various brand of 70-200mm lenses

[kafinaa]

Recently, I have been considering the purchase of 70-200mm f2.8 lens. However, there are many brands that has this lens, example sigma, nikon and tamron. I am a nikon user. However, getting nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 isn't cheap. There are many alternatives from sigma and tamron. I am unsure of which 3rd party lens I should go for. I appre70ciate if any of you people could tell me which lens has Sharper image quality and of course your valuable experiences.
Thanks!

 

[rhino123]

I didn't have the lenses so I cannot advise on the handling of the lens.

However, this is what I found online,

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1326482

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamr...SP-70-200mm-f2.8-Di-VC-USD-versus-competition

I know they are all canon mount, but I think the lens should have the same optics so it shouldn't differ much.

 

[Lawrence Quek]

hey,

im a user of nikon 70-200 f2.8 ii. so far no issue, photos are sharp. my friend has the sigma lens, in terms of focus, i think nikon is faster. in terms of sharpness, i cant see any difference at this juncture.

 

[daredevil123]

I considered the sigma 70-200/2.8 OS very seriously but in the end still went for the Nikon vr2. This was before the Tamron came out.

 

[kafinaa]

Oh thanks for the advise people. Btw, roughly how much does nikon vr ii costs?

 

[bietoff0728]

Nikon Singapore for 70-200mm VR II is $3XXX

Used can get around $2XXX

I'm, too, looking for 70-200mm and torn between the first version of Nikon 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 VC

 

[kafinaa]

I am also looking for a version 1.

 

[saberlancer]

Consider weight as well..much diff..

 

[catchlights]

Recently, I have been considering the purchase of 70-200mm f2.8 lens. However, there are many brands that has this lens, example sigma, nikon and tamron. I am a nikon user. However, getting nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 isn't cheap. There are many alternatives from sigma and tamron. I am unsure of which 3rd party lens I should go for. I appre70ciate if any of you people could tell me which lens has Sharper image quality and of course your valuable experiences.
Thanks!

Have shoot with 70-200 f2.8 lens before?

it is heavy and bulky, not a everyday lens than you will carry around, or shoot for long hour.

anyway, such lenses are expensive, so are the repairing cost. the average repairing cost for Nikon pro lenses are above $500, $1000 repair bill for the 70-200 lenses is noting unusual, you can check out with some users or Uncle Fatigue.

wise man say, only buy the boat you can afford to sink.

not saying you can't afford these lenses, but most likely you will be spending your parents' money on your hobby, so be more considerate.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

for quality the oem brands are unbeatable - otheriwse the tamron is slightly sharper than the sigma. however, it is not good at moving objects, so if you're doing sports you can forget it.

 

[Blur Shadow]

There is also a lighter and cheaper f/4 variant from Nikon.

Such lenses are not cheap, and if you are already spending the money, you may as well go for the best. My experience with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII has been excellent.

 

[lewissac]

Another alternative would be Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR. And then save up and get your ideal 70-200/2.8

 

[Light Machinery]

Why not rent all 3 models of 70-200mm lenses & take it out for a spin? Have a feel for the focus speed & quality of the optics.

If you are on a budget the older AFD 80-200mm (two ring) is also very good, the optics are very good on the AFD 80-200mm, next up is the AFS 80-200mm but it is a little more expensive than the AFD 80-200mm (two ring).

Anyway the used price difference between the AFD 80-200mm (two ring) (~$1k), AFS 80-200mm (`~$1.3k) and the 70-200mm VRi (~$1.5k) are only a few hundred $, the AFS 80-200mm & 70-200mm VRi are out of production lenses.

The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm are all current design optics with optical stabilizer & priced very competitively ( ~$1.5k new).

Tough choices on which to decide.

In terms of image quality (sharpness & bokeh) at f/2.8, 70-200mm VRii, AFS 80-200mm, 70-200mm VRi, AFD 80-200mm. The Sigma & Tamron image quality are very close to the 70-200mm VRii as they are all current design optics.

As for focus speed & focus tracking, that depends on your usage / camera body & what you need to shoot. If you don't shoot sports, the Sigma & Tamron focus speed is up to task.

 

[kafinaa]

I use the 70 to 200mm for school events and other event, like anime fest. I dont mind the heavy weight. Ive used a 70 200mm lens before, I find it rather useful to me. Shooting indoor and hence need a larger aperture. I shoot with nikon d7100 and d3100,

 

[Light Machinery]

Then it is solved more or less, Nikon 70-200mm VRii if budget is available , Sigma / Tamron if you want to spend less, by a ratio of about ~ 2:1. Image wise, you need to be pixel peeping really hard to find the difference, that is only on the image edges.

 

[kafinaa]

Thank you guys for all your patience and quality advise. I appreciate it a lot. Once again, thank you!

 

[mardellion]

Just sharing my thoughts on my newly bought Tamron 70-200 A009. it's seriously a good lens. The bokeh may not be as creamy as the original Canon's but it's the best of the 3 (I tried the Sigma, didn't like it). I got the Grey set for $12xx

 

[Turbonetics]

Just sharing my thoughts on my newly bought Tamron 70-200 A009. it's seriously a good lens. The bokeh may not be as creamy as the original Canon's but it's the best of the 3 (I tried the Sigma, didn't like it). I got the Grey set for $12xx

In what aspects is it best among the 3?
Which canon model did u try, with or without IS?

 

[mardellion]

In what aspects is it best among the 3?
Which canon model did u try, with or without IS?

Pardon my previous post. I wouldn't quote it as 'Best among the 3', but it's on par with Canon's. When I said that, I included the price factor too I tried the one with IS on Canon. Canon also has slightly faster focusing in some instances.

It's not a professional shootout. I was just taking it out to the park and testing, and giving my 2c. Definitely not everyone will agree with me, but I didn't regret buying the Tamron at all. In fact I can safely say people won't be able to tell the difference between a shot from Tamron and Canon.

 

[rhino123]

In what aspects is it best among the 3?
Which canon model did u try, with or without IS?

Pardon my previous post. I wouldn't quote it as 'Best among the 3', but it's on par with Canon's. When I said that, I included the price factor too I tried the one with IS on Canon. Canon also has slightly faster focusing in some instances.

It's not a professional shootout. I was just taking it out to the park and testing, and giving my 2c. Definitely not everyone will agree with me, but I didn't regret buying the Tamron at all. In fact I can safely say people won't be able to tell the difference between a shot from Tamron and Canon.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=833&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

From the comparison, the Tamron seemed to be sharper right across the aperture. At f4, their image quality would be almost identical, still the Tamron is abit sharper.

This came a bit of a surprise though, seeing that the Tamron is quite abit cheaper.