70-200mm 2.8 : Nikon VR or Sigma or Tamron?


Status
Not open for further replies.

daydreamz

New Member
Mar 14, 2007
567
0
0
In a not so green world!! :(
#1
Hi. Just read on the Tamron website of their launch of the 70-200mm 2.8 lens...seems quite well equipped for this specs. Anyone tried it...any reviews, pricing info, feedback, market talk etc!? Just been trying the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 last few days and it's really nice...so if that is any yardstick then the 70-200mm cant be dismal in my opinion. (of course if budget no constraint then nikon seems like the best in this range specs)

Anyone can shed any more info...!?

Cheers.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#2
No marketing dept will allow their spec and feature sheet to look like a dismal failure. Heh.

It hasn't arrived on the market yet AFAIK... So be patient :)
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#3
i'm looking at this lens too! there's a tokina on the bns too.. million dollar question is how much difference are there between them. i saw some test shots of the sigma and it gets sharp only after f/4. @ f/2.8 it is pretty blur all round.

i havent seen shots of the nikon thou..
 

ihub88

New Member
Mar 3, 2007
586
0
0
#4
Hi. Just read on the Tamron website of their launch of the 70-200mm 2.8 lens...seems quite well equipped for this specs. Anyone tried it...any reviews, pricing info, feedback, market talk etc!? Just been trying the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 last few days and it's really nice...so if that is any yardstick then the 70-200mm cant be dismal in my opinion. (of course if budget no constraint then nikon seems like the best in this range specs)

Anyone can shed any more info...!?

Cheers.
well equiped meaning?
 

scenar

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
1,246
0
0
#5
Only the Nikon has VR, if you intend to handhold the lens, this would be plenty useful. With good handholding technique, shutter speeds of 1/25 @ 200mm are actually possible.

While I haven't tried the other 70-200s yet, I would also tink it is hard to beat the AF speed of the nikon 70-200.

Sharpness wise, again, I guess it would be hard to do any better.
Here's a sample @ f3.2 http://zyy.smugmug.com/gallery/2480953#100772030-L-LB
 

ZeroDivine

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
2,071
1
0
andritei.zenfolio.com
#6
the upcoming tamron 70-200mm sounds very promising. If the review is good and price is right, I won't hesitate to get this :D ...
 

Hawaiisg

Deregistered
Oct 16, 2006
127
0
0
#7
sigma 70-200 2.8 ex dg hsm works great. although i use it for a canon, even at 2.8 the focus is good, for me it's not blur. i normally shoot sports so handshake not a problem since i shoot at higher speeds. to tell you the truth, this lens is really good if you dig up reviews on it you'll find heaps of others agree far more than disagree...but then again, no one lens is perfect anyway

have a good day
 

Mendis

New Member
Oct 9, 2004
1,042
0
0
45
Hougang
www.flickr.com
#8
Wa Scenar, beautiful olive back sunbird portrait! :) Dark side shooters nowadays, in the birding community, getting less... :)
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#9
is the sigma HSM the only one in the lot that has a AF motor in the lens like the nikon AFS? i wonder how much faster it focus compared to the older 80-200mm afd one.
 

#12
Hi Hawaii, just spoke with a mate over the weekend who had the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and you're right...he too swears by it...great performer as per him. Well...since Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 is new and given that I am so happy with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, I am thinking i should wait & give the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 a try as & when it is released in Singapore...!! sluurrpp...cant wait...itchy fingers! ;p (or if anyone is visiting the USA Japan etc then I might tell them to buy one copy for me, warranty or not!)

sigma 70-200 2.8 ex dg hsm works great. although i use it for a canon, even at 2.8 the focus is good, for me it's not blur. i normally shoot sports so handshake not a problem since i shoot at higher speeds. to tell you the truth, this lens is really good if you dig up reviews on it you'll find heaps of others agree far more than disagree...but then again, no one lens is perfect anyway

have a good day
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#13
how much cheaper is the sigma compared to the nikon?
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#16
whoa.. for the sigma at $1550 is there optical stablization?
 

hacknet

New Member
Mar 20, 2007
1,245
0
0
29
#19
without OS, for $1550 i would buy nikon. why scrimp on a 3rd party lens when the ledgendary 80-200mm f2.8 afd costs alittle bit more..
 

#20
Guys the $1550 price for the Sigma is from the Nikon price guide thread which is usually always more or less accurate.

However in this case there may be an error as my friend who bought the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 says it is about $900 (he actually did buy one in CS long ago)....so there is some confusion and I have not personally checked in a shop etc. Maybe anyone here who knows or has bought this lens can clarify...?! :confused:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom