Lens Conundrum: Sigma 135mm Art vs Tamron 70-200mm G2

Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I have an opportunity to upgrade my existing Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD (call it the G1 version) to either a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art series tele... OR a copy of the new, G2 version of my current Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom.

On one hand I'm drawn to the Sigma because I really do love a good prime and the Art series primes just blow me away. The 135mm focal length is just awesome on a full frame body and would be just the ticket for portraits. Unfortunately I'm a little afraid of the flexibility of the big Tamron I'd have to give up for Sigma. The image quality on on this new Art lens is also staggeringly good. Jaw droppingly good and that's the Big Point in it's favor. Good as the IQ is on the G2, I don't think, can really compare to this lens. That's a huge factor for me in this.

On the other hand a fast 70-200 has been my "go to" lens for so long I'm not sure what I'd do without one. If I could only have one lens it might very well be a 70-200mm f/2.8 or something very similar. Tamron's G1 version of this lens is impressive, DxO rates it at as one of the top three "fast" zooms for the D750, but the new G2 version stomps all over the G1 in every category that matters according to pretty much every article I've read on the topic. What I feel I'd probably have to give up in the IQ department is made up for in my mind by the overall flexibility of the wider range of focal length and General Awesomeness of a fast 70-200.

Normally I have zero issue coming a decision on matters like this but not this time! I am about exhausted from chasing my tail on this one and I don't have all the time in the world to make up my mind. So, all that being said I'd like to hear your thought's. I'm hoping someone will say something that will trigger an "Ah ha!" moment and I'll know for certain which way to go.

And just so we're clear, "Why not both?!" (sadly) is not an option. The options are: 1. Keep my current G1 Tamron 70-200mm; 2. Upgrade to the Tamron 70-200mm G2 (in lieu of the G1) or 3. Upgrade to the Sigma 135mm DG HSM Art (also in lieu of the Tamron 70-200mm).

Thanks in advance for any considered input.
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I have an opportunity to upgrade my existing Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD (call it the G1 version) to either a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art series tele... OR a copy of the new, G2 version of my current Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom.

On one hand I'm drawn to the Sigma because I really do love a good prime and the Art series primes just blow me away. The 135mm focal length is just awesome on a full frame body and would be just the ticket for portraits. Unfortunately I'm a little afraid of the flexibility of the big Tamron I'd have to give up for Sigma. The image quality on on this new Art lens is also staggeringly good. Jaw droppingly good and that's the Big Point in it's favor. Good as the IQ is on the G2, I don't think, can really compare to this lens. That's a huge factor for me in this.

On the other hand a fast 70-200 has been my "go to" lens for so long I'm not sure what I'd do without one. If I could only have one lens it might very well be a 70-200mm f/2.8 or something very similar. Tamron's G1 version of this lens is impressive, DxO rates it at as one of the top three "fast" zooms for the D750, but the new G2 version stomps all over the G1 in every category that matters according to pretty much every article I've read on the topic. What I feel I'd probably have to give up in the IQ department is made up for in my mind by the overall flexibility of the wider range of focal length and General Awesomeness of a fast 70-200.

Normally I have zero issue coming a decision on matters like this but not this time! I am about exhausted from chasing my tail on this one and I don't have all the time in the world to make up my mind. So, all that being said I'd like to hear your thought's. I'm hoping someone will say something that will trigger an "Ah ha!" moment and I'll know for certain which way to go.

And just so we're clear, "Why not both?!" (sadly) is not an option. The options are: 1. Keep my current G1 Tamron 70-200mm; 2. Upgrade to the Tamron 70-200mm G2 (in lieu of the G1) or 3. Upgrade to the Sigma 135mm DG HSM Art (also in lieu of the Tamron 70-200mm).

Thanks in advance for any considered input.
Click to expand...

Good to know that even the venerable stalwarts on here struggle with lens choices Not much to give you in way of pointers, but was curious to see if you've looked at the EXIF data from your 70-200 to see what your most used focal lengths are? If it peaks around 135, then I'd say option 3. If it's a flat distribution, then option 1 (or option 2, if you feel hamstrung in major ways by your G1 70-200). Hope this helps!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I don't think I would give up the flexibility of a very good 70-200mm lens for any prime (but that's just me). If I had to have the prime, I would keep the 70-200mm and go into saving mode for the prime. After all, until the 70-200mm G2 came out you were happy with your G1, right? Another option might be to unload the Nikon 85mm and get the Sigma 135mm art prime, since if you have the jaw dropping sharp 135mm for portraits, why do you need a weak 85mm portrait lens?
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Bikerbrent said:
I don't think I would give up the flexibility of a very good 70-200mm lens for any prime (but that's just me). If I had to have the prime, I would keep the 70-200mm and go into saving mode for the prime. After all, until the 70-200mm G2 came out you were happy with your G1, right? Another option might be to unload the Nikon 85mm and get the Sigma 135mm art prime, since if you have the jaw dropping sharp 135mm for portraits, why do you need a weak 85mm portrait lens?
Click to expand...
The more I look at the G2 the more trouble I have pulling myself away from it. I really do like my current (G1) version, but it's also been known to frustrate me from time to time in small but annoying ways. But in looking at the reviews for the G2 it looks as if every frustration I had has been addressed, and I want to believe...

The Tamron G2 feels like a reliable pickup truck; nothing flashy but it gets... the job... done.

The Sigma feels like a sexy two-seater with way too much horsepower under the hood for its own good.
....
 
Last edited:
Danno

Danno

Senior Member
When I saw that you had started this thread, Paul, I was not really surprised. Just by what you write I know you love both the Art Lenses and the Tamron. I have to say that since I would have to go for the G2. I am just getting used to the D700 I bought and I wish I could afford one. But, the Art lenses are running a close second. I read a review on Petepixal this week on the 135 and it was pretty impressive.

I know this is a tough one. The thing for me is I do not always have the flexibility to zoom in or out with my feet. I just become too much of a distraction. I really use my Tamron non-vc 70-200 a lot, and I know that it has focus issues, but I still like it - It also convinced me that I need the G2 when I have the cash. :)
 
S

Samo

Senior Member
The 135 rounds out your kit of primes very nicely. Pick up a 180 or 200 and your covered. The only shots of yours I have seen are the dancers. Dancers done full body isolation with 135 would be sweet. I vote the prime. That said I am not a zoom person so dont know that my thoughts are really that constructive for you Paul.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Horoscope Fish said:
The Tamron G2 feels like a reliable pickup truck; nothing flashy but it gets... the job... done.

The Sigma feels like a sexy two-seater with way too much horsepower under the hood for it's own good.
Click to expand...

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:
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
If you do decide to upgrade and sell your old 70-200 please shoot me a message. I might be interested in purchasing . [MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION]
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Well I've been doing even more reading and watching even more reviews of this lens, including one by... *deep breath*... The Angry Photographer. Extreme Kudos go out to slightly stuffy, stereotypical white-guy Dustin Abbott for reviewing this lens to the n'th degree in a rational and approachable manner. His YouTube channel rocks in my opinion.
...
hark said:
You've posted many times about LOVING your 70-200mm Tamron lens. Can you really do without one? :confused:
Click to expand...
And that's really the Crux O' the Matter, isn't it? Whether or not I want to get on without my "old reliable". My G1 is awesome 95% of the time and fickle about 5% of the time. Those numbers might be a little conservative, but my point is, for the longest time what I was doing with my photography allowed me to overlook that 5%. Things have changed though and I really, really need to be 100% confident in what I'm shooting. At some point you realize your technique really IS good and it's not what you're doing, it's what you're doing it with.

And so, after much deliberation, I have decided that no, I can't do without a solid, fast 70-200; I just can't. Not to mention from every review I've seen/read the G2 is nothing short of a whole new lens: New body construction (aluminum vs polycarb), significantly better weather sealing; improved auto-focus speed, tracking AND overall accuracy (specifically in low light), better lens coatings, slightly better IQ along the edges and in the corners, it's compatible with their AF fine-tuning dock and software... Every complaint I have about my G1 seems to have been addressed, and then some, in the G2; which is why I'm going to give it a shot.

Looks like my sexy two-seater is just gonna have to wait. :(
.....
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
If you do decide to upgrade and sell your old 70-200 please shoot me a message. I might be interested in purchasing . [MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION]
Click to expand...
Hey Pete... I have a deal in the works right now regarding my G1 but if things go sideways I promise you'll be the first to know!
...
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
Hey Pete... I have a deal in the works right now regarding my G1 but if things go sideways I promise you'll be the first to know!
...
Click to expand...

I'm willing to pay in gold pressed latinum.:encouragement:

quark_600.jpg
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Horoscope Fish said:
And so, after much deliberation, I have decided that no, I can't do without a solid, fast 70-200; I just can't.
Click to expand...

Do you ever do paid work or sell your images? If not, why not give it a try and squirrel away at least some of that income to put towards your sexy two-seater? ;)
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
hark said:
Do you ever do paid work or sell your images? If not, why not give it a try and squirrel away at least some of that income to put towards your sexy two-seater? ;)
Click to expand...
Looks like that's what I'm going to have to do... I'm also getting married soon so a lot of my otherwise disposable income is being funneled towards that.

...
 
S

spb_stan

Senior Member
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.
 
Top