My new lens-it was a long quest

[goodguy]

Wanted to get a faster telezoom lens, something I can use with fast shutter speed and keep ISO relatively low.
So I sold my trusted Nikon 70-300mm VR and went on a hunt for a well used, well priced 70-200mm 2.8 lens.
Found on kijiji one for good price met the guy checked and bought it.
Took the lens for a walk and tried, out of 54 shots 54 were unusable, simply crap with crap on top.
Very disapointed and miserable I rushed to Sigma hoping they can save this old (non OS) gal.
They were very professional and very fast and when I got the lens it was much better but still not in the level I expect, the lens produced 50% usable shot when 10% perfect so half of my pictures were OOF trash, went for the second time and they continued to work and when I went to pic it up I mounted it on my D7100 and asked the tech to test it and he admited it was unacceptable and asked me to leave the camera with lens.
When I got the camera and lens back the next day it was much better but I lost confidence in the lens and decided its time to go new

Sooooooo today I went to the camera store and bought a new Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC and I am so happy with this lens.
At last I got what I wanted but I must admit the Sigma when it worked well the pictures that it produced were just as good as the Tamron and may I say even felt slightly sharper but I dont pass judgment on a lens I hardly know.
Now all my pictures are usable and sharp and I am happy :heart:

 

[coastalconn]

Woohoo! Congrats! I just got one too. Love it so far..

 

[Derrel]

Do you have any ideas on what might have been allowing the Sigma to create images "just as good as the Tamron" 50% of the time? I mean--was it a case of flare resistance? Or poor focusing on that camera body? Or was it user error, or maybe were you tired or jazzed up on too much caffeine or something? Or was the Sigma poor at say wider apertures like f/2.8 or f/3.5, but quite decent at say, f/5.6??? Not trying to bust your chops, just kind of wondering if you'd been able to maybe pinpoint an area or two that might have been causing this good lens/bad lens dual nature...

But yeah...the newer Tamron 70-200 /2.8 VC is getting a good reputation. I might end up checking into one, especially if I can maybe go out shooting with somebody who has one.

 

[goodguy]

Well Derrel I see you didnt like my respect to the Sigma so much.
Well please excuse my English, it being my second language I might have explained myself wrongly.
The Sigma lens I bought used was the very first "D" model which is probably 10 years or older, it was mechanically defective and Sigma had very hard time working on it, no programing all had to be done mechanically adjusted.
Most of the picture I got from it and kept had to use very heavy sharpening to look good but I did get few and I mean very few that came out so sharp that even I got really excited and those are as good or more compared to the new Tamron, well it looks like it to my untrained, unprofessional eyes but this is not a conclusion, I just got the Tamron yesterday and I got to do 100 shots with it so I would hardly call this a scientific comparison, its not comparison at all.
This was no vote against Tamron, not at all, but more a nod to the Sigma that from time to time really have impressed me, I am sorry I lost my faith in it, if the lens had worked as it was designed to right from the get go with me I am sure I would still be the proud owner of it.