Tried both the sigma and nikon 70-200 today...

S

Samsonite

Senior Member
Went down to a local camera shop and got to try both the nikon and sigma 70-200 F2.8 lenses. I was very impressed with them, it was my first time shooting with a 2.8. I expected to find the nikon to be much better In all areas, image quality, focus, build quality and low light. Truth be told, I couldn't really see any difference in image quality in the test shots I took, autofocus was super quick on both, (slightly more on the nikon as expected), build and feel was surprisingly similar too (I expected the nikon to be far superior in this area too). So it's hard to justify the extra 1000 euros on the nikon... Could it be that these latest generation of sigma/tamron are almost as close to the nikon without the nikon price tag?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk!
 
C

crashton

Senior Member
Tough choice for you. Only time will tell if the Nikon has better build quality, from my past experience with Sigma lenses I'd say save some more money & buy the Nikon. My experience with Sigma is years ago & I swore off of them, maybe they have a better build now.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
To answer your question: YES. I tested a Nikon 70-300mm VR and it's Tamron equivalent and i must say, the only real difference i saw was the AF speed. If you read some of the more reputable reviewers online for these two lenses, they are almost equal. I am very happy with my Tamron and i can't really see how the Nikon would really benefit me that much more when taking photographs.
 
Watoh

Watoh

Senior Member
I recently purchased a Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD after all my research pointed to very little difference between the Nikon equivalent for a far greater price. I cant speak for Sigma, but i've been impressed with it.

I do know you can pay an awful lot for a name sometimes!
 
S

Samsonite

Senior Member
I have the nikon equivalent to your tamron, rhe 70 - 300 4.5-5.6 AFS VR, got it from my missus for my birthday, its my favorite lens so far, thought it was amazing and had a super build quality, until I held a 2.8 today... Whole different ball park!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk!
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
Samsonite said:
Went down to a local camera shop and got to try both the nikon and sigma 70-200 F2.8 lenses. I was very impressed with them, it was my first time shooting with a 2.8. I expected to find the nikon to be much better In all areas, image quality, focus, build quality and low light. Truth be told, I couldn't really see any difference in image quality in the test shots I took, autofocus was super quick on both, (slightly more on the nikon as expected), build and feel was surprisingly similar too (I expected the nikon to be far superior in this area too). So it's hard to justify the extra 1000 euros on the nikon... Could it be that these latest generation of sigma/tamron are almost as close to the nikon without the nikon price tag?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

If you were comparing images on the LCD then I'm sure you didn't see much difference. It's when the images go to print you'll probably notice a difference.
If I were going to buy a 70-200 2.8 and I wanted to save money I'd look at the Tamron, not the Sigma. The Tamron has been very highly rated...the Sigma not so much.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
I own the Sigma (which is terrific), but since I've never tried the Nikon, I can't offer you a comparison. The Sigma isn't weather sealed. From what I've heard, I *think* the Nikon is supposed to be sealed--in case that influences your decision one way or the other.
 
Top