02-13-2017, 11:57 PM
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!
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!