help me choose a lens

famas

famas

famas

Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2004
Posts
3,284
Location
the south
hey all.

Im hopefully going to be selling my old camera and a few lenses tonight and i'll be putting the money towards a new lens.

I have 3 lenes in mind

1) Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF)
This was my first choice as it is the cheapest with good image quality and supposedly pretty sharp. The only downside is apparently its slow to focus? which is putting me off a little as i would use the lens for all sorts including a little motor sport.

2)Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens
the sigma and tamron ive heard are pretty much like for like, but i've heard the sigma is a lot quicker at focusing?
is the sigma worth the extra money, nearly £200 more.

3)Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor
i've only recently heard about this lens so dont know much about it. i believe its a pretty old lens and has been superseeded by newer modles, however old doesnt mean no good. this is the most expensive and streches my budget to the limit, is it worth it over the tamron/sigma?


i dont have a dedicated use for the lens, i just feel its a nice focal rangeand once i got one i know it use it a lot.

so Does any one have any of the above lenses, how do they proform?
I think im still leaning towards to tamron, as this will leave me so spare cash for other things. however if the sigma/ nikon are well worth the extra im happy to go with either of them?

cheers.
 
famas said:
3)Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor
i've only recently heard about this lens so dont know much about it. i believe its a pretty old lens and has been superseeded by newer modles, however old doesnt mean no good. this is the most expensive and streches my budget to the limit, is it worth it over the tamron/sigma?
Click to expand...

I had this and its a lovely piece of class nice and sharp and fast at f2.8. Would still have it today if I had not got my 70-200mm VR cheap. ;)
 
Having not tried the Sigma and Nikon lens I can't really comment on them but I do own the Tamron. The IQ is excellent but it isn't the fastest focusing lens I've got. I wouldn't call it slow, it's just not up to the speeds of others. I do manage to shoot sports with it though so it's certainly not terrible.
 
Ive got the Siggy 70-200 HSM, but its a pre-macro model.
Nice and snappy to focus and very useful in all sorts of situations

2915942344_173c2615f5.jpg


2615553977_17cbcc33dd.jpg


Both taken with the siggy 70-200.

Not had much chance to use it for any action stuff this year ie cycling due to illness
 
lol 3 coments on all 3 lenses, i feel like im on a roundabout.
cheers tho guys.
I think there all good lenses and ill be happy which ever i choose...

ARR! still confused. the deal on my old gear went through so ill have to make a decsion soon befor prices go even higher.
i do like the look of the nikon :) but the tamron leves me change for goodies...

any one else have any expericne with any of the lenses?


I had this and its a lovely piece of class nice and sharp and fast at f2.8. Would still have it today if I had not got my 70-200mm VR cheap.
Click to expand...

if i get the 80-200 do you wanna do a swap :)
 
I've got the Sigma 70-200. Not had a chance to use it loads much, but it is fantastic, focuses very quickly even in fairly low light and has stonking image quality.
 
Personally im all for nikon, to me sigma lenses feel abit cheap (but then again so do lower end nikon ones), i used to have a MF Sigma 70-200 and i found it to be a retched thing. The other thing about the nikon is that they will hold their value a lot better than the sigma's
 
I love my Sigma 70-200, especially since I got it for £300 s/h.

spotter300 said:
The other thing about the nikon is that they will hold their value a lot better than the sigma's
Click to expand...

But keep in mind that this makes Sigmas a steal on the used market. You can typically get as-new Sigma lenses for around two thirds of their retail price, which is fantastic.
 
I've seen a few people saying sigma lenses feel cheep now. I've got 3 Sigma Ex lenses and they are all fantastic, the 70-200 in particular is leaps and bounds better than anything I have tried before. Of-course you could say it is just because I have Ex lenses - but I had a 28-300 before the 70-200 and it seemed to be built just as well, it just lacked the function (things like the focusing/zoom wasn't as nice and smooth - but personally I wouldn't count that under build quality)

Will I suddenly realise what people are on about if I try out a Canon L series lens at some point? lol. To me some of the Canon lenses I have seen other than the L's look very cheap, even the 18-55 IS f/2.8 looks a bit tacky to me for example - and that costs more than my 70-200.
 
I don't understand the "cheap" label that's been given to Sigma lenses either. The 17-70 and 10-20 I have both feel really well put togther. They're solid, the materials feel good, the actions are well damped. They both certainly seem as well put together as my Canon 17-55, perhaps even better. I think Sigma did themselves a real dis-service a few years ago with a batch of questionable lenses and poor quality control and many people judge everything they do now by that period.
 
User reviews of the Sigma: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=318&sort=7&cat=37&page=3
It doesn't have a particularly high overall score at 7.6. Build quality and product control come over, as always, as being problems with Sigma lenses.

User reviews of the Nikkor: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=114&sort=7&cat=28&page=3
I think it's safe to say it squashes the Sigma, with 9.4.

There's no review page for the Tamron.

For comparison, the Sigma 70-200 2.8 IF gets 9.1, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR gets 9.6 and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS gets 9.4.
 
Last edited:
robmiller said:
It's twice the price but nowhere near twice as good, so it's hardly sensible to say it's a better choice simply because it's better optically: if money is a factor, that's simply not true.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I absolutely agree. I didn't mention price in the post and wasn't considering it. Relative value depends on the person and it's not my decision, it's the OP's, hence why I didn't say it was a 'better choice'.
 
cheers for all the info so far guys, thanks for the links too.
im still undecided, The nikon is the best lens of the 3 but at more than double the price of the tamron is it really worth it? at the moment im thinking not.
build quality isn't a major factor for me, im pretty carefull with my gear and having owned sigma, tamron and tokina lenses i've always be happy with their build quality.

thinking cap is still on. if any one can recomend any other lens with a similar focal range and prices feel free to say.

thanks.
 
sigma. tack sharp ALL the way through, fast AF, great in low light.

cheap feeling? no chance. you could probably use it as an axel stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom