Gene51 wrote:
The Nikon is sharper, and may have an edge in build quality. But neither are intended for use in harsh conditions. For the same price as the Nikon you can get the Tamron 150-600 G2 which is sharper that the Nikon, moisture sealed, and a 20% longer in focal length, and if you decide you want to use it on a tripod, it's foot is already equipped with an Arca-Swiss compatible dovetail.
I looked a the Nikon, the original Tamron and the two Sigmas - the C and the Sport - and found the Sport sharper and better built, with the Nikon a close second optically. I've since spent some time with a single copy of the G2 and found it to be every bit as sharp as the Sport, and almost 2 lbs lighter.
The Nikon is sharper, and may have an edge in buil... (
show quote)
Sure that's all fine and dandy , but it is the thing that all these companies are doing trying to match Nikon and canon.but they are
Still missing the mark , I personal like the canon Nikon better in terms of finished products ,it is heads above what what the bargain
Lenses provide , there is a popular eagle shooter here who used a sigma it was one of there topmodels ,it wasent to long before he
Switched to a Nikon, and his sigma were not to bad. The colour is also better with Nikon or canon