Tamron vs. Sigma vs. Nikon: I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range...

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range which is around $500.00. I am thinkin of the 70-300 Nikon FX VR or Tamron di VC for landscapes and the occasional wildlife. Once I have additional money, I can upgrade.

Thoughts on either of these or the Sigma?

Dusty

I would say Nikon 1st, Sigma 2nd and Tamron 3rd.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Look at the new Tamron 18-400 good reviews

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

mborn wrote:

Look at the new Tamron 18-400 good reviews

I concur, the new Tamron has gotten very good reviews and the sample images on the Tamron Web site are quite impressive. It's more than your $500 budget but only $149 more and to me, a decent zoom lens with that coverage is well worth the $649 cost.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I concur, the new Tamron has gotten very good reviews and the sample images on the Tamron Web site are quite impressive. It's more than your $500 budget but only $149 more and to me, a decent zoom lens with that coverage is well worth the $649 cost.

I think the OP is looking for something a bit better - especially at 200+mm than 18-400 may provide.

Of the Tamron vs Nikon, optically very similar except the Nikon will have better resale value later.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

bobgreen wrote:

I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range which is around $500.00. I am thinkin of the 70-300 Nikon FX VR or Tamron di VC for landscapes and the occasional wildlife. Once I have additional money, I can upgrade.

Thoughts on either of these or the Sigma?

You will be disappointed when you use a 70-200mm lens on a crop sensor camera (D7100) for landscapes. Your widest field of view will be 23º. For landscapes you want a field of view of of 50º to 80º. You will be better off with an 18-300mm lens, using the low focal lengths for landscapes and the longer focal lengths for wildlife. However, even 300mm won't help if the wildlife is small or at a distance of 100yd or more. For that on your camera you will need a 500mm to 600mm reach mounted on a gimbal and a tripod.

You might want to consider renting if you can't find what you need for what you can afford.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Sigma, Tamron then Nikon. A Sigma Contemporary Zoom Lens EF ‑ 18mm‑300mm rocks and is under $400 on line.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

bobgreen wrote:

I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range which is around $500.00. I am thinkin of the 70-300 Nikon FX VR or Tamron di VC for landscapes and the occasional wildlife. Once I have additional money, I can upgrade.

Thoughts on either of these or the Sigma?

Which Sigma ??

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

I'll check the Sigma 18-300 ! I also just read a few reviews on the Sigma 100-400 which seems to be well received. It is a bit outside my price range . I currently have Nikon a 18-70 zoom 50 and 85 primes for wider angles and perspectives.

Al Freeedman

I have a Sigma 18-250 MM lens that is a great all around lens. Very sharp and can
be had from KEH and others (also from Sigma direct) for about half your budget.

Captain Al

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

bobgreen wrote:

I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range which is around $500.00. I am thinkin of the 70-300 Nikon FX VR or Tamron di VC for landscapes and the occasional wildlife. Once I have additional money, I can upgrade.

Thoughts on either of these or the Sigma?

When I'm spending considerable money, I rely on people who test things on a regular basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundup/lens-roundup/best-70-200mm-tele-zoom-lenses-64789
https://petapixel.com/2015/03/28/just-the-lenses-the-great-200mm-shoot-out/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=that+nikon+guy+70-200mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=946&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

"Out west." You will find the landscape is a lot bigger than it is in Maryland. Get whichever "long lens" feels right with your wallet, but make sure that you have the wide-angle end covered, too.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

bobgreen wrote:

I have a Nikon d7100 which will accompany me on a trip west this fall. Much as I'd like to purchase a 70-200 lens, they all seem to be out of my price range which is around $500.00. I am thinkin of the 70-300 Nikon FX VR or Tamron di VC for landscapes and the occasional wildlife. Once I have additional money, I can upgrade.

Thoughts on either of these or the Sigma?

Since you are using a crop sensor body why not go for the DX AF-P 70-300 f4.5-6.3 G ED VR. It weighs 15oz, focuses quietly, fast and accurately and has excellent image quality. At $400 it is a super lens.

Attached is an image taken with it on the D500. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-477762-1.html

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

I was excited to read the reviews on the new 70-300 until I found out it wasn't fully compatible with the d7100.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

bobgreen wrote:

I was excited to read the reviews on the new 70-300 until I found out it wasn't fully compatible with the d7100.

Since the D7100 has a auto/manual focus switch the only thing you can't do is turn off the VR. The VR works so well there is really no need for a tri/mono pod.

And if Nikon had a little more respect for its customers a firmware update could easily fix that. Nikon are you listening?