Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Ma

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by W Chan, Jul 21, 2004.

  1. W Chan

    W Chan Guest

    Hi
    I have a Nikon D70 and F401s...
    I am comparing the above 3 lens... and like to hear other users' opinions...

    cheers.
    will

    --
    * * * To reply, please email to
    This is a security measure to reduce spams and unsolicited junk mails.
    Cheers.
    W Chan, Jul 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <USlLc.75056$ek5.8230@pd7tw2no>, W Chan <>
    wrote:

    > I have a Nikon D70 and F401s...
    > I am comparing the above 3 lens... and like to hear other users' opinions...


    It's all made together to work together...Nikon.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. W Chan

    Thomas Guest

    > Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.
    >
    > Check out:
    > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
    >
    > For Optical quality:
    >
    > 3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO


    How do I know is this lens?
    It Just says APO Macro on the Barrel and it has a gold band around the
    front.
    Thomas, Jul 21, 2004
    #3
  4. W Chan

    D.R. Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:200720042253412886%
    <SNIP>
    > It's all made together to work together...Nikon.


    Load o' Crap!

    Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

    Check out:
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

    For Optical quality:

    3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO
    2.79 out of 5 = Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6
    2.79 out of 5 = Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED
    2.17 out of 5 = Sigma AF 4.0-5.6 70-300mm DL Macro Super

    The Sigma 70-300mm Macro Super II (non APO) isn't as sharp as the APO version. I
    own this one (the non APO), and it's not too bad actually, so I'd go the APO
    version.

    The Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm rocks above the all at a whopping 4.18 out of 5, but
    is priced miles above these.

    D.R.
    D.R., Jul 21, 2004
    #4
  5. W Chan

    John S Guest

    "W Chan" <> wrote in message
    news:USlLc.75056$ek5.8230@pd7tw2no...
    >
    > Hi
    > I have a Nikon D70 and F401s...
    > I am comparing the above 3 lens... and like to hear other users'

    opinions...

    I have the D70 & got a Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G - as I understand it the G
    and ED version in this lens are pretty much the same, performance wise. The
    lense is slow to AF, hunts a bit, but in bright light works just great. If
    you're saving up for a much better zoom, the G @ $100 or so will tide you
    over just fine for a while. That's why I got it :)
    It's also very light weight, which means you can toss it in the bag and
    carry it everywhere. Basically a good, cheap zoom you can bring with you.
    I'd get it again. Just don't expect it to outperform a $300-$600 zoom and
    you'll be happy with it.
    John S, Jul 21, 2004
    #5
  6. "John S" <> wrote in message
    news:aguLc.3419$...
    >
    > "W Chan" <> wrote in message
    > news:USlLc.75056$ek5.8230@pd7tw2no...
    > >
    > > Hi
    > > I have a Nikon D70 and F401s...
    > > I am comparing the above 3 lens... and like to hear other users'

    > opinions...
    >
    > I have the D70 & got a Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G - as I understand it the G
    > and ED version in this lens are pretty much the same, performance wise.

    The
    > lense is slow to AF, hunts a bit, but in bright light works just great. If
    > you're saving up for a much better zoom, the G @ $100 or so will tide you
    > over just fine for a while. That's why I got it :)
    > It's also very light weight, which means you can toss it in the bag and
    > carry it everywhere. Basically a good, cheap zoom you can bring with you.
    > I'd get it again. Just don't expect it to outperform a $300-$600 zoom and
    > you'll be happy with it.
    >
    >


    I have the Nikon 70-300 G lens, and was quite disappointed in its slow
    focussing and soft image at wide apertures. It now lives in the back of
    the cupboard until I need a lightweight lens with the range. The lens I
    lug about with me is a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO. I love the lens, and
    have the arm muscles to prove it :) As the previous poster says, don't
    expect too much from an inexpensive lens.

    Dennis
    Dennis Bradley, Jul 21, 2004
    #6
  7. W Chan

    John Denk Guest

    Re: Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mmf/4-5.6...

    Go with the Sigma in this case. I tried the cheap Nikkor and it was
    soft, so I returned it and bought the Sigma APO lens, which is much
    better, especially if you stop down a bit.
    John Denk, Jul 21, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <YBpLc.2993$>, D.R.
    <DR@NewZealand> wrote:

    > "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    > news:200720042253412886%
    > <SNIP>
    > > It's all made together to work together...Nikon.

    >
    > Load o' Crap!


    You will get better results using a Nikon lens with a Nikon camera than
    you will using a 3rd party lens.

    > Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.


    The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
    is forgotten.
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 21, 2004
    #8
  9. > I have the Nikon 70-300 G lens, and was quite disappointed in its slow
    > focussing and soft image at wide apertures. It now lives in the back of
    > the cupboard until I need a lightweight lens with the range. The lens I
    > lug about with me is a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO. I love the lens, and
    > have the arm muscles to prove it :) As the previous poster says, don't
    > expect too much from an inexpensive lens.
    >
    > Dennis


    That is quite a price range and unfortunately none of these lenses focus
    really quickly.

    ~$100 Nikon 70-300 G
    ~$200 Sigma 70-300
    ~$300 Nikon 70-300 ED

    ~$700 Sigma 70-200 f2.8

    Now if you really want sharp at f2.8, fast and accurate the ~$1400 Nikon
    70-200 2.8 VR is the best lens out there for that range.

    Using 300mm on a D70 puts you at 450mm equivalent which is very hard to hand
    hold to get a clean shot without a high shutter speed.

    In a Canon lineup there is a more selection among the fast focusing sharp
    lenses. I'd have a 70-200 f4L in a heartbeat. It is very sharp even at f4
    and fast focusing lens with a reasonably size and weight, half that of the
    Sigma 70-200

    $550 70-200 f4 L
    $1000 70-200 f2.8
    $1400 70-200 f2.8 IS
    Mark Kovalcson, Jul 21, 2004
    #9
  10. "Mark Kovalcson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > I have the Nikon 70-300 G lens, and was quite disappointed in its slow
    > > focussing and soft image at wide apertures. It now lives in the back

    of
    > > the cupboard until I need a lightweight lens with the range. The lens

    I
    > > lug about with me is a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO. I love the lens, and
    > > have the arm muscles to prove it :) As the previous poster says, don't
    > > expect too much from an inexpensive lens.
    > >
    > > Dennis

    >
    > That is quite a price range and unfortunately none of these lenses focus
    > really quickly.
    >
    > ~$100 Nikon 70-300 G
    > ~$200 Sigma 70-300
    > ~$300 Nikon 70-300 ED
    >
    > ~$700 Sigma 70-200 f2.8
    >
    > Now if you really want sharp at f2.8, fast and accurate the ~$1400 Nikon
    > 70-200 2.8 VR is the best lens out there for that range.
    >
    > Using 300mm on a D70 puts you at 450mm equivalent which is very hard to

    hand
    > hold to get a clean shot without a high shutter speed.
    >
    > In a Canon lineup there is a more selection among the fast focusing sharp
    > lenses. I'd have a 70-200 f4L in a heartbeat. It is very sharp even at f4
    > and fast focusing lens with a reasonably size and weight, half that of the
    > Sigma 70-200
    >
    > $550 70-200 f4 L
    > $1000 70-200 f2.8
    > $1400 70-200 f2.8 IS
    >
    >

    Thanks Mark

    That is a grand job you have done of listing the available range.
    Had cost been no object, I would have gone for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and I
    had been considering the Nikon 70-300 ED.
    In the end I decided on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and have been very happy with
    it in all respects.

    Dennis
    Dennis Bradley, Jul 21, 2004
    #10
  11. W Chan

    D.R. Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:210720040804422264%...
    > In article <YBpLc.2993$>, D.R.
    > <DR@NewZealand> wrote:
    >
    > > "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    > > news:200720042253412886%
    > > <SNIP>
    > > > It's all made together to work together...Nikon.

    > >
    > > Load o' Crap!

    >
    > You will get better results using a Nikon lens with a Nikon camera than
    > you will using a 3rd party lens.
    >
    > > Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

    >
    > The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
    > is forgotten.


    I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
    low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
    the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

    Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
    sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
    You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
    off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
    Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.
    D.R., Jul 21, 2004
    #11
  12. W Chan

    D.R. Guest

    "Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.
    > >
    > > Check out:
    > > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
    > >
    > > For Optical quality:
    > >
    > > 3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO

    >
    > How do I know is this lens?
    > It Just says APO Macro on the Barrel and it has a gold band around the
    > front.
    >
    >


    Mine is the non-APO and it has no APO written anywhere to be seen on packaging
    or the lens itself. If the one you are looking at says "APO" then it will be.
    D.R., Jul 21, 2004
    #12
  13. W Chan

    D.R. Guest

    "D.R." <DR@NewZealand> wrote in message
    news:iYBLc.3203$...
    >
    > "Thomas" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > > Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.
    > > >
    > > > Check out:
    > > > http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
    > > >
    > > > For Optical quality:
    > > >
    > > > 3.21 out of 5 = Sigma 70-300mm. Macro Super II APO

    > >
    > > How do I know is this lens?
    > > It Just says APO Macro on the Barrel and it has a gold band around the
    > > front.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Mine is the non-APO and it has no APO written anywhere to be seen on packaging
    > or the lens itself. If the one you are looking at says "APO" then it will be.
    >


    Some images taken with my lens (all except the third image):
    http://radel.inet.net.nz/photography/people.html

    and:
    http://radel.inet.net.nz/photography/macro.html

    Scanned with a cheapie scanner.

    I am no "photographer" as such, and I risk humiliation by Mr Ainsworth for even
    showing these here. But here you go.

    You can get much sharper lenses than this, but more $$$$$....

    D.R.
    D.R., Jul 21, 2004
    #13
  14. > Thanks Mark
    >
    > That is a grand job you have done of listing the available range.
    > Had cost been no object, I would have gone for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and

    I
    > had been considering the Nikon 70-300 ED.
    > In the end I decided on the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and have been very happy

    with
    > it in all respects.
    >
    > Dennis


    I've heard good things about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, but my understanding is
    that you need to stop it down to f4 before it is sharp and it is slow to
    focus. Still many are a fan of that lens.

    This site has some reasonable reviews of lenses by lens owners.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

    Here is a good link for Canon lens reviews.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml
    Mark Kovalcson, Jul 22, 2004
    #14
  15. W Chan

    Sander Vesik Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. <DR@newzealand> wrote:
    >
    > I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
    > low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
    > the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.
    >
    > Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
    > sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
    > You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
    > off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
    > Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.
    >


    OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week or
    be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
    i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
    Sander Vesik, Jul 22, 2004
    #15
  16. W Chan

    D.R. Guest

    "Sander Vesik" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. <DR@newzealand> wrote:
    > >
    > > I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with

    such a
    > > low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and

    that
    > > the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.
    > >
    > > Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
    > > sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of

    5.
    > > You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are

    better
    > > off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron

    lens.
    > > Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the

    price.
    > >

    >
    > OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week

    or
    > be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
    > i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.


    That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
    sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.
    D.R., Jul 22, 2004
    #16
  17. W Chan

    Sander Vesik Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. <DR@newzealand> wrote:
    >
    > That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
    > sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.
    >


    Yeah, but you know, it grows very old very fast. I'd rather use lens where
    such is not a *systematic* problem.

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
    Sander Vesik, Jul 25, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    10,382
  2. canon 70-300 v. tamron 28-300

    , Nov 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,083
    Steve Dell
    Dec 24, 2004
  3. Clyde Torres
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    560
    GadgetChap
    Apr 15, 2005
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Tamron 75-300 Vs Tamron 70-300

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    488
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 6, 2005
  5. -dad
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    536
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Nov 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page