just want to know which lens is better. (color, sharpness, life span)

Both lenses are tested in dpreview :)

optically the tamron is better but sigma has the faster autofocus due to hsm. I myself is saving up money to get the tamron soon.

both lens have built in motor. do you think sigma is still faster?

sigma has the ultra sonic motor and tamron does not, thus sigma is faster than the tamron. If your into action photography then go for the sigma. However, tamron is equal with the nikor version even sharper in some instances and half the price.

I'm also planning to get either of these. I don't have any contacts regarding the Tamron lens. Any suggestions where can I find a good dealer? Thanks in advance.

try henry's... they might be selling the 70-200 tamron's there... :)

imho, the mark 2 version of the sigma is better. this is based on overall build and optics. i feel the tamron as plasticky in nature, the sigma has a better build imho.

but at the end of the day, it will depend on your preference :)

This will be a tough choice....for sports and action I would probably go with the Sigma. The HSM and slightly better build will be a plus.

w/c is better for wedding photogs? how about studio?

i've tested tamron 70-200 f/2.8 a lot of times. the micro motor AF a little bit slow and it tends to hunt moving subjects. we compared it to canon and nikon, and tamron's AF is noisier.

IQ is at par with canon though..

Guys!!! need your opinion... i'm torn between this two lenses... which is better? im planning to buy 2nd week of february. thank you!!

I'm using a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens right now for my Nikon d40. pictures are really great... check some of the pics and other comments about this lens on this thread.. http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=243

hi! i'd go for the tamron unless you'll get a good copy of sigma :)

Tamron has a higher chance for good copies. Award-winning too. Sigma may be the first popular choice with a longer track record to boot.

I'm thinking you should really be able to handle these 2 lenses specially since they're both heavy 2.8s. Shoot with both and decide which conforms to your taste best.

Me, I'm going for the Tamron as well.

@Jezer
You might want to check this out:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

They give Tamron a good review for it's sharpness and image quality.


Cheers!

Go with Tamron if you want IQ and sharpness, even at par with Canon 70-200 f/2.8. In contrast, get a sigma if you want built and faster AF. I've tested both and Sigma's HSM is better than Tamron's micromotor.

When you say fast AF, how fast IS fast when comparing the Sigma and the Tamron?

If you really wanna know the slickness and versatility of these 2 black tubes try to do some panning tests on some fast subjects and you'll see the difference. :)

I have used briefly, a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 of fellow member Mike Roxas and it's the fastest focusing Tamron I've used (I owned 6 Tamrons). I can't remember how fast was the Sigma as the experience did not register well in my head, but I think it's faster. Try several copies and insist in yourself to have a good one.

How much does it lag compared to a Nikkor? Tell you this, the Nikkor focuses faster than I can blink.

I have used briefly, a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 of fellow member Mike Roxas and it's the fastest focusing Tamron I've used (I owned 6 Tamrons). I can't remember how fast was the Sigma as the experience did not register well in my head, but I think it's faster. Try several copies and insist in yourself to have a good one.

How much does it lag compared to a Nikkor? Tell you this, the Nikkor focuses faster than I can blink.

I agree with you arnold.

Just wanna share my experience with the tammy 70..., sigma 70..., canon 70... and canon 100-400mm. I got the chance to rent this babies for an airshow event...(did lots of panning) i tell yah tamron is slick than sigma (AF wise)...little difference on the canon's I've mentioned. But the the canon 70-20mm 2.8 and the canon 100-400mm got the first place in my scoring card coz they produced more accurate and sharp pictures than the 2 black tubes contender.
At then end, I purchased the bazooka (canon 100-400mm) because of the range, but sacrificing the aperture.


@ jeser,

I'll recommend to you the tammy boy...:D

how about a nikkor 80-200 2.8 af-d? :)

just throwing it out there as an option as I was in the same predicament and ended up buying the nikkor :)

how about a nikkor 80-200 2.8 af-d? :)

just throwing it out there as an option as I was in the same predicament and ended up buying the nikkor :)

I'm not a nikon user, but a friend of mine let me tested his nikkor 80-200mm 2.8
It's a superb awesome lens! Expensive though. versatile and agile...:) I wish I also have nikon in my arsenal.:(

GO for the Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 almost similar price range....i have the same dilema then decided to let go of the 70-80mm and go for the 80-200mm..

I've used practically all 70-200 f/2.8 lenses available for Nikons.

The Sigma focuses faster, the Tamron is lighter and the Nikkor swamps the two in IQ but is more expensive. All in all, you can't go wrong with any of these lenses. It all really depends on what application you will be using them in.

The Tamron hunts in low light situations, but performs very well in decent to excellent lighting conditions, IQ is on par with it's Sigma counterpart and is a little lighter.

The Sigma is a very good lens, Autofocuses very well in all lighting conditions, but tends to suffer from poor quality control, but if you get a good copy, it's definitely a keeper.

And the Nikkor, best of the best, AF speed is spectacular (especially with VR off) and not to mention the best contrast and acuity of the 3 lenses and VR as well. Disadvatage? Price, it's the most expensive of the three as well as being the heaviest.

So you see, I'd have to agree with you that it's really a tough choice to make, but whichever you go with, it'll be a good decision.

Valid suggestion as both Tamron and Sigma options are not equipped with "VR" ayway, so this is the closest Nikkor contender price-wise. Incidentally, there's one for sale at Nikon Club right now :D
how about a nikkor 80-200 2.8 af-d? :) <snip>

thank you very much guyz..... thanks for the info february is getting near wahhhhh :) i think i might go with hmmmmm i'll just post a pix whichever i choose. :)

Guyz,, what do you mean better copy.. :) im planning to buy it online through amazon eh

any update on this thread? I'm planning to buy a 70-200mm 2.8f lens aswell with a busget of 40k. TIA!

any update on this thread? I'm planning to buy a 70-200mm 2.8f lens aswell with a busget of 40k. TIA!

40k? I think this budget can get you a Nikkor 80-200 2.8(used of course). One sweet lens:)

both lenses are thoroughly reviewed in dpreview, read them.

40k? I think this budget can get you a Nikkor 80-200 2.8(used of course). One sweet lens:)


Sweet!
I know OT but you can get the 80-200 f/2.8D (CDSC) 43500 at JT. If have that kind of budget right now I'd get that. :Grin: Anyway, just suggesting alternatives. Cheers!

i'm thinking of getting a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 in a few weeks, i was already set to buy when i realized how detrimental it might be to have no VR system in a telephoto so now i'm considering Sigma's counter part, but reviews said i'll be sacrificing quality over VR and fast-focusing, is it worth it or should i just wait for Tamron to come out with a different version of the lens?...:Thinking::)

if you intend to use current Tamron for portraiture, then go for Tamron. But if you intend to use it for sports or festivals, go for Sigma. Both Sigma and Tamron 70-200s don't have VR equivalents. Only Nikkor has the image stabilization feature...

no point in waiting ;-) just go buy one already. you know you want it now.

Or choose models with "VC" for tamron or "OS" for Sigma. same alng daw sa VR ng nikkor

I think both of them has no VR or image stabilizer . Consider also Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 . It's more sharper than the two I think .

Tamron's VC http://www.tamron.com/a20special/technology.asp

Sigma's OS http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3272&navigator=3

Tamron's VC http://www.tamron.com/a20special/technology.asp

Sigma's OS http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3272&navigator=3

No VC or OS for 70-200 in both Sigma and Tamron...

No VC or OS for 70-200 in both Sigma and Tamron...
You are quite correct, Thanks.

i thought Sigma had a version with OS o.O
thanks for the clarification :D
and ergh, fast-focus or image quality o.o
i'll just have to test them both i guess :(
thanks again :D

sir Ronald, you have the Sigma 70-200mm po pala, how is it working out for you?...:D

sir Ronald, you have the Sigma 70-200mm po pala, how is it working out for you?...:D

4 of 5!!! 1 is for missing OS (or VR).....

hahaha, argh, they only had OS or VC, the choice would be more clear cut :(
how's the image quality po, compared to let's say, Tamron :D

I'm a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II lens user. I don't have any problems with the IQ of this lens. Of course the Nikon version is much better... but you'll have to pay more than twice the price of the Sigma version. Anyway, I haven't seen any reviews yet of the Tamron version being better than the Sigma version.... so, that should tell you something.

hahaha, argh, they only had OS or VC, the choice would be more clear cut :(


curious why it would be more clear cut?


check this thread: http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=19008

personally i picked the sigma for faster quieter AF & better build quality but sold it as weight was beginning to tax my puny arms. reviews say the tamron is better optically and obviously lighter but plastic(y). i don't know how sharp the tamron is wide open, but the sigma's pretty usable @2.8. stellar by f/4

hth

I'm a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II lens user. I don't have any problems with the IQ of this lens. Of course the Nikon version is much better... but you'll have to pay more than twice the price of the Sigma version. Anyway, I haven't seen any reviews yet of the Tamron version being better than the Sigma version.... so, that should tell you something.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/page6.asp

"Potential buyers will also inevitably compare it to the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm 1:2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro, and here the choice essentially boils down to the superior optics of the Tamron versus the Sigma's excellent autofocus system."

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/page6.asp

"...images that Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro can produce is superb throughout most of the range, matching or even outperforming the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM."

The 70-200 range is supposed to encompass a variety of photography fields. If you have slow AF, it's very limiting. For one, shoot sports and anything that moves relatively fast.

I'd rather have a not-so-sharp shot which I can rescue via PS than an unfocused one.

im wondering...is the Tammy's AF really that slow or its just the Sigma's HSM really fast?

The 70-200 range is supposed to encompass a variety of photography fields. If you have slow AF, it's very limiting. For one, shoot sports and anything that moves relatively fast.

I'd rather have a not-so-sharp shot which I can rescue via PS than an unfocused one.

+1 on this.

I have 2 sigmas(SA and canon mount). I go for the sigma, the hsm works perfectly plus you got full time manual focus override. a must for capturing precious moments....

I think the Tamron version is ideal for subjects that don't move too much. How does this become so usable during a very active sporting event... unless you have fast fingers to do MF. At least, I've proven the Sigma version in active events... and the fast AF really helps.

I'm a Tamron fan because of the superior sharpness than the sigma counterparts. However for 70-200, I'm gonna say the HSM is very much needed.

im wondering...is the Tammy's AF really that slow or its just the Sigma's HSM really fast?

this is my dilemma put into words :D
anywho, i guess i'm also having trouble with having lenses with different brands but i don't exactly know why that's such a bad idea (aside from the agony of having different contacts for after-care), but it's Sigma's HSM that's the clincher for me, but Tamron's superior optics is what's grabbing me by the neck, waaaaaaaaaaaaa
but good point though, better have a sub-par photo than a blurred/ out-of-focus one :)

this is my dilemma put into words :D
anywho, i guess i'm also having trouble with having lenses with different brands but i don't exactly know why that's such a bad idea (aside from the agony of having different contacts for after-care), but it's Sigma's HSM that's the clincher for me, but Tamron's superior optics is what's grabbing me by the neck, waaaaaaaaaaaaa
but good point though, better have a sub-par photo than a blurred/ out-of-focus one :)

Well, how superior is superior? Is it really that something that is very, very, very noticeable... like a huge difference? Kinda reminds me of Ken Rockwell's comparison of 2 other lenses when everybody said that one lens was way superior than the other when it comes to sharpness... and he said... "only when you're really paying too much attention to it is when you'll notice it.". You simply take the one that has the most advantage to suit your shooting style. Active sporting events?... forget about the Tamron. Weddings, parties and other events where the subjects don't move too much?... forget about the Sigma.

Well, how superior is superior? Is it really that something that is very, very, very noticeable... like a huge difference? Kinda reminds me of Ken Rockwell's comparison of 2 other lenses when everybody said that one lens was way superior than the other when it comes to sharpness... and he said... "only when you're really paying too much attention to it is when you'll notice it.". You simply take the one that has the most advantage to suit your shooting style. Active sporting events?... forget about the Tamron. Weddings, parties and other events where the subjects don't move too much?... forget about the Sigma.
awesome point dude :D
but what i shoot always varies eh, depends where i'm needed, sometimes at parties, or at indoor events, or even sports, but i guess fast focusing is more practical in the long run, especially if there's little noticeable difference in the final product

Up up up! :)

Hi, I'm picking between these two lenses:
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/

and

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/

Base on the reviews stated here, they said that Tamron outputs sharper images compared to Sigma but Sigma has faster and better AF than Tamron.

Could you please post some sample photos (side-by-side) of tamron and sigma?
I'm curious on how the IQ differ.

Thank you! :)

Which is better guys? =)

tamron
-sharper
-cheaper
-light

sigma
-focuses faster

I guess id depends on what you shoot.
-heavier

Which is better guys? =)

Don't even think of buying the Tamron not unless you intend to shoot mostly stationary subjects, trust me this lens is AWFUL.... IQ is superb tho, but seriously, who needs a lens with a great IQ if the AF speed is dreadful? Sigma's HSM blitzes the Tammy, and it's not even close.

Thanks a lot sir!!! =) now i will go with sigma.. but the problem now is the money.. =D

where can i find a pentax mount for these two lenses? i went to hidalgo earlier but canon and nikon mount only :-(
i really wanna try them. darn

decisions decisions decisions...

Tammy or Sigma?

I will be shooting below average light conditions.. Does it really helps to have fast AF during these conditions?

TIA

I prefer the sigma rather than the slow focusing tammy. :)

When you have problem with the sharpness of your sigma lens you can always go to jtphoto and have it calibrated.

Scott Kelby put in his blog the tamron 70-200 http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/9138

can anyone show some sample photos from tamron 70-200 2.8, anyone owned it?

I bought my 70-200mm f/2.8 sigma (not OS) last May 2011 and so far I can say I am satisfied with it. Used it for sports (Basketball, Volleyball), Fashion events, Concerts and even for portraits. Haven't seen anyone using any 70-200mm tammy

hi how about the canon 70-200mm F4L USM almost the same price?. or the F2.8 sigma or tamron