Tamron vs. Sigma vs. Nikon
I cannot speak on behalf of others but I like to fit my Nikon cameras with Nikon lenses.
I own the old 70-300 VR lens and I can testify to the quality of its images. I do not remember ever using the lens for landscapes but a tele can be also useful for that type of photography although most photographers prefer to use wide angles.
camerapapi wrote:
I cannot speak on behalf of others but I like to fit my Nikon cameras with Nikon lenses.
I own the old 70-300 VR lens and I can testify to the quality of its images. I do not remember ever using the lens for landscapes but a tele can be also useful for that type of photography although most photographers prefer to use wide angles.
I totally agree with you camerapapi. the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR FF lens can perform well on a crop sensor camera and with proper lighting can help pull those distant mountains into the scene when the person behind the camera does their part. I have even used my 200-500mm lens for dramatic landscape shots when the snow capped mountain was nothing but a mole hill in the distance when viewed with my 10-24mm DX lens!
Garth
I've owned an frequently used the Tamron 70-300 VC, and have had some stellar results..It has bee favorably compared the most previous iteration of the Nikon 70-300..Some actually think it's sharper!..The vibration control is fantastic on this lens, and it does come with a 6 year manufacturer's warranty as long as it's purchased from an authorized USA supplier.. I purchased mine in 2012 when I also bought my Nikon D7000 (which has since been converted for infrared only capture). Tamron often has rebates on this lens as well. This past year I purchased a Tamron 150-600mm G2 to go with my new Nikon D500!..I have lots of confidence in the Tamron brand!!
Al Freeedman wrote:
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
I just ordered the Tamron 18-200mm as a replacement for the Sigma 18-250mm (to shoot the eclipse).
Thanks for suggesting the Tamron 18-200mm. The Sigma is now available if someone is interested.
Purchased Jan 15th, 2017 and really like new.
Bill in Gold Canyon, AZ
I consider the latest 70-300 mm Nikon to be an excellent lense for the price & offers a very usable weight.
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
mborn wrote:
Look at the new Tamron 18-400 good reviews
When you look at the specs, consider its weight and mechanical complexity. It is too soon to know if it will hold up to rugged use.
I would stay away from super zooms (wide angle to longish telephoto) as there are many compromises.
If money is a big issue the the Nikon 55-300mm VR is not such a bad lens and it is cheap. The FX 70-300mm is even better. You general instincts are good. Check out youtube for critical reviews with images. also look a images on Flikr you can choose a lens and see photos taken with that lens. I have very good sigma and tamron lenses.
Incidentally my favorite landscape lenses are my Tamron 10-24mm (the new version) and Nikon 16-80mm. I am always surprised by the intense interest in long telephotos . In general, more interesting photos are taken with shorter focal lengths. I know that wildlife usually demands longer focal lengths but just think how the photo of the charging elephant taken with a 24mm lens would look if you and your camera are still alive.
bobgreen wrote:
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.
Consider Lensrentals of something similar.
I just received my Tamron f2.8 70-200mm G2 zoom lens. Did my first photo shoot with it this weekend. Shot 444 images. I got some of the sharpest images I can remember taking with it. All the reviews I read about the lens before purchasing it were good. You're right, it is pricey, but cheaper than buying the Canon 70-200 (I'm a Canon shooter), and I would guess cheaper than a Nikon lens. I'd recommend Tamron. You might consider a used lens, if you can find a trusted source.
sathca
Loc: Narragansett Rhode Island
I bought an older 80-200 2.8 for $375 when I had a 7100 and it opened my eyes to the difference a quality lens can make. Don't get the push/pull. The auto focus is awful slow. But the twist version is decent. The optics are superb, just read some reviews. It's heavy but that means it's built tough. I still have it and use it on my D750. I got a bargain, but they can be had for $500-550. You won't be sorry. I've had a 70-300 and it doesn't compare. I've had an older 300 f4 and that was really good too. Got rid of that for the 300 AF-S f4. The sharpest lens I have
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
buy a good lens, beg borrow or steal the money,then when you do upgrade to a better lens you wont be stuck with a lens that no one wants ,
I took a round-trip road trip from Connecticut to California last September and October. I brought three cameras with three lenses. I took the majority of my photos with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8; my Nikon 18-50 kit lens came in seconds; my Tramron 70-300 came in third. That being said, I was glad to have my 70-300 when I needed it; I took telephotos of abandoned homesteads (that would have been eaten up in the photo with wider angles).
Needless to say, I did not discover the abandoned homesteads by riding the interstate; I took good, major roads the whole way, but stayed off of the Interstates as much as possible. I am going to make the same trip (different routes going and coming) in September and will, again, avoid the interstates as much as possible.
imagemeister wrote:
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.
With a $500 budget? Or did I misread the original post?!
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
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?
I just checked. As of right now KEH camera has a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 lens rated ex+ (about as good as new). This lens is as good as any Nikon. At $550 it's a serious bargain. I am a Canon shooter, if this was a Canon mount lens I would but it in a minute If you are interested buy it soon, it won't be available for long. As many UHh,er will attest KEH is a solid outfit
rmorrison1116 wrote:
With a $500 budget? Or did I misread the original post?!
Same price as the 18-400 - if you shop ....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.