Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Which?

Going away for a week. When I come back I think I will be buying either the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro or the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II both are £599.
I'd be grateful for opinions on both. Which should I buy?

Having used both my vote has been for the Tamron, but I think it's largely down to personal preference re handling etc. as they're both pretty good. The Sigma feels more of a beast than the Tamron for handholding. The HSM is obviously a plus for a bit extra speed, and quietness, but the Tamron is'nt actually that slow to af compared with many other lenses - just not superfast. I prefer the shape and weight of the Tamron but I've seen reviews where it's slated for its shape. Difficult decision but best to handle both.

I have the Sigma (but a pre-HSM version) and it's excellent.

I think that the HSM version is slightly less sharp, but both it and the Tamron are still pretty good. I only bought it over the Tamron as I found a copy in good shape first (and also have a Sigma 24-70/2.8 which I am really pleased with).

I'm afraid that the best advice I can offer is the standard line of comparing samples on teh web to see which you prefer. In my case, I did this and concluded that my skills as a photographer would be the limiting factor on either choice!

Definitely the Tamron, as while the Sigma is modern, with O.I.S. and internal focusing motor, the sharpness of the Sigma is not the best. That's what the DPReview test crew concluded, and I must say I never have regretted following their advice, so I did.

Used mine for photographing wilde roses Yesterday, and as usual, nothing to complain about. Rather the reverse. Of my zoom teles this is the one I use most (I also have a two Sigmas, the 120-400 & the 150-500 - of which the latter is far better in my book, unless you're talking 120-200, as that's the strong end of the 120-400).

I've used my 70-200 for airshows, bird photography, public events, and as a macro - it has always come out just fine. Compares well with my wife's FA77 in the wide end, and runs circles around the Sigmas I have, except, maybe at its very long end. And that it is a constant aperature design makes it so much nicer (Sigma's 70-200 is similar in that respect, but optically inferior)!

But if you need VR, SR, OIS, or whatever you call it, Sigma is the one for you!

Look for a used MKI Sigma APO. (Should have bought the one I was selling a few weeks ago).

Very hard to find so if you can't wait then I would probably go for the Tamron.

I have been thinking about the two for a while now. Decided on the Tamron. Will be going to SRS tomorrow and try both lenses ( just a feel factor )and buy it.

I have the tamron and really like it use it a lot, very sharp

[IMG]http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa349/nipper2/IMGP0447_hf_hf.jpg[/IMG]

Well back from my break. Thanks for all the comments. Given the views on here the Tamron clearly seems to be the one to go for. Have also checked the reviews of the older Sigma as per Mike's post. Wish I'd had the cash when he was selling.

Might hang on a little while and see what becomes available 2nd hand. Although if I wait too long the boss will spend the money on something else

Just an update.

I've gone via an expensive route. I've got the f2.8 I wanted by buying a new 50-135 and got the focal length I wanted by buying John's 60-250 from ebay.

Silent focusing was the advantage over the Tamron. Also got the weather sealing.

Ah so what you need now is the 1.5x teleconverter I am selling on the forum. Works great with the 50-135mm & 60-250mm

Ha Ha - you always sell things when I've just maxed out

I stumbled across another Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 MKI a couple of days ago .. it is in the post to me right now.

I Shouldn't have sold it to begin with.

What other lenses do you have as I found that there are potentially major differences between brands - such as the positions of the controls and, worse, the manual focus rings turn in the opposite direction, which can be very disconcerting when you are swopping lenses about.

I tried some other, earlier, Tamrons, and I found this to be a problem as I am used to Sigmas. I also found the Tamron had "stickier" manual focusing mechanisms.

As you may guess, my preference is for Sigma - and I am with Mike-P on the subject of the early non-HSM Sigma 70-200 F2.8. My is s/h, bought about 3yrs ago from Mifsuds, and it's so sharp - I love it! (only used less now that I have the 100-300mm F4 and use that for airshows - but that is a far more unweildly beast, and much less "fun" to use)

Therefore I would take some of these factors into consideration when choosing a lens

I always take the 50-500mm to airshows, infact the 100-300mm f4 very rarely gets used at all which is a shame as it's a also a superb lens.

I must say Sigma have made some cracking lenses in their time .. and some real dogs

Thought about one of the longer Sigma zooms, but because I am getting on a bit (64 in Oct) the sheer weight of these would be too much for me to lug around and then use. I can certainly feel the difference between the 70-200 with the 1.4xTC, and the 100-300 without it

As well as the difference in size/weight, the main advantage (to me!) of the 100-300 over the 70-200+TC is that the manual focus ring on the 100-300 is easier to grasp than that of the 70-200 because the TC on that moves the ring further away from the camera body, and so I have to shift my left hand to focus it.

I also realised (last Sunday at Dunsfold) that I am just not quick enough and accurate enough nowadays to point anything longer than the 100-300 at a fast moving aircraft and then actually keep it in the frame without cropping the nose or the tail off! . So 100-300 is as about as "long" as I will go!