Tamron vs. Sigma vs. Nikon
Aug 7, 2017 09:29:08 #
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 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.
Aug 7, 2017 09:51:03 #
Tigger1
Loc: Surrey, BC Canada
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 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
Aug 7, 2017 09:51:32 #
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!!
Aug 7, 2017 09:56:21 #
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
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
Aug 7, 2017 09:58:26 #
RSQRD
Loc: SW Florida
I consider the latest 70-300 mm Nikon to be an excellent lense for the price & offers a very usable weight.
Aug 7, 2017 10:25:05 #
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.
Aug 7, 2017 11:01:32 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
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.
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.
Aug 7, 2017 11:13:49 #
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.
Aug 7, 2017 13:28:08 #
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.
Aug 7, 2017 13:33:12 #
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
Aug 7, 2017 13:34:53 #
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 ,
Aug 7, 2017 13:47:35 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
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.
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.
Aug 7, 2017 13:53:11 #
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.
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?!
Aug 7, 2017 14:44:17 #
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?
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
Aug 7, 2017 15:47:52 #
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.