Tamron/Sigma 70-300mm lens for Nikon D70...**Updated 5/26**

[NFS4]

I was looking at getting a 70-300MM lens for my D70. Any word on Sigma/Tamron lenses? I see Sigma 70-300's going for ~$120 new on eBay while Tamrons are going for about the same price?

Suggestions, comments?


**Updated 5/26**

Bought the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II Pics below

 

[ElFenix]

sounds slow.

 

[jabamayne]

I know... "Tamron"...sounds gay

 

[ironcrotch]

I thought NFS4 was lookin at Tampons

 

[NFS4]

Well, the Sigma is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Same for the Tamron. I wanted to mainly use it for baseball games and when I go on vacation. Nothing fancy, just a versatile lens to have in addition to my 18-70 kit lens.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
I thought NFS4 was lookin at Tampons

Maybe he confused it for the XBOX 360

(one of my friends said it looks like one ... I think he was stoned)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, the Sigma is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Same for the Tamron. I wanted to mainly use it for baseball games and when I go on vacation. Nothing fancy, just a versatile lens to have in addition to my 18-70 kit lens.

get this

edit: this blows the previous one out of the water

 

[ThisIsMatt]

At least 5 or so years ago Tamrons were good bang for the buck lenses.

 

[NFS4]

Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6

 

[grrl]

I bought a Sigma 70-210 4-5.6 zoom for my Nikon several years ago and have no complaints about it except the focusing ring could use more friction. However, it's very light and there is no zoom creep and the picture quality is fine. I've never used Tamron though so can't compare them.

 

[virtuamike]

I picked up a used Nikkor AF 70-210/4 for $190 shipped couple months ago. I'd definately take that over Tamron/Sigma anyday. About the same size & weight as my 180/2.8. Very good image quality for the price. The constant f/4 is actually cheaper than the f/4-5.6 right now. Look around and if you can find one go for it.

Sample #1
Sample #2
Sample #3
Sample #4

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
I picked up a used Nikkor AF 70-210/4 for $190 shipped couple months ago. I'd definately take that over Tamron/Sigma anyday. About the same size & weight as my 180/2.8. Very good image quality for the price. The constant f/4 is actually cheaper than the f/4-5.6 right now. Look around and if you can find one go for it.

Sample #1
Sample #2
Sample #3
Sample #4

I'd prefer to stay with Nikon, but the lenses are so damn expensive...that's why I was looking at the Tamrons/Sigmas

 

[virtuamike]

http://www.robgalbraith.com

Check the forums. They have a FS/FT section (looks like they're having probs with it though). FM Forums are a good place to look too, though they're dominated by Canon.

 

[kyutip]

I would go with the Sigma, but make sure you get the right one.
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II, the one with the red ring that can do macro 1:2 at 200-300mm.
I got mine for around $177 at deltainternational.com Not sure if they still have it.

As for the 70-210 f/4 (it's a good lens), what good is it if you need the 300mm reach ?
I'd rather get the picture than worry about sharpness/quality.
If you have the money, maybe you would like to consider Sigma 100-300mm f/4.

Check out my D70 + Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II sports pictures.
I'd say the lens is worth the money.

My sport pictures

Spring Training

 

[BaboonGuy]

I'd avoid it personally they have a number of problems. Try getting this lens. You can get it cheap (like $50) on ebay or keh.com. It's only 80-200 but it's super light and small, and takes nice pictures, I have one.

 

[Anubis]

get the sigma 70-300 SPO super macro 2 or whatever its called, behind teh Nikon 70-300 ED its the next best one

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: kyutip
I would go with the Sigma, but make sure you get the right one.
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II, the one with the red ring that can do macro 1:2 at 200-300mm.
I got mine for around $177 at deltainternational.com Not sure if they still have it.

As for the 70-210 f/4 (it's a good lens), what good is it if you need the 300mm reach ?
I'd rather get the picture than worry about sharpness/quality.
If you have the money, maybe you would like to consider Sigma 100-300mm f/4.

Check out my D70 + Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II sports pictures.
I'd say the lens is worth the money.

My sport pictures

Spring Training

Nice shots you got there

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: kyutip
I'd rather get the picture than worry about sharpness/quality.

For me I'd rather get a good shooting location.

I switch between the 85/1.4 and 180/2.8 for the majority of my shots. I'd prob work a lot faster with the 70-200VR but the primes spoil me. Once you shoot with quality glass, believe me you don't wanna go back.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, the Sigma is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Same for the Tamron. I wanted to mainly use it for baseball games and when I go on vacation. Nothing fancy, just a versatile lens to have in addition to my 18-70 kit lens.

Indoors that lens would be useless without a flash.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, the Sigma is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Same for the Tamron. I wanted to mainly use it for baseball games and when I go on vacation. Nothing fancy, just a versatile lens to have in addition to my 18-70 kit lens.

Indoors that lens would be useless without a flash.

I've got a Sunpak 383

 

[richardycc]

I'm using the tamron 70-300 with my D70, picked it up on ebay for around $90. no complaint for the price, but for whatever reason, when it is at 300mm, the max F stop is F6.0, not F5.6, and I've emailed tamron about it, because I thought there was something wrong with my lens, but they told me their copy of the lens does the same thing, but I've seen some pics on pbase.com using this lens at 300mm using F5.6 stop, so who knows, myabe I have an older version.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, the Sigma is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Same for the Tamron. I wanted to mainly use it for baseball games and when I go on vacation. Nothing fancy, just a versatile lens to have in addition to my 18-70 kit lens.

Indoors that lens would be useless without a flash.

I've got a Sunpak 383

It wouldn't stretch out to the far end of the range of that lens though. I was thinking indoor sporting events.

 

[ElFenix]

the electronic flash is the worst thing to ever happen to photography.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the electronic flash is the worst thing to ever happen to photography.

eh?

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the electronic flash is the worst thing to ever happen to photography.

You'd prob find a way to bitch about fire too.