Sigma vs Tamron for the 70-200m F2.8? Sony mount.

FlyNavy

I am close to buying a 70-200. I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 2.8. To me the are both superb so I am biased toward Tamron. I recently took a one day portrait class with Kevin Ames who is a Sigma shooter. http://amesphoto.com/
The Sigma rep was there with the entire lens lineup for all to use throughout the day. Unfortunately all the Sigma lenses were in Canon and Nikon mounts so I was not able to test any of the Sigma line up with my A-700. Everyone was giddy over the new Sigma 70-200m 2.8 HSM. (internally stabilized for Canon and Nikon) The Sigma rep said that I would still love the older non-stabilized Sigma 70-200 and to be expected said his Sigma was far superior to the Tamron.
Can you give me your experience with both lens? Pros and Cons? Build quality? Focus speed. Performance? What do you like about Sigma vs Tamron?

divamum

The price on the Sigma website says $2450 for this lens - is that US dollars???!! If so.... isn't it even more than the Canon 70-200 II 2.8 IS which just released?!? I'm confused.........

Overfocused

divamum wrote: »

The price on the Sigma website says $2450 for this lens - is that US dollars???!! If so.... isn't it even more than the Canon 70-200 II 2.8 IS which just released?!? I'm confused.........

Yeah its quite a bit more... or get a 70-200 F4 IS for $750 used somewhere

divamum

I wasn't really thinking about it relative to cheaper options, more that it's rare for a 3rd-party lens to cost more than the one from the big boys.

Since the OP is Sony this doesn't affect him anyway - sorry ... didn't mean for this to threadnap, I was just kind of mind-boggled at that price.

FlyNavy

This is the Sigma lens I was talking about.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555139-REG/Sigma_579205_70_200mm_f_2_8_II_EX.html

Here is the Tamron.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539406-REG/Tamron_AF001S_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

divamum

Ah, ok - the one I was referencing has IS... I guess that's the newer one the rep mentioned?

Art Scott

yeah that OS runs the cost up..............at BH it is 1700 with OS....as to the S vs Tammy ..... I would go Sigma...but that is me....I have shot with them for over 30yrs.....
and never been disappointed......I have a 70-210f2.8 still attached to a Konica Minolta (sony) 7D....great glass........................

cab.in.boston

divamum wrote: »

The price on the Sigma website says $2450 for this lens - is that US dollars???!! If so.... isn't it even more than the Canon 70-200 II 2.8 IS which just released?!? I'm confused.........

Yes, that's the MSRP... street price is significantly less. Adorama has it for $1700. I have the non-OS version ($799) on my wishlist. If I'm going to spend $1700, I'd be looking for a VR1 version of the Nikkor.

lmyamen

I am using the sigma verison on my 40d and LOVE it. I honestly cant tell a difference between the sigma and the L version.

Mark1616

FlyNavy wrote: »

This is the Sigma lens I was talking about.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555139-REG/Sigma_579205_70_200mm_f_2_8_II_EX.html

Here is the Tamron.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539406-REG/Tamron_AF001S_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

One thing that I didn't spot asked or answered is the sort of shooting you desire to do. The Tamron is the sharper piece of glass, especially at 200mm, however is you are shooting, or wanting to shoot sports the Sigma has the better/faster AF. I come from a sports shooting background and the Sigma was the lens I used until going for the Canon (yes I shoot Canon). I also had the Sigma when I shot Konica Minolta and it was good, just not as good as the Canon and I know the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 is a stunner, but then again you are paying for it to be very strong.