christian_louzan Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Hi Eveyone,<br> I'm fairly new to this forum, in addition to being fairly new at wedding photography. I shoot with a Nikon D200, and use a D70 for a backup body. Everybody that's anybody raves about how great a lens the Nikon 70-200 is for just about everything. For close to two grand, it better be. The Sigma and the Tamron seem to be roughly comparable, and have a price tag within 100 dollars of each other (700, 600). I use a 70-300 vr as my zoom right now, and feel like it's time for an upgrade, more for the sake of the pictures than to have a fancy new toy. I've been researching the differences between the Tamron and the Sigma, and while my friend told me Tamron was the way to go, the one made by Sigma seems almost identical. If anyone can offer their sage advice, it would be very much appreciated.<br> Many thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedding-photography-denver Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Firstly, the VR is one of the reasons for the acclaimed Nikon.</p> <p>Of the Tamron and the Sigma, I would go for the Tamron. I know it's not quite as sharp as the Sig. but it will be in focus more of the time (IMO).</p> <p>Given you have the 70-300Vr, I would only get the 70-200/2.8 for the faster aperture to help with background bokeh. If you are wanting that, sell the 70-300 and add it to the price of the Nikon flavor. Or save longer, for this lens range the wait will be worth it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rey_laurel Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Christian,</p> <p>Try this link with reviews on both lenses. Click on the drop down window "Conclusion and Samples" of each lens. I have the Nikon version. Hope it will help you decide.<br /><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/#manuf">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/#manuf</a></p> <p>Rey</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_yee Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>? the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma in most reviews I've read, and it's better in some cases than camera maker's glass.<br> It hunts way too much in low light though...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherijohnson Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Rey, Thank you for posting the review link. It proved to be interesting reading.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian_louzan Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Yes, thank you Rey! That article proved to be very helpful. Per David's comment, just to confirm, your sugguestion that I either keep the 70-300 vr and buy a tamron 70-200, or just sell the 70-300 vr and put it in my funds to buy a 70-200 vr? Thanks for everybody's help, I really appreciate it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_rivera9 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Christian, I have the Sigma 70 - 200 Macro (the newest version) and I use it for weddings. The Sigma does a great job of focusing quickly. That was the main reason I purchased it over the Tamron. The other reason for picking the sigma is the HSM which is whisper quiet. The Tamron's motor could be heard and in a church ceremony I didn't want the added attention.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_rivera9 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Here is an example of the Sigma at 200m f/6.3 with flash. It was shot from the Sacristy in a dark church lit by flourescent lights 45feet in the air.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>The 55-200 VR is a very good lens for the money. You absolutely need VR for the longer focal lengths.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rey_laurel Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>One other option is to buy the older Nikon version 80-200 F2.8 non-VR. Street price is around $900.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg jansen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Yet another option is an older Nikkor 70-200 F4. I love this lens. I use it as my travel lens, as it is half the size and weight as my 80-200 2.8. Focusses closer, too. Best part is the price. You can find them for about $100-$200. It does not focus as fast as an AFS lens, but it does focus fast enough. By that I mean I am not annoyed by the focussing speed.<br> The times I really need 2.8 are very few.<br> Save your money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diane_stredicke Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>I own the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and it is superb.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian_louzan Posted January 17, 2009 Author Share Posted January 17, 2009 <p>Ah, allright, thanks everybody! You've all been incredibly helpful, I guess the general consensus is that I should just stick with my current lens and get the Nikon when I can afford it. I suppose it's kind of ridiculous to just buy the Tamron or Sigma 70-200, mostly sense it's about half the price of a used 70-200. Again, thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_nealy Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 <p>I second the Tamron 70-200 2.8. This lens has served me very well. E-mail me if you would like to see some samples.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now