• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

tamron 70-200VC vs Sigma 70-200OS


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 12 February 2017 - 06:10 AM

Hi Iam considering one of those lenses, they are available at very affordable prices here, which one do you consider the better alternative?

#2 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,348 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 12 February 2017 - 05:48 PM

Some comparisons are made by Cameralabs in their Nikon 70-200/2.8 E review (in the Nikon scope, of course): http://www.cameralab...sharpness.shtml

The Tamron looks better than the Sigma (unsurprisingly, as it's a newer model).



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,024 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 12 February 2017 - 06:04 PM

But not the newest?

 

Tamron announced their SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC in February. So, if you don't need it tomorrow, my advice would be "wait and get something very exciting". BUT: honestly, I'm no expert for 70-200/2.8 zooms. Somehow I find them useless for me  :mellow: No, "pointless" is the better word. For me it's often "not enough range", not short enough" "minimal distance too big" - so, my advice is really only getting something cool and new. Doesn't have to be the best for you.

 

Sigma should also announce a 70-200/2.8 as their current one is dated. But even if they do so: It will take a lot time form announcement to (your) market, it will not come with Arca-foot and will not be much better than the Tamron. After my experience with the 150-600 G2 I'd trust them to bring out a decent standard-zoom.



#4 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,348 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 February 2017 - 06:43 AM

Well, yeah, the G2 isn't shipping (correct me if I'm mistaken) yet so I think it's a little hard to find any reviews. :)

I too am thinking of replacing my aging Canon L - in use by me since 2008 and god knows how long before that by previous owner(s) - with something newer and maybe even longer. :) The Tamron is an interesting candidate. It's really a pity that Photozone has never tested the (so far) current VC Tamron - but I have high hopes in Markus as he may evaluate it like he did the 17-35. I can imagine that the G2 review is inevitable at some point so having reviews of both in order to be able to compare them would be very desirable.



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,024 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 February 2017 - 07:10 AM

In times of the internet there're probably already more reviews then lenses out in the wild.  :D Just google it, dozens of reviews around. But also one very good "counter review". It was linked also here in PZ. So I just copy the link out of a post which says basically "Hi. Link" Hi without a single typo, I wish I could say the same from my posts  :( .

 

B) Edit: "just google AND verifiy it, JoJu", grrr :angry: . Sorry, all old stuff. At the least the phoblographer likes it, pheeww /Edit

 

It's just me - I would not invest money in something elder if the newer has some advantages over it. And in Tamron's case, I definitely would opt for the later version. While if I should decide amongst Nikon, I would refuse the decision, the pricing is just higher than the value I can recognize.



#6 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,916 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 13 February 2017 - 02:41 PM

It's really a pity that Photozone has never tested the (so far) current VC Tamron - but I have high hopes in Markus as he may evaluate it like he did the 17-35. I can imagine that the G2 review is inevitable at some point so having reviews of both in order to be able to compare them would be very desirable.


I have two good news for you ;)

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#7 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,348 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 13 February 2017 - 03:51 PM

I have two good news for you ;)

-- Markus

Oh Markus, can I buy you a beer? :)



#8 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,916 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 13 February 2017 - 07:17 PM

If we ever meet face to face and your offer is still valid, I will probably not deny it :)

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#9 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,916 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 13 February 2017 - 07:24 PM

It's just me - I would not invest money in something elder if the newer has some advantages over it. And in Tamron's case, I definitely would opt for the later version. While if I should decide amongst Nikon, I would refuse the decision, the pricing is just higher than the value I can recognize.


I (personally) would consider it at least. There's a fairly wide-spread market of options ranging from very affordable (current generation Sigma and Tamron, used) to kinda pricey but great (Nikkor VR II) to "ouch" (current Nikkor). Not sure where the G2 would fit in there. All I noticed so far is their high claims concerning VC (5 stops... uff, might be handy for slo-mo action shots, like street chess...) and the obvious focus breathing.

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#10 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 13 February 2017 - 07:51 PM

 I think the 5 stops of VC may well be the mode (mode 3) that doesn't stabilize the viewfinder and only functions when the shutter actually activates with a kind of super energetic burst B) ...the G2 150-600mm has a similar mode though claims 4 stops, I've not had a chance to see it's effectiveness.



#11 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 14 February 2017 - 12:57 AM

OK, Tonia-a shoots Canon, I believe, so both the lenses mentioned in the US at least have the unfavorable position of competing against Canon's f/2.8L II lens.

 

I only mention it (you did say Sigma or Tamron) because I don't consider either of them worth half the price of the Canon.

 

I may as well start off by saying the Tamron is the better of the two as far as I can tell, but stuff like this bothers me:

 

Tamron MFD 51.2 in / Mag: .13x  (Sigma a little longer distance, Mag. is also .13x)

Canon MFD 47.2 in / Mag:  .21x

 

Bottom line is you can work with .21x.  You could get satisfying close-ups.  But not with .13x.  The other typical zoom lens problems apply to the Tamron.  Good center sharpness but poor edge performance.  Soft at the long end.  Color fringing wide open at the short end.

 

Again, in the US the pricing seems like n, 1.5n, 2n for Tamron, Tamron G2, Canon II.

 

I personally find the zoom range to be a good one.  I'm in a beach town so there are lots of things the 70-200 works great for.  Surfers, birds, sea lions, dolphins, tide pools, dogs (my favorite!), street people, hippies, sand sculptures, cliff carvings...all are handled pretty well.  Portraits would be handled well. 

 

Both the Tamron and the Sigma have some focus issues.  I haven't had these lenses, but I have had a few others.  Focused 80% of the time is great.  But not great if you defend on focus.  If you do most of your work in a studio you need the magnification.  If you don't you need reliable autofocus, and wide open sharpness.  Just what you won't get.

 

The G2 is worth pinning one's hopes on.  38 in MFD, implies greater utility in portraiture.  It has eBand coating, and improved (so the say) autofocusing.  It is worth noting that they said that improved AF was one of their primary design goals.

 

So, I'm just barely complying with you question saying that the Tamron is the better choice.  For me, MFD is every bit as important as the range, so I can't really like either of them.

 

P.S. - I look at 70-200 F/2.8's because I don't have one.  I have the F/4.  LOL - The price was a major reason I didn't get the F/2.8.  That and the weight.  I miss f/2.8.  We all have to choose our compromises.  I feel good about my choice.  Something, sadly, you never know until after you make the choice!



#12 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 07:26 PM

    Just when many thought that the maximum reproduction ratio on the new Tamron was possibly going to be it's only real Achilles heel, this new video seems to throw a spanner in the works in that department.......a bit of a surprise actually!

 

 

  

 

          Tamron you sneaky little whatsits already!



#13 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 February 2017 - 10:11 PM

Dave, what spanner are you hinting at? I watched the video and do not get what you mean?



#14 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 03:27 AM

 No spanners.. just that I'm surprised that the Tamron G2 managed to get the best magnification given it's focus breathing, I was expecting it to be on par with the VRII(we know the VRII breathes), it also surprised me the Nikon VR200 F2 didn't do better(1.9mts MFD)

 

  Weren't we expecting the G2 to struggle close up..., including Matt Granger?

 

  Maybe I missed something, but in spite of the breathing the G2 gets the best magnification of the three by focusing the closest, enough maybe to appease potential G2 buyers into being actual ones!  

 

  I'm sure the VRE wiil beat it though, but at a price!



#15 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 24 February 2017 - 04:00 AM

I do not get at all why Matt was surprised, it is all in the specs?

 

The 1st test shws the issue (focus breathing of the widening kind). The new Tamron is as bad as the old one and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 II. 

 

The second test he shot at different distances (the lenses have different MFDs). Why does it surprise you that the Tamron at 0.9 meters gets more magnification than the Nikkor  at 1.4 meters?

 

It is the same as the difference from the Tamron at 1.4 meters and 0.9 meters.



#16 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 05:45 AM

  Man your up late, are you on nights?  

 

   Yes, but you understand these optical things better than most and probably pay more attention to the numbers , however, it seems to have come as a surprise to many, when the question about the G2's focus breathing was raised you got it straight off the bat,

  I didn't notice the MFD of the first model or the second for that matter but in the end, surprise, knowledge, or whatever, the FB  problem with the G2 is tamed to some extent by the MFD, least ways it does better than the VRII....asI see it!

  Matt is not that technical, I am better at bar charts that specs, in fact I have a penchant for bars, fortunately in them , not behind them......but then who knows?  :P

 

  Any thoughts on my AF20mm F2.8D fogged element scenario? I've googled about separating the elements and have found out what cement to use "Canadian Balsam" or a UV curing cement called "Vitrelit" (something like that) neither of which I know where to find. It seems so ridiculous to junk a otherwise decent lens for a couple of drops of lens cement.......

 

   Your thoughts...



#17 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 24 February 2017 - 10:34 AM

  Man your up late, are you on nights?  

 

   Yes, but you understand these optical things better than most and probably pay more attention to the numbers , however, it seems to have come as a surprise to many, when the question about the G2's focus breathing was raised you got it straight off the bat,

  I didn't notice the MFD of the first model or the second for that matter but in the end, surprise, knowledge, or whatever, the FB  problem with the G2 is tamed to some extent by the MFD, least ways it does better than the VRII....asI see it!

  Matt is not that technical, I am better at bar charts that specs, in fact I have a penchant for bars, fortunately in them , not behind them......but then who knows?  :P

 

  Any thoughts on my AF20mm F2.8D fogged element scenario? I've googled about separating the elements and have found out what cement to use "Canadian Balsam" or a UV curing cement called "Vitrelit" (something like that) neither of which I know where to find. It seems so ridiculous to junk a otherwise decent lens for a couple of drops of lens cement.......

 

   Your thoughts...

 

Object magnification and FOV are two separate entities. The widening of FOV causes more background clutter, a reason to choose 200mm over 135mm in the first place.  :blink:

Else I could just make any photo where I need a certain magnification with 55mm and be done with it (such a light setup!)... :D

 

That the G2 Tamron has a closer MFD than the Nikkor II of course is a plus for the Tamron G2.

According to the manufacture specs, the Tamron G2 reaches 1:6.1 at 0.95m. The Nikkor II reaches 1:8.3 at 1.4m. For comparison: The Nikkor E FL reaches 1:4.76 at 1.1m.

 

My Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM has 1.2 MFD and reaches the same magnification as the new Nikkor E FL. At 1 meter it reaches 1:3.45 (how, you may ask, do I go past MFD? With a 12mm extension tube ;) ). Compare that to the Tamron?

 

I hope this illustrates the 2 separate entities?

 

About the lateness, I woke up at around 4 and could not catch sleep right away again.

 

On the lens separation issue... I do not know what kind of glue Nikon used to make those AF lenses. I hope, that since it does separate, it is canadian balm. 

 

The following link shows a guy using "normal" glass glue from UHU. I have a similar/same glue from Bison, it should be pretty easy to source. Mine came from a normal local hardware store.

 

http://www.4photos.d...ion-Repair.html



#18 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 12:35 PM

 I didn't shut an eye either!  I used the 500mm F4 for semi macro for butterflies with I think 30mm of extension tubes.

 

  Brilliant link to element gluing BC, I would never have thought of that and it's cured by UV and available in your local DIY store, like how sweet is that?

  I'm not sure how the acetone is doing but actually the element looks a little less cloudy, probably my lack of sleep, if you stay awake long enough even kit lenses look sharp.  B)

 

  Thanks again for to tip!



#19 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 26 February 2017 - 07:58 AM

The second test he shot at different distances (the lenses have different MFDs). Why does it surprise you that the Tamron at 0.9 meters gets more magnification than the Nikkor  at 1.4 meters?

 

It is the same as the difference from the Tamron at 1.4 meters and 0.9 meters.

 

First of all, I want to apologize to Toni for my part in dragging the subject off topic from the original question.  I couldn't help pointing out the magnification deficit, which might mean more to me than to you, but since I think you would really miss the closer option...

 

The second thing...Yes extension tubes are a good option if you plan on shooting a set distance.  That actually might make the lens a lot more useful. 

 

But, and remember, I don't have the Brightcolors or dave's clichés level of optical knowledge, but here is my innocent question.  BC says that it's not surprising that there is more magnification at 0.9m than at 1.4 meters.  And I agree, its not!  By the same token I'm not surprised if bokeh is better at a closer focus distance at a given focal length.  What did surprise me (I'm going to laps into feet and inches here, but if it helps 1.2m = 47.2", and 1.31m = 52.1", and the different in MFD ~= 10%

 

From my previous post,

Tamron MFD 51.2 in / Mag: .13x (Sigma a little longer distance, Mag. is also .13x)

Canon MFD 47.2 in / Mag: .21x

 

The Canon has over 50% more magnification with only 10% difference in distance.

 

To make matters worse, Canon at 1.2m has more magnification than the Tamron G2 has at 0.9m

 

I'm frankly confused by how at the same focal length, at the same distance, we arrive at very different magnifications.  Basically, are numbers being manipulated?  Is a constant aperture, really far from constant?  Is the 200mm, far from 200mm in fact?  I guess most defining characteristics are measured at infinity, and don't really apply very strictly at MFD.  But at the very least there must be a lot of differences in these lenses, so much so that are we really talking about the same type of lens?

 

Canon:  0.21x is 1:4.8 @ 1.2m.  G2, 1:6.1 @ 0.95m,  Tamron VC 1:7.7 @ 1.31m

 

Those difference are big and non-linear.  So...I just don't know that these can all be  70-200mm lenses.  Yet, they are!



#20 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 26 February 2017 - 08:17 AM

BTW - Good luck on your project Dave!  I'm only read one story of someone attempting such a repair.  He had skills, and he failed.  But...I wonder...

 

In the story this person glued the lens elements inside,then went outside to let the sun be the UV source.

 

Well, since I never did it, I won't suggest how I would do it, but I will mention that they sell lights specifically to cure this kind of glue.  So if one did the work in a blacked out environment it would not be necessary to more the unit to set it.

 

Specifically, my niece does make-up artist work, and such a light is used to cure things like synthetic finger nails. 

 

Long story short, I wanted the guy to succeed!  It would be a magnificent achievement!  I hope you can do it!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de