Tamron 70-200 vs Sigma 70-200

jakey217350 · Nov 2, 2008

I waited anxiously for a long time for a Pentax mount 70-200 2.8 lens. Tammy was first by a few weeks to have it available. The reviews said the optics were better than the Sigma 70-200 lens, plus the Tammy was $100 cheaper so I bought the Tammy. I thought the HSM feature of the Sigma was no big deal.

Alas, I use the lens mostly for sports photography, especially night photography. The Tammy was very disappointing in this role. The optics were fine - when I could get it to focus. The focus is frustrating slow for action pics, even in daylight. After a few tries I gave up using it and started using my DA* 200mm instead. Much better, but I wanted the zoom feature.

So, after about a month of use I sold the Tammy on Ebay. I immediately bought the Sigma 70-200 for the same type of use. I am THRILLED with the Sigma. The HSM focus works great in all conditions. Perfect? No, of course not, but a BIG improvement over the Tammy.

It is my fault for not choosing the correct lens for my needs. If I read the reviews more carefully and wasn't so cheap I would have known. I was penny wise and pound foolish discounting the value of the HSM focus and fearing the softness at the Sigma at the long end. It is a bit soft at the long end but the great focusing speed makes up for that downside.

Just my anecdotal experience.

Jay
--
http://attorneyjay.smugmug.com/

trilou · Nov 2, 2008

Good to hear Jay. I just picked mine up today. I'll be using it for sports as well. I've only used it for a moment in the store, but so far it's wonderful. Very quiet and focussed very quickly and accurately in low light.
--
~~Trina~~
Ontario, Canada

Kesha270057 · Nov 2, 2008

Thanks Jay, I want to the sigma or tamron too, but after your review, I think I prefer the Sigma.

trilou said:
Good to hear Jay. I just picked mine up today. I'll be using it for
sports as well. I've only used it for a moment in the store, but so
far it's wonderful. Very quiet and focussed very quickly and
accurately in low light.
--
~~Trina~~
Ontario, Canada

--
------------------------------------------
-- Rusma

my multiply : http://kesha.multiply.com

krypticide · Nov 2, 2008

I've done some sport shots. In low light, it will hunt on occasion, but I just love how it's silent. It'll be great for a wedding I'm shooting in June. It's a little soft wide open, but sharpens up very nicely stopped down.

Some studio shots:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=29893507
--
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/andylin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krypticide
http://andylin.googlepages.com/photographyacknowledgments

awaldram · Nov 2, 2008

I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

And if you want to us the lens for sports/action then the decision is a no brainer.

SDM is streets ahead when it comes to AF tracking.

trilou · Nov 2, 2008

I did listen to you and many other opinions. I bought the Sigma because of my research,help from this forum and trying out the lens myself. I assumed the other posters were saying the same. You seem a bit aggitated there awaldram, relax, it's not good for you to be so stressed. People have to make the decision for themselves, it's not always going to be one you agree with. Live and learn...

~~Trina~~
Ontario, Canada

awaldram · Nov 2, 2008

Sorry if it came across like that .

In actual fact I'm more amused than anything else, As you say its not my money. ;-)

Neither lens is a wrong decision in itself both are very very good , It depends on intended use.

Mind you if absolute goodness at 200mm was my requirement I'd get the DA* 200mm.

It wasn't your decision thread I was refering to, you were lucky most of the replies were reasonable and well argued.

In previous discussions we've been plagued with 'Sigma have serious IQ issue' or the buy Pentax everything else is crXp type responses with no reteric to back up their ridiculous statements.

Bart Hickman · Nov 2, 2008

awaldram said:
I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to
listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the
dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even
at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

I doubt that--dpreview is the only report I've seen of the mid-range of that lens not being anything other than tack-sharp. Most reviews and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm). My copy of the Tamron is equally sharp at all focal lengths.

By the same token, I see persistent user reports (various forums) and reviews on not only the poor sharpness of the Sigma, but also poor QC. Given the ever-rising pixel counts on cameras, the last thing I want is a lens that has poor sharpness--and I especially hate it when a telephoto zoom is poor at the long end. The whole reason for lugging around such a beast is for the long end. If I didn't need excellent performance at 200mm, then I'd just get the Pentax 50-135.

Now maybe they're all wrong and the Sigma really is pretty good sharpness and QC. I do have the Tamron and it does have noisy focus--same as all my other lenses. I may yet decide to try the Sigma to see if the IQ is as bad as reports claim. But I just want to let you know there's a lot of corroborating information out there favoring the Tamron--it's not just some undeserved reputation and it's not at all based simply on the dpreview review of it.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

Prakash Heda · Nov 3, 2008

now previous statement makes it confusing again which one is better....i am also an aspirant to buy one 70-200 mm, will keep an eye on this thread to make sure which one gets more positives....

Larry Winters · Nov 3, 2008

Bart Hickman said:
awaldram said:

I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to
listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the
dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even
at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

Click to expand...

I doubt that--dpreview is the only report I've seen of the mid-range
of that lens not being anything other than tack-sharp. Most reviews
and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm).
My copy of the Tamron is equally sharp at all focal lengths.

By the same token, I see persistent user reports (various forums) and
reviews on not only the poor sharpness of the Sigma, but also poor
QC. Given the ever-rising pixel counts on cameras, the last thing I
want is a lens that has poor sharpness--and I especially hate it when
a telephoto zoom is poor at the long end. The whole reason for
lugging around such a beast is for the long end. If I didn't need
excellent performance at 200mm, then I'd just get the Pentax 50-135.

Now maybe they're all wrong and the Sigma really is pretty good
sharpness and QC. I do have the Tamron and it does have noisy
focus--same as all my other lenses. I may yet decide to try the
Sigma to see if the IQ is as bad as reports claim. But I just want
to let you know there's a lot of corroborating information out there
favoring the Tamron--it's not just some undeserved reputation and
it's not at all based simply on the dpreview review of it.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

the victor · Nov 3, 2008

--I,ve read quite a few forums where there is a lot of debating over the qc and ic of lenses.With a lot of varying views.

I think there may be a lot of luck involved here.The quality of the copy one buys,how it matches your camera.Bear in mind that the camera used to review a may not be the same as the camera you intend to use.
I bought the sigma,I think i was lucky,hsm is great, has not hunted yet.
Allthough i,m a newbie i think the iq is great throughout.
In this forum the iq @ 200 has been questioned.

These shots were taken a week after i bought it just to get the feel.It will get a real workout when i take my grandaughter to the zoo in a few weeks time.
These shots were take @ 200mm.
The clock about 60 metres away,
The flower is about 20mm wide taken @ 1 metre away.
Your thoughts.

awaldram · Nov 3, 2008

Larry Winters said:
Bart Hickman said:

awaldram said:

I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to
listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the
dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even
at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

Click to expand...

I doubt that--dpreview is the only report I've seen of the mid-range
of that lens not being anything other than tack-sharp. Most reviews
and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm).
My copy of the Tamron is equally sharp at all focal lengths.

By the same token, I see persistent user reports (various forums) and
reviews on not only the poor sharpness of the Sigma, but also poor
QC. Given the ever-rising pixel counts on cameras, the last thing I
want is a lens that has poor sharpness--and I especially hate it when
a telephoto zoom is poor at the long end. The whole reason for
lugging around such a beast is for the long end. If I didn't need
excellent performance at 200mm, then I'd just get the Pentax 50-135.

Now maybe they're all wrong and the Sigma really is pretty good
sharpness and QC. I do have the Tamron and it does have noisy
focus--same as all my other lenses. I may yet decide to try the
Sigma to see if the IQ is as bad as reports claim. But I just want
to let you know there's a lot of corroborating information out there
favoring the Tamron--it's not just some undeserved reputation and
it's not at all based simply on the dpreview review of it.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

Click to expand...

--

It appears to me your regreting your Tamron purchase such vitriol.!

Most reviews

Larry Winters said:
Larry Winters said:

and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm)

Click to expand...

Examples ?

Heres one for you where they discuss the fact the tamron is really f3.5 and lies to the camera
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/648506
Not sure I believe it but just to show with google you can prove anything ;-))

Now if you'd just like to post some corroborative links to where these persistent user (that's users not rumoured second uncle told me) reports (various forums) and reviews are.

Can you report first hand your issues with QC in Sigma EX lenses, Or even their mid range offerings because it looks like your regurgitating the diatribe from Sigma haters most of whom are refering to some cheap kit lens they got 10 Years ago.

Check out this thread where the Sigma mid price Zoom QC matches Pentax's Pro line !!!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=29867559

I do agree the Tamron is an excellent lens just a shame they didn't supply a sports capable AF on a sports orientated lens.

This review states the Tamron is better than the SIgma

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5436/tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-ld-macro-af-sp-lens-test.html
Yet they've never reviewed the Sigma HSMII !!!!

Larry Winters · Nov 3, 2008

Hello Bart:

I concur with your statements...

While I have a stellar copy of the Tamron my main use is not low light sports so I have no intention of trying the Sigma....The low light and slow movement AF have not been a problem with the Tammy and K20D...If I really did sports alot I would own a Canikon camera...

Lately with the 17-50 f/2.8, 18-250 and now the 70-200 f/2.8 Tamron has been kicking everyones butt with regard to resolution...Even the high priced Canikons...

Sure many say there is much more to a lens than just resolution but to me resolution is KING...I can add contrast and color saturation...I can't add resolution...

lw

Bart Hickman said:
awaldram said:

I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to
listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the
dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even
at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

Click to expand...

I doubt that--dpreview is the only report I've seen of the mid-range
of that lens not being anything other than tack-sharp. Most reviews
and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm).
My copy of the Tamron is equally sharp at all focal lengths.

By the same token, I see persistent user reports (various forums) and
reviews on not only the poor sharpness of the Sigma, but also poor
QC. Given the ever-rising pixel counts on cameras, the last thing I
want is a lens that has poor sharpness--and I especially hate it when
a telephoto zoom is poor at the long end. The whole reason for
lugging around such a beast is for the long end. If I didn't need
excellent performance at 200mm, then I'd just get the Pentax 50-135.

Now maybe they're all wrong and the Sigma really is pretty good
sharpness and QC. I do have the Tamron and it does have noisy
focus--same as all my other lenses. I may yet decide to try the
Sigma to see if the IQ is as bad as reports claim. But I just want
to let you know there's a lot of corroborating information out there
favoring the Tamron--it's not just some undeserved reputation and
it's not at all based simply on the dpreview review of it.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

Larry Winters · Nov 3, 2008

Hello:

awaldram said:
Can you report first hand your issues with QC in Sigma EX lenses, Or even their mid range offerings because it looks like your regurgitating the diatribe from Sigma haters most of whom are refering to some cheap kit lens they got 10 Years ago.

Off the top of my head the 30 f/1.4, 18-50 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 70 macro, etc...All of these were in the Canikon mounts from a year or more back...The issues ran from front/back focus, decentering and outright error codes when mounting...And no these errors weren't caused by old lenses that needed re-chipping...

I will say that Sigma's USA customer service and repair are stellar...The 2 lenses that I did actually send to them came back perfect in less than 2 weeks...

I'm not a Sigma hater at all but to be honest they aren't my first choice either...You are just a tad over sensitive I think...Actually I just received a Sigma 105 f/2.8 as a gift and it's quite stellar...

lw

awaldram said:
Larry Winters said:

Bart Hickman said:

awaldram said:

I've been trying to advise people of this but they just don't seem to
listen.

There seems to be some kind of Tamron hypnosis probably based on the
dpreview of the 2 lenses.

Whilst I agree the Tamron edges the Sigma at 200mm they are very even
at 70 and the Sigma blows the Tamron out the water at 135m.

Click to expand...

I doubt that--dpreview is the only report I've seen of the mid-range
of that lens not being anything other than tack-sharp. Most reviews
and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm).
My copy of the Tamron is equally sharp at all focal lengths.

By the same token, I see persistent user reports (various forums) and
reviews on not only the poor sharpness of the Sigma, but also poor
QC. Given the ever-rising pixel counts on cameras, the last thing I
want is a lens that has poor sharpness--and I especially hate it when
a telephoto zoom is poor at the long end. The whole reason for
lugging around such a beast is for the long end. If I didn't need
excellent performance at 200mm, then I'd just get the Pentax 50-135.

Now maybe they're all wrong and the Sigma really is pretty good
sharpness and QC. I do have the Tamron and it does have noisy
focus--same as all my other lenses. I may yet decide to try the
Sigma to see if the IQ is as bad as reports claim. But I just want
to let you know there's a lot of corroborating information out there
favoring the Tamron--it's not just some undeserved reputation and
it's not at all based simply on the dpreview review of it.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

It appears to me your regreting your Tamron purchase such vitriol.!

Most reviews

awaldram said:

awaldram said:

and user reports I've read rate the Tamron significantly above the
Sigma in sharpness throughout the range (but especially at 200mm)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Examples ?
Heres one for you where they discuss the fact the tamron is really
f3.5 and lies to the camera
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/648506
Not sure I believe it but just to show with google you can prove
anything ;-))

Now if you'd just like to post some corroborative links to where
these persistent user (that's users not rumoured second uncle told
me) reports (various forums) and reviews are.

Can you report first hand your issues with QC in Sigma EX lenses, Or
even their mid range offerings because it looks like your
regurgitating the diatribe from Sigma haters most of whom are
refering to some cheap kit lens they got 10 Years ago.

Check out this thread where the Sigma mid price Zoom QC matches
Pentax's Pro line !!!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=29867559

I do agree the Tamron is an excellent lens just a shame they didn't
supply a sports capable AF on a sports orientated lens.

awaldram · Nov 3, 2008

Hi Larry,

Very impressive collection of cameras you've amassed you must change cameras more often than I change my underwear ;-)

As I said the Tamron is an outstanding lens and if you don't need AF-c to function reliably is indeed worth consideration.

Yes Tamron do really appear to have upped there game lately with some excellent offerings.

But none of the above in anyway make the Sigma offerings any less worth.

The 18-50 ex dc f2.8 macro is a match for the 17-50
OK give it to you the 18-250 is indeed in a league of its own ;-)
the 70-200's both have traits that could persuade you to buy either.
the 70-300's the same Tamron sharper bad CA the Sigma softer no CA.

Why people think just because the own one brand they need to denigrate all others is behond me.

Larry Winters · Nov 3, 2008

Hello:

awaldram said:
Very impressive collection of cameras you've amassed you must change
cameras more often than I change my underwear ;-)

Not good bro!!!...I've owned about 15 cameras, including P&S, in 5 years...You do the math...And yeah I know you winked but it gave me a laugh..On second thought what brand do you use?...They must be pretty damn sturdy...

awaldram said:
Why people think just because the own one brand they need to denigrate all others is behond me.

I think it's just human nature as one like's to believe they've made the most intelligent choice...Then depending on ones mood at the time and how much they feel their intelligence has been degraded, dictates the response...Overall I don't think any real harm is meant by most...At least I know I don't want to cause any hard feelings...Get the gear that works and be happy...

Pretty much the same goes on with politics, religion and/or autos....

Peace...

awaldram said:
Hi Larry,

Very impressive collection of cameras you've amassed you must change
cameras more often than I change my underwear ;-)

As I said the Tamron is an outstanding lens and if you don't need
AF-c to function reliably is indeed worth consideration.

Yes Tamron do really appear to have upped there game lately with some
excellent offerings.

But none of the above in anyway make the Sigma offerings any less worth.

The 18-50 ex dc f2.8 macro is a match for the 17-50
OK give it to you the 18-250 is indeed in a league of its own ;-)
the 70-200's both have traits that could persuade you to buy either.
the 70-300's the same Tamron sharper bad CA the Sigma softer no CA.

Why people think just because the own one brand they need to
denigrate all others is behond me.

Bart Hickman · Nov 3, 2008

Nothing against Sigma. My very favorite lens by far is my Sigma 17-70. Getting that lens stabilized was a big reason I got Pentax in the first place. And if I don't like the Tamron I just got, I may send it back (although so far, it's pretty good.)

And before this thread, most people who'd tried both (on the Pentax mount), said the difference in AF speed was minor or negligible (which makes sense because Pentax AF tracking issues have little to do with the lens limitations.) So I considered that too. The Pop-photo sharpness tests really make the Sigma look awful at the long end (as does the dpreview review.)

I'm not going to re-search for all the reviews and discussions on the Sigma and Tamron lenses. My point is simply that the Tamron vs Sigma reputation isn't based on hypnosis. I made a first-pass decision based on the preponderance of information I could glean from the net--certainly not just based on the review here at dpreview. I suspect this is the case for others who got the Tamron.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

Bart Hickman · Nov 3, 2008

the victor said:
Your thoughts.

Hi Victor,

These look great, but they are much reduced, so they don't tell me anything as far as discriminating this lens from any other F/2.8 lens. I like to see an unreduced section from the focal point to make a judgement of lens quality. That way I can see the limits of the lens in terms of maximum image size and/or cropping I can get away with.

In good light, the Tamron/K10d blasts instantly into focus--there's no lag or hunting at all. Of course I get hunting in low light, but that's 100% the camera's fault. Now one thing I guess the in-lens motor might do is slow the lens down enough so it doesn't overshoot the target. This would be nice in low light, but then it penalizes focus speed in good light.

Of course Pentax might consider a variable speed motor in the camera so it can adapt to low light. I can effectively slow down the focus motor on the Tamron by engagine the focus clutch. This adds some mass to the focus ring which slows the motor down a little (makes it quieter too.) I've shot the Nikon D300 with a screw-drive lens and the in-camera focus motor on the D300 seemed a lot quieter than the Pentax K10d motor--so I know in camera focusing doesn't have to be so noisy.

Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com

awaldram · Nov 3, 2008

I believe the reason SDM/HSM is faster in use than in body is torque.

These are just my observations after using both on f2.8 tele's

In body is a lot faster traveling end to end (like we do that in image taking ;-))
SDM/HSM is a lot faster starting and stopping the lens.

This leads to my observed fact that SDM/HSM is approx 3x faster when tracking moving targets .

Most of my big glass in body driven lenses are unusable in AF-c being incapable of following even a running dog reliably (focus comes in and out you take pot luck when firing the shutter)

Whereas my SDM lens is able to track a car approaching.

The 2 lenses used for most testing were Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX (in Body) Pentax DA* 50-135 (SDM).

I did some quick tests with the Sigma HSMII and the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 and found them to be identical in performance to my above lenses.

the victor · Nov 3, 2008

Hi Bart

When u say reduced,do u mean they are cropped or the fact that they are low res jpeg.
The flower is not cropped.
If high res is whats ineeded, how do we upload it.

I am going to the zoo in 2 weeks and hope to get some shots of the big cats,I will start a new thread and unload depending on you reply.

Vic

Tamron 70-200 vs Sigma 70-200

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts