Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have read a lot of reviews on these lenses, the Sigma 70-200 is not one of their shinning releases. Although the Sigma Art lenses have been extraordinary the 70-200 is not one of their better lenses, the Tamron however is a great success, at least according to the reviews, personally I went with a Canon mark II mostly because of build quality not because of optical performance as the Tamron is supposed to be excellent.

beerhunter13 Loc: Southern Ontario, Canada

After Canon L series glass, Sigma is my choice. Canon's latest version of the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 lens might be worth looking at. It won't be cheap but it will be the best in terms of build and IQ.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

I tried a Tamron and Canon side by side in the 70-200 f2.8. The Canon is definitely faster focusing which sealed the deal for me.

With the introduction of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 III at 2099.00, the price of the II, which is what I have, should go down considerably, in fact it is already down to 1799 and will likely drop lower. This, in my opinion would be a better option than Tamron or Sigma.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No, the secret is in the design, construction and quality control.

I don't think you could make the same statement about Carl Zeiss lenses. They cost more but whether they are worth the extra money depends on who is asking.

Sigma and Tamron make zooms that are competitive with the Nikon consumer level zooms.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I guess you haven't actually discussed this with anyone from Nikon. Otherwise, you'd have not posted a blatant "No". Anyone can match the characteristics you mentioned, "design, construction and quality control". The glass recipe is another story all together.
--Bob

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"If you own a Nikon, buy Nikon lenses for it. There is a very good reason for this which Nikon doesn't share with either of the manufacturers you've mentioned. The secret is the glass.
--Bob

Bob, I only use Nikon lenses with my cameras and I do recommend to use those lenses to Nikon camera owners. Nikon lenses are specifically made to fit and work with Nikon bodies. They are expensive as you know and many times the person buying a similar lens from another manufacturer (except for Zeiss lenses) do it because the other lens is cheaper. In a large proportion of cases those off brand lenses work well and fit the need of the buyer at a reasonable price but many times those lenses do not work with the Nikon body as expected and case in point is AF and also VR. The glass of those off brand lenses in the majority of the cases is or very good or excellent.

Recently I watched an interesting video comparing three 24-70 f2.8 VR lenses. Those lenses were made by Nikon, Sigma and Tamron. Photographs and videos were shown for comparison. According to his own tests the person testing those lenses made some comparisons that could surprise many users. He proved that optical quality was not much different among the three lenses and the Nikon lens was not any better in the corners than the others. VR was far better with Tamron than the two other brands. When it came to AF Sigma was the worse.

Many times we cannot rent or use lenses of the same focal length to make comparisons and buy what fit us best. In the case of the three lenses I mentioned and based in the many reports on its use the Tamron seems to be here the best buy optically and from the VR standpoint. There are variations among lenses and it is impossible for me to tell if all Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR will behave the same.

When it comes to technology I can say that the same type of technology is available to all lens manufacturers but where there will be a big difference is in the manufacture and tolerances of the lenses made. In my case it came as a surprise that in this particular test the Tamron did better than Nikon when it came to VR and the reviewer had videos and photographs to prove it. It also called my attention that in that respect Sigma was the worse.

Before I close this I want to say that for the majority of those using these lenses unless enlargements are made it will not be easy to tell the difference, although the reviewer noticed those differences with VR in use.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No point in talking to Nikon unless you make the same effort to talk to Sigma and Tamron. They will each give you a spiel about why their lenses are superior to the competition.

If yo look at a comparison of zoom lenses in the 35-600mm range mounted on a D800E you can see an objective opinion. They are all clearly competitive.

But a comparison of prime lenses in the same range shows that Nikon lenses are not quite up to the competition at 36MP and above.

Nevertheless, most of my small format lenses are Nikon primes except for my Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD. I only have a couple of zooms and most of my Nikon lenses are carried over from my film cameras. They are totally acceptable for sensors up to 24MP.

dyximan

Ditto that

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

I’ve had both and I liked both. I’ve been in photography since 1950 and I would be pleased with either one.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Personally I've known a lot of people that bought 3rd party lenses and they seem to like them until they run across another person with an OEM lens that is about the same focal length and start to compare images. Then I usually see them with an OEM lens down the road and selling their 3rd party lenses.

I'll tell you a personal story about my lens choice. I was told that to get into birding and wildlife photography I should buy a Canon 100-400mm L series lens. So I did and I was very happy with it for quite some time. Then as my skill progressed and I was being mentored by other wildlife photographers I noticed that my results were not as good as theirs. They were mostly using prime lenses that were very expensive. So I worked hard to learn skills to process my images so they would look better. That kept me happy for a while but still wasn't getting the same fine results as my mentors. So I finally purchased a new/used 500mm prime lens. It was 1 month old at the time and the guy took really good care of it and only used it for one shoot. So I bought it and really liked my results. But carrying this heavy behemoth wasn't (isn't) fun. Then Canon came out with a new 100-400 mark II lens and some pros I'd spoken to at Canon told me that it was 100% better than the older push pull zoom that Canon had discontinued. I waited until some of my other friend bought and tried it and then I finally did the same. It's a wonderful lens that is as sharp as the 500mm prime and a lot easier to carry. I still had a couple of friends with the older 100-400mm lens and we went on a shoot at the zoo together and swapped lenses off and on throughout the day. Now they all have the new Mark II lens.

The bottom line is that no matter what other people say, you will be happy with whatever you buy until you become really skilled and start to be really picky about your images in ways that you never thought you would. Then you'll wish you had a different lens. It always happens. But keep in mind, even if you have the best lens made, if you don't have the skills to use it, you may not get the results you expect. I've seen this over and over too. People with a lot of money will go out and buy the best of the best and when they go with me on a shoot and then get home and see what I've posted and compare to what they've got, the are very disappointed and think that they spent all that money and should be getting the same results as me. Not going to happen. Simple as that. It takes skill to know what settings to use, what the proper hand holding techniques are, to know how to use a tripod and much more.

You never see a person go to a store and buy the best stove money can buy and then go home and cook for people and be able to claim that they are a wonderful chef. Not going to happen.

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

To make this more confusing, My wife has the Sigma 18-250 HSM macro on her Nikon d5100. It works very well, nice and sharp througe the whole range. I have a Nikon d7100 and I recently purchased the Tamron 18-400. I am very pleased with it. The only other lenses I have are a Nikon 60mm macro and a 10mm fisheye which I rarely use. Sorry if I clouded this issue more.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I prefer the Sigma ART or SPORT series over all others except Nikon lenses. I'm not a fan of the older Sigma lenses or the Contemporary versions. I've owned some specialty Tamron glass but have always seemed to replace it with the Nikon version. My preference, by a long shot, is the Nikon 70-200E FL VR as I don't think anything else even comes close. Best of luck.

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

I own two Tamron lenses. the G2, 45mm and the G2, 90mm Marco lens. I love them both.
But when I came time to buy a f/2.8 70-200mm, I went with Canon. I found a used IS version I, on Amazon for 800 dollars. I bought it as soon as I saw it.
I did the reasearch, I read just about every thing printed on the net about this lenses. Watched a zillion videos. For me it was Canon, then the Tamron, it seemed to me, that it was a clear winner over the Sigma.
Now if I were to buy a 150-600 mm, [which is going to happen sooner or later] it seems to me that the Sigma Contempory is the clear winner over The tamron G2.

Barney006

Just a thought... I've rented both the Sigma and the Tamron lenses and the biggest thing I noticed was that they zoom in opposite directions. So, if you are a Nikon person, the Tamron will zoom in the same direction as a Nikon lens and the Sigma lens will zoom in the same direction as Canon. So if you are one who zooms by feel, the better move is to either go with the branded lens, or the one that zooms the same way.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Neither will deliver as consistent results as original manufactures equipment. But if this comes down to a money vs quality decision then you have already made your decision. Both will deliver for those who justify their purchase.