70-200 nikon-sigma or tamron

[Tyguy35]

Hello, I am going back to Costa Rica. This time I plan to go with the proper gear. I was to bring a 70-200 2.8 maybe add a tc to it for some range as well as bring a macro lens and 50mm. I can't choose between the tamron nikon or sigma. I am a stickler for quality needs to be sharp. Any help from you guys. Which company do you think produces a 70-200 worth bringing to Costa Rica with an added tc.

Thanks

 

[tirediron]

The Nikkor will be the best of the lot, both in terms of IQ and build quality, but whether it will be better enough to justify the extra cost is something only you can decide.

 

[PaulWog]

If you're a stickler for quality, a 70-200 with a TC isn't going to provide you with the utmost sharpness. You're also going to end up with a lot slower of an aperture than f2.8 if you throw a teleconverter on the camera. Maybe look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, if it's a 70-200 with TC that you want to operate with? The weight will be nearly double (so maybe a no-go for that reason), although the length will be about the same with the TC taken into consideration on the 70-200.

Is the TC just to travel light and get a bit of tele in, while you need the 70-200 without the teleconverter primarily?

 

[greybeard]

From what I have read, the Tamron and Sigma are pretty close but, Tamron has a better reputation for sample to sample consistency.

 

[qleak]

Dxomark ranks the Tamron vc model higher than the nikon.

But why believe them? If you have some time I'd rent each before committing it will probably cost you a couple hundred bucks, but it's well worth knowing what you are getting.

 

[goodguy]

If money isnt an issue I would go with the Nikon mainly because it is Nikon.
Is it worth the extra 1000$ over the Tamron ?
I dont think so.
So first the Sigma, its a great lens that works actually pretty well with Sigma's TC.
Sigma's IQ, OS and AF speed are considered lower then Tamron and Nikon but that doesnt mean its a bad lens, its very sharp and very good but its almost same value as the Tamron new is so..................

I was looking for a 70-200mm lens few months ago, the Nikon version was not even a consideration because its 1000$ more expensive so the split fell between the Sigma and Tamron.
I chose the Tamron because its sharper, has a better resale value and overall considered roughly equal to Nikons lens (some say its actually sharper) and its VC is amazing!!! all for almost 1k cheaper.
Only negative is that I dont know how well it works with a TC, I am in the process of looking for a TC myself.

For me my Tamron is everything I was looking for and more, very sharp, fast AF and as I said very efective VC.
They say QC of Tamron has improved dramactically, well when I got the lens (new) it wasnt all that sharp so I had to fine tune it (-20) to get the results I wanted.
I went to Tamron service centre and 2 days later got the lens back, now its tack, tack sharp, just a jewel!
If I had to go back and consider what to get again I would choose the Tamron again.

Just to add I also bought the Nikon 50mm 1.8G new and also had soft pictures with it so I cant say my experience with the tuning of Tamron or Nikon should be taken too seriously but it is what happened.

Good luck and enjoy your trip

 

[qleak]

Here's the dxomark analysis of the 3 lenses for a D810

Watch out for the cheaper tamron lens though

Take these ratings with a grain of salt though, it's really focusing on the wrong thing when it comes to photography. Given these ratings and your previous statement about being a stickler for optical quality, I'd probably rent the Tamron VC and the Nikon to compare.

 

[Braineack]

It's just fact, at this point, that the Tamron is a sharper lens than the Nikon.

It's also fact that all three can take very bad pictures.

 

[ruifo]

I have the Tamron and love it. With TC, though, it is manual focus only. It's the best cost benefit, by far. Nikon and Tamron are business partners. Sigma is not. If you make money out of your photos, maybe the Nikon price is justifiable (maybe not), otherwise I'd recommend the Tamron.

Sample shots:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

 

[Tyguy35]

They all seem like really good lenses from what everyone is saying. I think I will look at the tamron for right now. Does the tamron have weather protection?

 

[Tyguy35]

Moat of my photography is birds and different reptiles some small and some large. I dot really do landscape what so ever not very good at it.

 

[Braineack]

Does the tamron have weather protection?

It has a little rubber gasket, yes.

I've spent an entire weekend in the rain with it, unprotected.

 

[ruifo]

They all seem like really good lenses from what everyone is saying. I think I will look at the tamron for right now. Does the tamron have weather protection?

Yes.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I have the Tamron and love it. With TC, though, it is manual focus only. It's the best cost benefit, by far. Nikon and Tamron are business partners. Sigma is not. If you make money out of your photos, maybe the Nikon price is justifiable (maybe not), otherwise I'd recommend the Tamron.

Sample shots:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

I'm curious to know what TC you're using. A telephoto 2.8 lens with proper TC should AF just fine. My Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x TC has both the electronic contacts for AF-S lenses, as well as the screw drive assembly to operate the older AF type lenses. My Tokina 300 f/4 and Nikon 80-200 2.8 work fantastic with the TC. Even my cheaper Tamron 70-300 VC will AF in good light with the TC (albeit slower).

 

[Braineack]

The Tamron 70-200 VC doesn't play nicely with TCs.

Or reworded: TCs aren't able to handle the awesomeness that is stuffed inside a Tamron SP lens. (ie. the lenses are too new for TCs to pass the electronic information correctly)