Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
8 Likes  
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Battle of the older telephotos
Posted By: JinDesu, 09-17-2014, 01:10 PM

My friend recently told me that he was planning to sell his Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II lens, and I saw an opportunity to borrow it to make a comparison review before he sold it off. And thus, a long and arduous task of trying to keep everything comparable begun.

The lenses:


Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Link to PF's user reviews/specifications (Not to be confused with the most recent Sigma 70-200 iteration)

Tamron 70-200 F2.8 - Link to PF's user reviews/specifications

My full album of sample shots and comparisons. Includes full size image links shot on the k-3 (24MP)

Physical comparisons

The Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is surprisingly longer than the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM II. I always thought the Tamron was the smallest of the bunch, compared to Sigma, Canon, Nikon, and even Pentax. That being said, the Tamron comes in at 200g less than the Sigma (and that weight can be seen in the girth).

The Sigma has the older crinkle finish. It felt quite solid, and the zoom and focus rings were smooth. The focus ring was especially nice to use in comparison to the Tamron, which has a AF/MF clutch by shifting the focus ring forwards and backwards. In addition, the manual focus of the Tamron had a little more friction and was not as enjoyable. The Tamron has a deeper/longer/more substantial hood, and I believe that it is a better hood. It certainly gives the lens a better look when compared side to side:



Both lenses have 77mm front elements that are non-rotating or extending. The lenses are (as typical of lenses in this class) internal focus and internal zoom. They both mounted nice and tight on my k-3, and I felt no wobble in any way on either lens. Both lenses have the classic positioning of zoom ring closer to the body, and focus ring closer to the front. This was changed in the most recent iteration of the Sigma, where the focus ring and the zoom rings swapped (I assume for faster autofocus).



On both lenses, the hoods are reversible and help with storing the lens. There aren't any discernible differences between the tripod feet. Both tripod feet rings have markings to indicate 90 degree positions, and the knobs are easy to use and tighten. I had no issues mounting either lens onto my tripod, and the feet stayed on nicely even when shifting the lens around.



I will comment that both Tamron and Sigma makes some really terribly difficult to use rear caps. Tamron's requires you to align the correct dot before turning. Sigma's turns the other way. Pentax's rear caps are significantly easier to use and I would go get myself a bunch of those just to replace the OEM ones from Sigma and Tamron.

Since the Tamron is my lens, I can comment on durability. I have used the lens since 2011 and it has continued to chug along. I had one scary spell when the lens had some issues autofocusing (I took it on a flight to Malaysia), and I couldn't solve the reason. After a month, the issue went away and the lens performance never changed. I've dinged it many times and the body is extremely resilient. It is super susceptible to dust, so there's quite a lot inside - but I never noticed any optical issues caused by the dust. So now that it is late 2014, the only problem I have is that the hood quick-connect mechanism is a bit loose and the lens hood does not stay on as tightly. I assume it's loosened on the hood itself and not on the lens hood-ring.

Autofocus performance:

Well, here is where people would assume that Tamron would lose out to the Sigma. From my experience with both lenses, I would disagree. I didn't do much of an AF test as I don't have the tools to make a consistent and repeatable test, so this section is just my opinion.

My first camera was the Pentax k-x, and I used my Tamron 70-200 on that camera until this year when I got a k-3. On the k-x, it was somewhat slow to focus - a person walking towards me would be a difficult shot to get. On everything else, the lens focused well (with a little adjustment).

Fast forward to now, and on my k-3 the Tamron is fantastic. I can track people walking towards me, birds flying towards and perpendicular to me, and I can lock onto a target very quick. It's noisier than the Sigma of course (microadjustments is quiet, but racking from near to far and vice versa is loud enough to disturb animals), but it is by no means slow. And on the k-3, it barely hunts. I've shot in bright and dim conditions, and the Tamron is a new beast with the k-3.

The Sigma is no slouch on the k-3 either. Everyone knows of how the Sigma HSM is better than Pentax's SDM (or at least, that's the note I gather from this forum) - and I will admit, my Sigma 50 F1.4 HSM was faster focusing and had less hunting than my DA*55 F1.4. The Sigma was quick to focus and very silent. I sometimes wouldn't know if it actually performed the microadjustment, because there was no sound. When it hunts, it hunts very quickly (the image just goes in and out of focus so fast). It is fast enough for tracking a person walking towards me, and the limitation is mostly the k-3.

So for both lenses, I would say the AF is mostly equal in speed and consistency, with the edge going to the Sigma for quietness.

Bokeh!All my photos were edited for brightness and white balance only - I tried to get the white balance similar so that it doesn't bias anyone when dealing with sharpness. No sharpening was added to the images - but I did increase the clarity a little (on par with what I do for all my photos). All shots were processed in Lightroom 5.0.
So I am going to start with bokeh first, because the lens resolution section is long and arduous, and anyone who finishes through it is going to be too tired to look at anything else.

My impression after having looked at both lenses is that the Tamron has a marginally better bokeh overall, but the two of them create very smooth backgrounds that it doesn't really make a difference which lens to use. Their effect on specular highlights is not unpleasing, and at 200mm they make the background melt into a blur. This may be surprising as the Tamron is highly touted for bokeh, but the Sigma isn't often mentioned. I know that my DA*55 F1.4 had better bokeh than my Sigma 50 F1.4, but in the 70-200 - the bokeh is lovely and I don't really have any issues with it.

Tamron:




Sigma:





Full size link: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3865/15264094812_cb54ae826f_o.jpg

Please see the album linked in the beginning for more bokeh samples.

Flare performance:

I tried to get the flare performance test to be the same framing for both lenses, but the Sigma (I think) changes the frame a little because it is slightly shorter than the Tamron. As such, the flare performance test is shorter and less comprehensive compared to the rest.

My opinion from the test is that the Tamron performs remarkably better on flare. In all scenarios, the Tamron either had less flare, or less distracting flare. I attribute it partly to the hood and to the better coatings perhaps.

Tamron (first) and Sigma (second) at 70mm F2.8:



Tamron (first) and Sigma (second) at 200mm F2.8:



Please see the album linked in the beginning for more flare samples.

Image Quality

And now we come to the section that most people (or at least, in my head) care about. Now to preface this section, I did this just for fun and I do not have all the tools to make perfect comparisons between the lenses. For one, the Tamron focuses closer than the Sigma, and for another, the Sigma has a tendency to frame a little more at the same camera distance. So I did my best to keep everything as similar as possible, and I know I made one or two focus mistakes in the whole set. Also, I didn't bother doing corner/edge performance because I don't have a subject flat enough to do that.

When doing this test, while there are some differences between the lenses wide open, they pretty much evened up by F4 at any aperture/focal length. By F5.6, they were pretty much equal and I would say both lenses are extremely sharp. I know that my Tamron 70-200 is sharp enough to resolve pores on half body portraits, so it's definitely sharp enough for my use. For a professional environment, I find both lenses sharp enough to get the job done (unless you want to compare it to a prime, but that's a different animal).

At F2.8 and their sharpest focal lengths, I would say that both lenses resolve as much detail as my DA*55 F1.4 when stopped down to F2. They are definitely not lacking in detail.

I will break down the comparisons into three parts. In each part, I will show the test image and a link to the full size image for perusal, because I can't link full size images to PF. The test image is a side by side comparison of center 100% crops. The full images are on my flickr in the album as linked at the beginning of this post. Each image has a full size link in the comments, so I am presenting everything up to scrutiny (including how dusty my area is).

Close focus (minimum FD for Sigma, close to minimum FD for Tamron)
At 70mm-135mm, I find the Tamron to have an edge over the Sigma at F2.8. They even out around F5.6. The difference is noticeable, but the Sigma isn't bad. At 200mm, the Tamron's performance drops significantly, introducing a lot of bloom. I attribute bloom to lack of contrast, and the hood not being size for 200mm (otherwise it'll vignette). As far as sharpness goes, the Sigma will win this round, but they both equalize around F4, and become very sharp at F5.6.

This test is also where I think I got the Tamron 200mm F2.8 focus slightly off, which can make a big difference. On the other hand, at minimum focal distance - the Tamron was always a little weak in my experience.


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/15264095392_a9ef9014a1_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5586/15077915917_623b71c6ec_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5572/15264486505_9f400e0816_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/15077915667_d99a46151c_o.jpg

Medium focus distance (About 12', or good for portraits)
At the medium focus distance, the IQ of the lenses followed a similar pattern to the close focus shots. From 70-135mm at F2.8, the Tamron is sharper at the center than the Sigma. At 70mm, the Sigma gets an edge at F4, but then they both tie up at F5.6. From 100-135mm, the Sigma ties up at F4. At 200mm F2.8, the Tamron and Sigma look about equal in performance. The Sigma shows a bit more contrast, but I don't think it's resolving more. By F4, they are both very sharp. I would say that at 200mm, the Sigma has an edge overall from F2.8-F8, while the Tamron wins out similarly at 135mm.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5565/15077782140_b11be2a045_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3866/15077917077_a665f5fe4f_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5558/15264096262_9b889b5ea0_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3852/15261389501_dea802a07f_o.jpg

Semi-far focus distance (About 22-24', or where I take pictures of animals and stuff)
In the semi-far distance test, I found the Tamron to start outperforming the Sigma wide open at all focal lengths. i skipped the 100mm focal length in this test, but I could see a clear difference between the Tamron and the Sigma at F2.8 in the 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm range. The Sigma ties up around F4, but I would give the general edge to the Tamron at 70mm and 200mm, and the Sigma wins a little at 135mm.


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/15241474896_8cefb225d7_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15264487095_2c24aaa0b2_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3909/15264486785_f05a34106e_o.jpg

Infinity focus distance (About infinity, or where I take pictures of far away things)
I didn't take this test. I didn't really have a location where I could set up and do a consistent test in this range. I apologize for my laziness, but I think the above tests give a good indication of what the lenses can do. In addition, I've shot infinity shots with my Tamron before, and I find that the atmospheric aberrations and the heat effects do way more to the image than the lens will. Also, people don't tend to take infinity shots with these lenses at F2.8, so it may be a moot point anyways.

REMEMBER, EACH SAMPLE SHOT IS FOLLOWED BY A FULL SIZE LINK. THE SAMPLE SHOTS WERE SCALED DOWN TO BE POSTED ON PF.

Chromatic Aberrations/Coma/Vignetting
I must apologize that I do not have a way to test for CA/coma easily. Neither lens showed much CA in my testing, with the exception of LoCA in the OOF areas. As far as vignetting goes, I have not been bothered by either lens. Cycling between the photos in my Flickr album will give an example of how the vignetting shows up, but I didn't have a large flat white wall to do the test with.

Conclusion (i.e. which one is better?)
Well, I don't know. The Tamron is priced at $769 at B&H right now, and used is typically $450-500. The Sigma isn't even on B&H anymore for Pentax, and was replaced with a newer APO EX DG version that is also not available in stores for Pentax. The newer version is said to be sharper than the HSM II, and the retail price was around $1199 when I last saw it. The HSM II version was probably that price before it got replaced, and I see it used at around $800 now. So IQ/value wise, the Tamron definitely wins. Its sharpness practically the same (wins some, loses some) to the Sigma, but at $300-500 less it is a bargain. It's also the cheapest of the 70-200s, and from everything I've read on this forum, it and the Sigma are amongst the top performing.

I've used the Tamron for 3 years now and I always enjoy using it. It has a nice solid body, it has fast AF on my k-3, it hasn't let me down yet, and Tamron gives a nice 6 year warranty (I think Sigma is 2 years for non-EX, and 4 years for EX lenses). The Sigma's good points are the silent autofocus and the smoother focus/zoom rings. If I had the money to spend, I would go with the Sigma for the silent autofocus. Or even for the newer version, which is supposed to be sharper. If I were on a budget, or I didn't care about silent autofocus, the Tamron would be a sure buy for me.

Of course, there's also the DA*50-135, DA*60-250, the Tokina 80-200 F2.8 ATX, the Pentax FA*80-200 F2.8, and the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 EX DG HSM. There is a Pentax official review of the FA*, the newer Sigma (APO EX DG), and the Tamron at this link, but it doesn't provide much info on the image quality. To me, I think all these lenses will have similar sharpness and the overall difference is the features and handling.

Let me know if there are any questions and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. I am limited by the fact that I had returned the Sigma to my friend for him to sell.

Also for convenience, so you don't need to scroll all the way back up, the link to the album is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jindesu/sets/72157647685646442/

Last edited by JinDesu; 09-17-2014 at 02:11 PM.
Views: 29,596
09-19-2014, 02:21 PM   #16
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,092
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Yes, that's right, except the 'Open in DxO' should for clarity say 'Open in DxO from within LR'. DxO works very well as a LR plug-in now.
True, I wasn't clear on that. Thanks for info, I'll keep it in mind.

09-20-2014, 09:41 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Overland Park, Ks.
Posts: 6
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
My friend recently told me that he was planning to sell his Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II lens, and I saw an opportunity to borrow it to make a comparison review before he sold it off. And thus, a long and arduous task of trying to keep everything comparable begun.

The lenses:


Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Link to PF's user reviews/specifications (Not to be confused with the most recent Sigma 70-200 iteration)

Tamron 70-200 F2.8 - Link to PF's user reviews/specifications

My full album of sample shots and comparisons. Includes full size image links shot on the k-3 (24MP)

Physical comparisons

The Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is surprisingly longer than the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM II. I always thought the Tamron was the smallest of the bunch, compared to Sigma, Canon, Nikon, and even Pentax. That being said, the Tamron comes in at 200g less than the Sigma (and that weight can be seen in the girth).

The Sigma has the older crinkle finish. It felt quite solid, and the zoom and focus rings were smooth. The focus ring was especially nice to use in comparison to the Tamron, which has a AF/MF clutch by shifting the focus ring forwards and backwards. In addition, the manual focus of the Tamron had a little more friction and was not as enjoyable. The Tamron has a deeper/longer/more substantial hood, and I believe that it is a better hood. It certainly gives the lens a better look when compared side to side:



Both lenses have 77mm front elements that are non-rotating or extending. The lenses are (as typical of lenses in this class) internal focus and internal zoom. They both mounted nice and tight on my k-3, and I felt no wobble in any way on either lens. Both lenses have the classic positioning of zoom ring closer to the body, and focus ring closer to the front. This was changed in the most recent iteration of the Sigma, where the focus ring and the zoom rings swapped (I assume for faster autofocus).



On both lenses, the hoods are reversible and help with storing the lens. There aren't any discernible differences between the tripod feet. Both tripod feet rings have markings to indicate 90 degree positions, and the knobs are easy to use and tighten. I had no issues mounting either lens onto my tripod, and the feet stayed on nicely even when shifting the lens around.



I will comment that both Tamron and Sigma makes some really terribly difficult to use rear caps. Tamron's requires you to align the correct dot before turning. Sigma's turns the other way. Pentax's rear caps are significantly easier to use and I would go get myself a bunch of those just to replace the OEM ones from Sigma and Tamron.

Since the Tamron is my lens, I can comment on durability. I have used the lens since 2011 and it has continued to chug along. I had one scary spell when the lens had some issues autofocusing (I took it on a flight to Malaysia), and I couldn't solve the reason. After a month, the issue went away and the lens performance never changed. I've dinged it many times and the body is extremely resilient. It is super susceptible to dust, so there's quite a lot inside - but I never noticed any optical issues caused by the dust. So now that it is late 2014, the only problem I have is that the hood quick-connect mechanism is a bit loose and the lens hood does not stay on as tightly. I assume it's loosened on the hood itself and not on the lens hood-ring.

Autofocus performance:

Well, here is where people would assume that Tamron would lose out to the Sigma. From my experience with both lenses, I would disagree. I didn't do much of an AF test as I don't have the tools to make a consistent and repeatable test, so this section is just my opinion.

My first camera was the Pentax k-x, and I used my Tamron 70-200 on that camera until this year when I got a k-3. On the k-x, it was somewhat slow to focus - a person walking towards me would be a difficult shot to get. On everything else, the lens focused well (with a little adjustment).

Fast forward to now, and on my k-3 the Tamron is fantastic. I can track people walking towards me, birds flying towards and perpendicular to me, and I can lock onto a target very quick. It's noisier than the Sigma of course (microadjustments is quiet, but racking from near to far and vice versa is loud enough to disturb animals), but it is by no means slow. And on the k-3, it barely hunts. I've shot in bright and dim conditions, and the Tamron is a new beast with the k-3.

The Sigma is no slouch on the k-3 either. Everyone knows of how the Sigma HSM is better than Pentax's SDM (or at least, that's the note I gather from this forum) - and I will admit, my Sigma 50 F1.4 HSM was faster focusing and had less hunting than my DA*55 F1.4. The Sigma was quick to focus and very silent. I sometimes wouldn't know if it actually performed the microadjustment, because there was no sound. When it hunts, it hunts very quickly (the image just goes in and out of focus so fast). It is fast enough for tracking a person walking towards me, and the limitation is mostly the k-3.

So for both lenses, I would say the AF is mostly equal in speed and consistency, with the edge going to the Sigma for quietness.

Bokeh!All my photos were edited for brightness and white balance only - I tried to get the white balance similar so that it doesn't bias anyone when dealing with sharpness. No sharpening was added to the images - but I did increase the clarity a little (on par with what I do for all my photos). All shots were processed in Lightroom 5.0.
So I am going to start with bokeh first, because the lens resolution section is long and arduous, and anyone who finishes through it is going to be too tired to look at anything else.

My impression after having looked at both lenses is that the Tamron has a marginally better bokeh overall, but the two of them create very smooth backgrounds that it doesn't really make a difference which lens to use. Their effect on specular highlights is not unpleasing, and at 200mm they make the background melt into a blur. This may be surprising as the Tamron is highly touted for bokeh, but the Sigma isn't often mentioned. I know that my DA*55 F1.4 had better bokeh than my Sigma 50 F1.4, but in the 70-200 - the bokeh is lovely and I don't really have any issues with it.

Tamron:




Sigma:





Full size link: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3865/15264094812_cb54ae826f_o.jpg

Please see the album linked in the beginning for more bokeh samples.

Flare performance:

I tried to get the flare performance test to be the same framing for both lenses, but the Sigma (I think) changes the frame a little because it is slightly shorter than the Tamron. As such, the flare performance test is shorter and less comprehensive compared to the rest.

My opinion from the test is that the Tamron performs remarkably better on flare. In all scenarios, the Tamron either had less flare, or less distracting flare. I attribute it partly to the hood and to the better coatings perhaps.

Tamron (first) and Sigma (second) at 70mm F2.8:



Tamron (first) and Sigma (second) at 200mm F2.8:



Please see the album linked in the beginning for more flare samples.

Image Quality

And now we come to the section that most people (or at least, in my head) care about. Now to preface this section, I did this just for fun and I do not have all the tools to make perfect comparisons between the lenses. For one, the Tamron focuses closer than the Sigma, and for another, the Sigma has a tendency to frame a little more at the same camera distance. So I did my best to keep everything as similar as possible, and I know I made one or two focus mistakes in the whole set. Also, I didn't bother doing corner/edge performance because I don't have a subject flat enough to do that.

When doing this test, while there are some differences between the lenses wide open, they pretty much evened up by F4 at any aperture/focal length. By F5.6, they were pretty much equal and I would say both lenses are extremely sharp. I know that my Tamron 70-200 is sharp enough to resolve pores on half body portraits, so it's definitely sharp enough for my use. For a professional environment, I find both lenses sharp enough to get the job done (unless you want to compare it to a prime, but that's a different animal).

At F2.8 and their sharpest focal lengths, I would say that both lenses resolve as much detail as my DA*55 F1.4 when stopped down to F2. They are definitely not lacking in detail.

I will break down the comparisons into three parts. In each part, I will show the test image and a link to the full size image for perusal, because I can't link full size images to PF. The test image is a side by side comparison of center 100% crops. The full images are on my flickr in the album as linked at the beginning of this post. Each image has a full size link in the comments, so I am presenting everything up to scrutiny (including how dusty my area is).

Close focus (minimum FD for Sigma, close to minimum FD for Tamron)
At 70mm-135mm, I find the Tamron to have an edge over the Sigma at F2.8. They even out around F5.6. The difference is noticeable, but the Sigma isn't bad. At 200mm, the Tamron's performance drops significantly, introducing a lot of bloom. I attribute bloom to lack of contrast, and the hood not being size for 200mm (otherwise it'll vignette). As far as sharpness goes, the Sigma will win this round, but they both equalize around F4, and become very sharp at F5.6.

This test is also where I think I got the Tamron 200mm F2.8 focus slightly off, which can make a big difference. On the other hand, at minimum focal distance - the Tamron was always a little weak in my experience.


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3836/15264095392_a9ef9014a1_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5586/15077915917_623b71c6ec_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5572/15264486505_9f400e0816_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/15077915667_d99a46151c_o.jpg

Medium focus distance (About 12', or good for portraits)
At the medium focus distance, the IQ of the lenses followed a similar pattern to the close focus shots. From 70-135mm at F2.8, the Tamron is sharper at the center than the Sigma. At 70mm, the Sigma gets an edge at F4, but then they both tie up at F5.6. From 100-135mm, the Sigma ties up at F4. At 200mm F2.8, the Tamron and Sigma look about equal in performance. The Sigma shows a bit more contrast, but I don't think it's resolving more. By F4, they are both very sharp. I would say that at 200mm, the Sigma has an edge overall from F2.8-F8, while the Tamron wins out similarly at 135mm.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5565/15077782140_b11be2a045_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3866/15077917077_a665f5fe4f_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5558/15264096262_9b889b5ea0_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3852/15261389501_dea802a07f_o.jpg

Semi-far focus distance (About 22-24', or where I take pictures of animals and stuff)
In the semi-far distance test, I found the Tamron to start outperforming the Sigma wide open at all focal lengths. i skipped the 100mm focal length in this test, but I could see a clear difference between the Tamron and the Sigma at F2.8 in the 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm range. The Sigma ties up around F4, but I would give the general edge to the Tamron at 70mm and 200mm, and the Sigma wins a little at 135mm.


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/15241474896_8cefb225d7_o.jpg


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5553/15264487095_2c24aaa0b2_o.jpg


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3909/15264486785_f05a34106e_o.jpg

Infinity focus distance (About infinity, or where I take pictures of far away things)
I didn't take this test. I didn't really have a location where I could set up and do a consistent test in this range. I apologize for my laziness, but I think the above tests give a good indication of what the lenses can do. In addition, I've shot infinity shots with my Tamron before, and I find that the atmospheric aberrations and the heat effects do way more to the image than the lens will. Also, people don't tend to take infinity shots with these lenses at F2.8, so it may be a moot point anyways.

REMEMBER, EACH SAMPLE SHOT IS FOLLOWED BY A FULL SIZE LINK. THE SAMPLE SHOTS WERE SCALED DOWN TO BE POSTED ON PF.

Chromatic Aberrations/Coma/Vignetting
I must apologize that I do not have a way to test for CA/coma easily. Neither lens showed much CA in my testing, with the exception of LoCA in the OOF areas. As far as vignetting goes, I have not been bothered by either lens. Cycling between the photos in my Flickr album will give an example of how the vignetting shows up, but I didn't have a large flat white wall to do the test with.

Conclusion (i.e. which one is better?)
Well, I don't know. The Tamron is priced at $769 at B&H right now, and used is typically $450-500. The Sigma isn't even on B&H anymore for Pentax, and was replaced with a newer APO EX DG version that is also not available in stores for Pentax. The newer version is said to be sharper than the HSM II, and the retail price was around $1199 when I last saw it. The HSM II version was probably that price before it got replaced, and I see it used at around $800 now. So IQ/value wise, the Tamron definitely wins. Its sharpness practically the same (wins some, loses some) to the Sigma, but at $300-500 less it is a bargain. It's also the cheapest of the 70-200s, and from everything I've read on this forum, it and the Sigma are amongst the top performing.

I've used the Tamron for 3 years now and I always enjoy using it. It has a nice solid body, it has fast AF on my k-3, it hasn't let me down yet, and Tamron gives a nice 6 year warranty (I think Sigma is 2 years for non-EX, and 4 years for EX lenses). The Sigma's good points are the silent autofocus and the smoother focus/zoom rings. If I had the money to spend, I would go with the Sigma for the silent autofocus. Or even for the newer version, which is supposed to be sharper. If I were on a budget, or I didn't care about silent autofocus, the Tamron would be a sure buy for me.

Of course, there's also the DA*50-135, DA*60-250, the Tokina 80-200 F2.8 ATX, the Pentax FA*80-200 F2.8, and the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 EX DG HSM. There is a Pentax official review of the FA*, the newer Sigma (APO EX DG), and the Tamron at this link, but it doesn't provide much info on the image quality. To me, I think all these lenses will have similar sharpness and the overall difference is the features and handling.

Let me know if there are any questions and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. I am limited by the fact that I had returned the Sigma to my friend for him to sell.

Also for convenience, so you don't need to scroll all the way back up, the link to the album is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jindesu/sets/72157647685646442/
Thanks so much for this comparison. I have been looking at these lenses to photo grandkids sports(high school and middle school), both indoors and outdoors with my K50. I would really like to buy the Tamron because: price and it's much more easily found to buy. But I have been a little reluctant because of comments about slow AF. I am taking from these comments that, with a newer Pentax, like my K50, the Tamron maybe less quiet (not important for sports), but close enough in AF speed to not make a difference. Can I put those words in your mouth?
Thanks,again, for this very helpful posts and following comments. JW
09-20-2014, 10:21 AM - 1 Like   #18
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 2put Quote
Thanks so much for this comparison. I have been looking at these lenses to photo grandkids sports(high school and middle school), both indoors and outdoors with my K50. I would really like to buy the Tamron because: price and it's much more easily found to buy. But I have been a little reluctant because of comments about slow AF. I am taking from these comments that, with a newer Pentax, like my K50, the Tamron maybe less quiet (not important for sports), but close enough in AF speed to not make a difference. Can I put those words in your mouth?
Thanks,again, for this very helpful posts and following comments. JW
Hi,

I have a k-30 and a k-3. The k-30's AF is closer to your k-50. I just did a quick indoor test between the two bodies, and the k-3 is significantly faster. The k-30 would not be quick enough for sports if you are shooting people traveling towards and away from you. In that case, the Sigma may be the better choice.

I have shot events before with my k-x and the Tamron 70-200 where the subjects were traveling side to side, and not so much towards/away from me. In those cases, the Tamron was sufficient - my k-x wasn't as consistent in focus, but I know the k-30/k-50 is better than my k-x in that respect.
09-20-2014, 05:24 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,235
Very nice comparison.
The original Sigma 70-200 is said to be even better than the HSM one.

09-22-2014, 03:46 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 809
Very nice job with the review. I found your review matches my experience with the two lenses.
  • The AF speed is very close. Some people think because the Sigma is silent that it is faster
  • The Tamron is significantly sharper wide open
  • The sweetspot for the Sigma is around 135 mm

I chose to keep the Sigma because I liked the silent AF, and it felt more professional to me. I liked the weight and the finish much better. It felt like a much higher quality lens. The Tamron is definitely cheaper feeling. If you don't mind the noisy AF, having much sharper results wide open with the Tamron is very important with a lens like this. I try to stay away from 2.8 with my Sigma, and that is a big disadvantage.
09-24-2014, 03:17 PM   #21
Pentaxian
cxdoo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Limassol, Cyprus
Posts: 1,092
Here is a Tamron shot wide open. Looks pretty sharp to me though I tend to stay away from 2.8 as DOF is rather shallow.




And another one with no so smooth bokeh...

09-24-2014, 04:21 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,625
As far as AF focusing speeds, it seems that the Tamron has a longer focus throw which might account for the slightly longer focusing times.
09-26-2014, 05:44 AM   #23
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cxdoo Quote
Here is a Tamron shot wide open. Looks pretty sharp to me though I tend to stay away from 2.8 as DOF is rather shallow.




And another one with no so smooth bokeh...
The second shot shows smooth bokeh. It's just a busy background.

QuoteOriginally posted by Stavri Quote
As far as AF focusing speeds, it seems that the Tamron has a longer focus throw which might account for the slightly longer focusing times.
Tamron 70-200 vs Sigma 70-200 Focusing Speed Comparison - YouTube
That could be true - but the Tamron is significantly slower on any camera besides the k-3. It's a visible and audible difference. On the k-3, the Tamron came quite closer to the Sigma. And as another user mentioned, the silent AF on the Sigma may give the impression of faster autofocus, because it starts and ends so smoothly.

Also - with the Tamron's focus ring in manual mode, it slows down also - as it will grip the focus ring and spin that also. Just a tidbit.

09-29-2014, 09:51 AM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I compared AF on the K-5, found the Tamron just as fast as the SIgma. Should've taken data, sorry, I did not.
09-29-2014, 10:58 AM   #25
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I compared AF on the K-5, found the Tamron just as fast as the SIgma. Should've taken data, sorry, I did not.
It's ok - it may be that the k-5's screwdrive is better than the k-30 (which isn't unreasonable). My statement may be a little too broad. But that being said, the k-3 is a step above all others with the screwdrive.
09-29-2014, 08:11 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,625
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
It's ok - it may be that the k-5's screwdrive is better than the k-30 (which isn't unreasonable). My statement may be a little too broad. But that being said, the k-3 is a step above all others with the screwdrive.
Jin forgot to ask, between the Tammy and the Siggy which one did you end up keeping?
09-29-2014, 08:15 PM   #27
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Stavri Quote
Jin forgot to ask, between the Tammy and the Siggy which one did you end up keeping?
The Sigma was my friend's. He offered to let me keep the Sigma and he'll sell the Tamron instead, but the Tamron's resale value was much lower so I didn't want to put him through that.

If I owned both, I would have chosen to get a DA*60-250
But I do like my Tamron better, overall.
09-29-2014, 08:29 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Stavri's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: at a Bean & Leaf
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,625
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
The Sigma was my friend's. He offered to let me keep the Sigma and he'll sell the Tamron instead, but the Tamron's resale value was much lower so I didn't want to put him through that.

If I owned both, I would have chosen to get a DA*60-250
But I do like my Tamron better, overall.
If one likes the Pentax rendering ( who doesnt) you cannot go wrong with the Tamron. On a side note a few days ago, perhaps due to word of mouth and the diligence of reviewers like you Jin, i saw a used Tamron 70-200mm sell for just over $600 on Ebay. (I for one was happy to see it sell for Sigma prices)
09-29-2014, 08:37 PM   #29
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
Original Poster
Mine has a few issues that would reduce it's resale. Nothing that impairs my use of it, so I'll happily continue using it until the new DA* telezoom comes out. It really is a fantastic lens for the price.
09-29-2014, 10:21 PM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
No way I would sell my Tamron for less than $600. It's a bargain at $600. It gets bad reviews at non-Pentax sites because the screwdrive is so slow on Nikons and Canons.

I tried a copy on a Nikon D7000 and it was three-legged-dog-slow.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f2.8, focus, hsm, image, k-3, lens, lenses, sigma, tamron, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 70-200 F2.8 II apo ex dg macro hsm terihanright Sold Items 3 11-22-2013 01:06 PM
Sigma - 70-200/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM IF **** VS ****70-200/2.8 EX DG II APO Macro HSM lightningthief Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 10-19-2012 01:46 AM
Considering the Sigma 70-200mm 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II sbluems Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-22-2010 10:15 AM
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM Peter Zack Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 60 01-02-2008 06:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top