Sneak Peak: Sigma 70-200 OS versus Tamron 70-200 VC (Samples...wow)

I plan on doing a full on comparison in a week or two. I just got my Tamron 70-200 VC. I wont' go into anything detailed yet I will save that for my full on review/comparison. I want to get a Canon MK2 version to include in my comparison but would have to rent one so maybe not. Anyway it's been known that both of these lenses weak spots are at 200mm 2.8

Here is a quick sample @ 200mm

The scene:

The tamron definitely looks sharper sharper at 2.8. At 3.2 it looks a little shaper but not that noticeable.

I loved my sigma and hated having to sell it. I've been think about getting the tamron instead of another sigma so thanks for the comparison.

I can also verify that the Tamron is a few mm less than the sigma at this distance of ~8' away. the sigma was zoomed in slightly more.

I'll put all this in my review.

How does the AF speed and accuracy compare?

FEChariot wrote in post #16176885
How does the AF speed and accuracy compare?

I'll save all that for my review. I've only had a few shots for now. I don't want to get trigger happy with my assumptions just yet.

This pretty much proves that Sigma isn't that great as many have claimed, and how far ahead the 70-200II really is against these two...

kin2son wrote in post #16176895
This pretty much proves that Sigma isn't that great as many have claimed, and how far ahead the 70-200II really is against these two...

Isn't that what you would expect though? To me the Tamron looks great while the Canon lens is amazing, for the $1000.00 savings the Tamron is a bargain. That being said, I am considering the Tamron while I am dreaming of the Canon.

What focal length are the samples taken at?

kin2son wrote in post #16176895
This pretty much proves that Sigma isn't that great as many have claimed, and how far ahead the 70-200II really is against these two...

Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Sigma is better than the Canon v. I and not as good as the II. I don't know anyone who has claimed it's better than the II.

Also, fwiw, single copy lens tests don't tell us much. I expect the Tamron is a cracking lens. But the Sigma remains a very nice lens and the cheapest of the currently available, stabilized 70-200 2.8 lenses.

I think the Sigma was a substantially good lens when it arrived on the scene, approx 70-200 MI and no VC version from Tamron, then Canon came and plowed it with the MKII, and Tamron had to pull out the stops to stay competitive. As many have pointed out recently, right now is an awesome time to be a gear head in the photo industry, breaking barriers and playing tick for tat in a very demanding market. It seems every manufacture has swooned the masses with their latest offerings, and by latest, with in the last 2 years. Thanks for the info Talley, I look forward to reading the full review.

FEChariot wrote in post #16176922
What focal length are the samples taken at?

it's in the paragraph before the samples

botw wrote in post #16176932
Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Sigma is better than the Canon v. I and not as good as the II. I don't know anyone who has claimed it's better than the II.

I wasn't saying the sigma is better than the 70-200II, but I've been hearing it's the second best....and now I highly doubt that even before the arrival of Tamron.

And if The Digital Picture's test chart is anywhere to be trusted, it further proves how much the Canon is better than both of them, and it was never ever that close to begin with.

At the end of the day, you get what you pay for like everything else in life

Talley wrote in post #16176942
it's in the paragraph before the samples

Well yes. Yes it is.

FEChariot wrote in post #16176961
Well yes. Yes it is.

haha I added it after your question so you were indeed correct. lol

kin2son wrote in post #16176895
This pretty much proves that Sigma isn't that great as many have claimed, and how far ahead the 70-200II really is against these two...

I never said it wasn't great. The lens has been great for me thus far. The sigma at 2.8 produces very good results. It's just stopping it down to 3.2 produces much better results. I compared my sigma to my old canon F4 IS lens because it was the same exact price and the sigma has given me better opportunities as a lens with it's 2.8 capability.

Here is one of my early samples of my sigma at 2.8 on a 60D, it's plenty sharp