Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BeerBelly" data-source="post: 602995" data-attributes="member: 35439">I would say that the biggest difference between all these lenses is copy variation. I've seen samples from the G1 Tamron that look superb or ones that make the lens seem like it's a dud. My copy was a decently sharp one, but my biggest advice would be to try before you buy or at least make sure you can swap for a different one.I don't have any experience with the G2 Tamron, but I have shot the G1, 200-500 Nikon and 150-600 Contemporary Sigma. Out of those the Tamron had the fastest AF, Nikon was the sharpest one and Sigma had the dock option going for it <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />The Sport version of the Sigma is by far the heaviest so it puts a limit to handholding (the above ones I had no issues with).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BeerBelly, post: 602995, member: 35439"] I would say that the biggest difference between all these lenses is copy variation. I've seen samples from the G1 Tamron that look superb or ones that make the lens seem like it's a dud. My copy was a decently sharp one, but my biggest advice would be to try before you buy or at least make sure you can swap for a different one. I don't have any experience with the G2 Tamron, but I have shot the G1, 200-500 Nikon and 150-600 Contemporary Sigma. Out of those the Tamron had the fastest AF, Nikon was the sharpest one and Sigma had the dock option going for it :) The Sport version of the Sigma is by far the heaviest so it puts a limit to handholding (the above ones I had no issues with). [/QUOTE]

Verification