Tamron? Sigma?

[mdwine]

Question:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Tamron

I've researched online for a few days. (and this forum as well) General consensus is that the Tamron is a bit sharper, but the Sigma is more durable and has a bit less vignetting, and seems to focus a tad faster. This seems to be the "average opinion", as there are videos and opinion articles all over the place.

My purpose is "semi-professional", meaning I am getting my photog biz started much of which is portrait oriented and senior high.

I need a better 200 than the kit lens, but definitely do not have the cost of a new or used Nikon/Nikkor.

My question is if anyone has any direct experience with either or both of these lenses, and your opinion on each/both. I don't think that they are terribly far apart in capabilities, and I'm inclined to go for sharper (Tamron), but would like some first hand information if possible.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

[Dirk]

i have both brands , tamron is in my view sharper but sigma is good too .the lenses of tamron and sigma are good , and give enough to please your choice

older tamron and sigma may have issues with the latest gear from nikon

[Golem]

`

@MDWINE:

If I've read the OP correctly, you've done your research
and have decided that a marginal increase in sharpness
is worth an increase in vignetting and a decrease in lens
sturdiness, for "semi-professional" application.

Assuming your research is solid then your logic is NOT.
IOW, I'd hire you as a researcher, but not as an adviser.

[scoundrel1728]

You can get a used Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR or VR II for about USD1200 from KEH, but you might need to buy the tripod foot or lens hood separately if you do that. Since you intend to use this lens for weddings and other events, you will most likely be handholding a lot, or at most using something like a monopod. For this reason, I would strongly suggest getting something with VR (nikon) VC (Tamron) or OS (Sigma) capability. Sigma and Tamron have both had issues with some of their lens models in the past, but Sigma has upped its game on its new stuff and Sigma also builds some stuff that simply doesn't exist in other lens makers' lines. If you need a 200-500 mm f/2.8, for example, Sigma is the only game in town. (This lens also comes with a first-class teleconverter, but these lenses are also really big, heavy, and expensive, and are very rarely necessary for shooting a wedding.)

I am not sure what you mean by "semi-professional" but if you buy a lens like this, you will most likely be living with it for several years at least, so choose wisely and don't compromise your long-range goals for short-range ones. In other words, get the best lens you can afford, even if it means putting off the purchase for a year or two.

The quality of a Tamron or Sigma lens may or may not fit your long-range ambitions, but that depends on how much you pixel peep and how you use your lens and the properties of your individual copy of the lens model you select. I have a 1990 vintage Canon 80-200 mm f/2.8 that works very well but weighs a ton and lacks IS (Canon-speak for VR). I also have a Sigma 150-500 mm f/5-6.3 OS lens that is strictly an outdoor lens because of its low light-gathering power and very long focal length range, especially on an APS-C imager.