Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro

"Mark Kovalcson" wrote in message
...
I have the Nikon 70-300 G lens, and was quite disappointed in its slow
focussing and soft image at wide apertures. It now lives in the back
of
the cupboard until I need a lightweight lens with the range. The lens
I
lug about with me is a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO. I love the lens, and
have the arm muscles to prove it :-) As the previous poster says, don't
expect too much from an inexpensive lens.

Dennis

That is quite a price range and unfortunately none of these lenses focus
really quickly.

~$100 Nikon 70-300 G
~$200 Sigma 70-300
~$300 Nikon 70-300 ED

~$700 Sigma 70-200 f2.8

Now if you really want sharp at f2.8, fast and accurate the ~$1400 Nikon
70-200 2.8 VR is the best lens out there for that range.

Using 300mm on a D70 puts you at 450mm equivalent which is very hard to
hand
hold to get a clean shot without a high shutter speed.

In a Canon lineup there is a more selection among the fast focusing sharp
lenses. I'd have a 70-200 f4L in a heartbeat. It is very sharp even at f4
and fast focusing lens with a reasonably size and weight, half that of the
Sigma 70-200

$550 70-200 f4 L
$1000 70-200 f2.8
$1400 70-200 f2.8 IS


Thanks Mark

That is a grand job you have done of listing the available range.
Had cost been no object, I would have gone for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and I
had been considering the Nikon 70-300 ED.
In the end I decided on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and have been very happy with
it in all respects.

Dennis

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , D.R.
DR@NewZealand wrote:

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
news:200720042253412886%
SNIP
It's all made together to work together...Nikon.

Load o' Crap!

You will get better results using a Nikon lens with a Nikon camera than
you will using a 3rd party lens.

Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten.

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.

"Thomas" wrote in message
...
Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

Check out:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

For Optical quality:

3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO

How do I know is this lens?
It Just says APO Macro on the Barrel and it has a gold band around the
front.



Mine is the non-APO and it has no APO written anywhere to be seen on packaging
or the lens itself. If the one you are looking at says "APO" then it will be.

"D.R." DR@NewZealand wrote in message
...

"Thomas" wrote in message
...
Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

Check out:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

For Optical quality:

3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO

How do I know is this lens?
It Just says APO Macro on the Barrel and it has a gold band around the
front.



Mine is the non-APO and it has no APO written anywhere to be seen on packaging
or the lens itself. If the one you are looking at says "APO" then it will be.


Some images taken with my lens (all except the third image):
http://radel.inet.net.nz/photography/people.html

and:
http://radel.inet.net.nz/photography/macro.html

Scanned with a cheapie scanner.

I am no "photographer" as such, and I risk humiliation by Mr Ainsworth for even
showing these here. But here you go.

You can get much sharper lenses than this, but more $$$$$....

D.R.

Thanks Mark

That is a grand job you have done of listing the available range.
Had cost been no object, I would have gone for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and
I
had been considering the Nikon 70-300 ED.
In the end I decided on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and have been very happy
with
it in all respects.

Dennis

I've heard good things about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, but my understanding is
that you need to stop it down to f4 before it is sharp and it is slow to
focus. Still many are a fan of that lens.

This site has some reasonable reviews of lenses by lens owners.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Here is a good link for Canon lens reviews.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...n_lenses.shtml

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.


OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week or
be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with
such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and
that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of
5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are
better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron
lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the
price.


OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week
or
be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.

That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.


Yeah, but you know, it grows very old very fast. I'd rather use lens where
such is not a *systematic* problem.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++