Using Tamron 70-200 2.8 or Sigma 70-200 2.8 for video work

B

bronxjragon

Well-known member
Hey everyone, I've been really juggling between getting either the Tamron 70-200 2.8 or Sigma 70-200 2.8 for some specific shots for film work, but also might as well get a nice lens for studio work.

Anyone have experience between these two? I know the Sigma has faster and near silent auto focusing and the Tamron has better optics but terrible AF and noisy AF.

As I mostly do video work the Tamron sounds better, but if I do dabble in photography (lets say 35% of my work is photography), should I trade off the optical superiority for better AF?

Obviously the best thing to do is find a way to test each of these lenses, but I simply do not have access to either and would like to get some opinions from people who use this on APS-C sensors specifically for video work.
 
I've got the Tamron and I'm very happy with it. I've only used the AF a couple of times for stills, and it's been fine. I'm not shooting any fast sports though (except surfing, but the movement with that is generally perpendicular to the lens' line of site so the AF does not have to constantly adjust for the subject distance changing). The only criticism I have of the Tamron is that the focus throw is very short. I don't know if the Sigma - or even the Canon's - are any better in this regard, though.

If you want AF just for studio photography and portraits the Tamron will do fine. Remeber the AF is being tested agianst that of the Canon 70-200 - the lens for sports photographers - and all those reviews about the Tamron's slow AF speed are directed at pro sports/wildlife photographers. If you're not shooting extremely critical, high action events, where you have to get the shot first time every time or you'll lose your job, then the Tamron's AF is probably good enough for you. If you do shoot stills of fast sports or wildlife, then the Sigma will be a bit better for you; both these lenses are among the best 3rd party zoom lenses available.

One other point, Simga offers an OS version whereas Tamron does not. It's about an extra $400 here is Aus, not sure about the pricing elsewhere though.
 
Thanks for the info - OS isn't that important to me, although I imagine at 200mm it may be some trouble, even on a tripod. I have the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and I love it, optics are excellent. I see you have the same lens in your sig...are the optics comparable?
 
We have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and love it. We tried a Nikon 70-200 2.8, and honestly I like the Tamron more. Visuals, use and price! But we never (and probably never will) use AF on our lenses so YMMV. I highly recommend it though. The "macro" focusing is awesome!

Check this video for some shots. All the super tights (golf ball, end shot) are Tamron 70-200. The other shots had a polarizer filter (and we forgot/didnt put it on the Tamron) so don't judge the lens overblown points. It's got super clarity and great aperture control. Note the easy focus pull at the end (no focus wheel, assist or anything)!

http://vimeo.com/28080736
 
I own the Tamron and use it for both stills and video.

First off: the optics are sharp. Crazy sharp. the build quality is very good (though not Canon L good). I would highly recommend it. The advantage you will have with the Tamron over the sigma is that the focus ring has hard stops on close and far focus (as opposed to the HSM ring of the Sigmas, which turns continually.

The only bad point is that the Tamron breaths very badly when racking focus. This is relatively minor to some, but may be a deal breaker for others.

Hope that helped!
 
Keep in mind that for video work, an 80-200 ish zoom with 2.8 aperture is one huge lens. I have an earlier Nikon AF-D variant - a legendary lens - but for video, 9 times out of ten I grab a 100 2.8 (Series E, total sleeper lens) or an 85 1.8 (I use all my Nikon glass on my Canon for video). Still may be a bit short for some, but on an APS sensor, how often are you going out to 200 anyway? Lenses that big can be a huge pain, especially when you're using rails and an FF; you either need a support on your rails, or if the lens has a tripod collar, you have to strip the camera off your rig.

I freaking love the thing for fashion/portraits, especially shooting fashion stills outdoors. Most 80-200's just have a soul/mojo that's hard to beat. But I find the size a royal pain for video.
 
Michael Carter said:
Keep in mind that for video work, an 80-200 ish zoom with 2.8 aperture is one huge lens. I have an earlier Nikon AF-D variant - a legendary lens - but for video, 9 times out of ten I grab a 100 2.8 (Series E, total sleeper lens) or an 85 1.8 (I use all my Nikon glass on my Canon for video). Still may be a bit short for some, but on an APS sensor, how often are you going out to 200 anyway? Lenses that big can be a huge pain, especially when you're using rails and an FF; you either need a support on your rails, or if the lens has a tripod collar, you have to strip the camera off your rig.

I freaking love the thing for fashion/portraits, especially shooting fashion stills outdoors. Most 80-200's just have a soul/mojo that's hard to beat. But I find the size a royal pain for video.
Click to expand...

The Nikon's don't communicate with the Canon bodies do they? I've noticed lots of people using Nikons on their APS-Cs!
 
bronxjragon said:
The Nikon's don't communicate with the Canon bodies do they? I've noticed lots of people using Nikons on their APS-Cs!
Click to expand...

For video, they don't need to (unless you're shooting auto, doing non-professional hobby-stuff, etc). There are scores of legendary Nikon lens models out there with aperture rings (and really nice manual focus feel from the pre-AF days) you can get quite affordably used. And there are dozens of review and database sites discussing the pros and cons of each lens.

If you have a big investment in Canon glass, it's a moot point, but coming from a Nikon stills background, all of my glass rocks on the Canon bodies. And there seems to be a far wider world of older used glass (much of which was top-of-the-line "pro" stuff when released) you can pick up affordably (the 35-70 2.8 AF is a legendary lens... got one with a dinged filter ring for under $300. Nikon's 80-200 2.8 AF can be found for under $500). Nikon glass for Canon video is a smart way to go... but get a decent adapter... the Fotodiox is about $70 and has less play than the $20 chinese rings.
 
Michael Carter said:
For video, they don't need to (unless you're shooting auto, doing non-professional hobby-stuff, etc). There are scores of legendary Nikon lens models out there with aperture rings (and really nice manual focus feel from the pre-AF days) you can get quite affordably used. And there are dozens of review and database sites discussing the pros and cons of each lens.

If you have a big investment in Canon glass, it's a moot point, but coming from a Nikon stills background, all of my glass rocks on the Canon bodies. And there seems to be a far wider world of older used glass (much of which was top-of-the-line "pro" stuff when released) you can pick up affordably (the 35-70 2.8 AF is a legendary lens... got one with a dinged filter ring for under $300. Nikon's 80-200 2.8 AF can be found for under $500). Nikon glass for Canon video is a smart way to go... but get a decent adapter... the Fotodiox is about $70 and has less play than the $20 chinese rings.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. I guess I dabble into photography as well so its worth investing in Canon glass that communicates with the body. And it seems you have a collection of Nikon glass already -- glad it worked out in your favor and can keep that set of great glass!
 
Yep Bronx, I've shot Nikon professionally for stills for close to 20 years now, and having AF and being able to shoot, say, aperture priority in a run & gun (stills) situation? Wouldn't give it up for the world.

If Nikon could match Canon for video, I wouldn't own a Canon body. Man, I was jazzed when I learned about the adapters. But I generally take very few lenses when I shoot - 18-35 3.5/4.5 (not super fast but wide when needed), 28mm 2.8, 50mm 2.8, and either a 100 2.8 or a 35-70 2.8. Rarely get out the long glass though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top