will function better than third party lenses, however the differences are barely distinguishable in many cases. In fact I have noted comparisons between the new Tamron 150-600 and the new Nikon 80-400 which measure the Tamron to be faster with regards to AF. Also, the Tamron 70-200 is barely slower than the Nikon version. It certainly is not "slooowww". I don't have to personally experience a direct comparison; youtube video footage of the lenses side-by-side will show me just how massive the difference is (Note it's not a $1,000+ advantage). Regarding prices, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the cost for Nikon products is due to the 'Nikon' tag. The differences in performance do not reflect the differences in cost. I don't think third party products should be written off, especially not before they have even been released. [/QUOTE]

Verification