Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di (non VC) or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC OS

<p>Coming into some loose cash I can use and want to get a new lens. I shoot with a D7100. I'm trying to stay under a grand, hopefully, and I can't really justify buying into the VC version for Tamron, which is twice as much($1500, compared to $769), and VC/VR has never been a big deal for me. I do want a fixed aperture.Weight is not really an issue.</p>

<ol>

<li>I think 70-200 is a nice reach.</li>

<li>On the other hand, the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (new version $989) seems to have very good reviews and might make a good portrait lens as well.</li>

<li>But...the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is relatively close in price at $1199, which I might be able to push out. But for an extra 50mm, is it worth the money?</li>

<li>I could buy the 50-150 and a teleconvertor with the extra money and be at 100-300 for $1,238 or</li>

<li>Buy a teleconvertor for the Tamron 70-200 and be at 140-400 for $1,023.</li>

<li>Does anyone use the Tamron 70-200 Di LD (IF)?</li>

<li>I have a 17-50mm, so buying the Sigma will eliminate a 20mm gap, but the 50-70mm gap doesn't faze me too much, in theory, and maybe in the future buy into the Tamron 150-600 and I'll be covered from 17-600mm. </li>

<li>I rarely shoot for business, might do some events, but this is really about getting some more reach.</li>

</ol>

<p>Anyone have any experience with these lenses?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I use the 50-150 with a D300s and I think the lens is the best I've ever touched. I shoot events and concerts with two bodies, a Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 50-150 and get more keepers than I ever have before. I also use the 50-150 for portraits, usually set to 70mm.</p>

<p>Optically both lenses are good. Tamron is very slow in focus... Sigma is a DX lens and if you later go on FX will need a replacement. I used to have a Sigma 50-150 without OS and it was nice because was very compact. The OS version is bulky and heavy like a 70-200. Having this in mind I'll advice for Sigma 70-200/2.8. There's no reason to buy a lens that's DX who weights and costs almost the same like a FX one. Or better look for a used Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR1... that's perfect on a crop body and has a very fast and precise AF. Also if you sell it later you can sell for the exact ammount you pay for it... The lack of range between 50-70mm means nothing.</p>

<p>You say that it is really about getting some more reach. In that case the 50-150 is out and a 70-200 or 80-200 is in.</p>

<p>I have a friend who used the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma and seems happy with it. Sigma has HSM so it focuses pretty fast. A used 70-200 or 80-200 with af-s from Nikon should also serve you well. If you can find a used Nikon that is in your budget that would probably be the best from a pure economical point of view and might be the best optically as well.</p>

<p>you might be able to find a used copy of the non-OS 50-150 for much less. amazon has one <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000HPMP6A/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used">here</a>. if stabilization doesnt matter, there's no need to go for the newer version which isnt much smaller than a 70-200. the 50-150's range is a little nicer on DX, since 70mm is generally too long for indoor use. if you need more range outdoors you can add a TC. and the lens is great for portraits. the real bonus is the compact size, which makes for a very portable kit with the 17-50. i still use the 50-150 quite a bit when i dont want the weight of my 70-200.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone. <br>

Pete S. I thought about the 80-200, but it doesn't come with a tripod collar or a lens hood and it didn't seem to garner the same positive responses of the other two.<br>

Mihai. The slow focus would definitely be an issue with the Tamron. I doubt I'll be going full frame for some years, but thanks, kind of drops the Tamron out of the race here. <br>

I originally thought about the non-OS Sigma 50-150, but the reviews I've seen have made it seem like the new one is just so much better. They might have one down at the shop I can play with. I'll have to see.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the reviews I've seen have made it seem like the new one is just so much better. They might have one down at the shop I can play with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i also have the nikon 70-200 VRII. it's more difficult than you'd think to tell the difference between the two. the 50-150 II (there are two versions on the non-OS model) is a little bit better past 135mm than the earlier version. there's still some falloff at 150mm and it's not as sharp as the nikon at 2.8, but not by much. it's super-contrasty, and at f/4-5/6, it can produce stunning results. bokeh is excellent and it has super-smooth zoom action across the range. it's one of those lenses that is better than it looks on paper. it's actually compact enough for travel too, which cant really be said about the 50-150 OS or any 70-200/2.8. now that prices have fallen to the $600 range, it's a super deal, less than some fixed-focal portrait lenses.</p>

<p>Rich,<br>

I purchased the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 OS last April....Great lens. Later in the year, I purchased an excellent used Nikon 80-200 F2.8 D two ring for a very good price. I thought I'd eventually sell the Sigma thinking I didn't really need both, but found I liked it better indoors. Fifty seems to work better than 80 for most of my indoor use. I shoot with a D7000 and maybe one day I'll step up to FX but who knows when that will be. For now, both work well for me:<br>

Sigma 50-150 F2.8 OS<br>

<a href="

Nikon 80-200 F2.8 D two ring<br>

<a href="

I'm a little late with my comments, I apologize, but I couldn't resist offering my two cents.</p>