OK, Tonia-a shoots Canon, I believe, so both the lenses mentioned in the US at least have the unfavorable position of competing against Canon's f/2.8L II lens.
I only mention it (you did say Sigma or Tamron) because I don't consider either of them worth half the price of the Canon.
I may as well start off by saying the Tamron is the better of the two as far as I can tell, but stuff like this bothers me:
Tamron MFD 51.2 in / Mag: .13x (Sigma a little longer distance, Mag. is also .13x)
Canon MFD 47.2 in / Mag: .21x
Bottom line is you can work with .21x. You could get satisfying close-ups. But not with .13x. The other typical zoom lens problems apply to the Tamron. Good center sharpness but poor edge performance. Soft at the long end. Color fringing wide open at the short end.
Again, in the US the pricing seems like n, 1.5n, 2n for Tamron, Tamron G2, Canon II.
I personally find the zoom range to be a good one. I'm in a beach town so there are lots of things the 70-200 works great for. Surfers, birds, sea lions, dolphins, tide pools, dogs (my favorite!), street people, hippies, sand sculptures, cliff carvings...all are handled pretty well. Portraits would be handled well.
Both the Tamron and the Sigma have some focus issues. I haven't had these lenses, but I have had a few others. Focused 80% of the time is great. But not great if you defend on focus. If you do most of your work in a studio you need the magnification. If you don't you need reliable autofocus, and wide open sharpness. Just what you won't get.
The G2 is worth pinning one's hopes on. 38 in MFD, implies greater utility in portraiture. It has eBand coating, and improved (so the say) autofocusing. It is worth noting that they said that improved AF was one of their primary design goals.
So, I'm just barely complying with you question saying that the Tamron is the better choice. For me, MFD is every bit as important as the range, so I can't really like either of them.
P.S. - I look at 70-200 F/2.8's because I don't have one. I have the F/4. LOL - The price was a major reason I didn't get the F/2.8. That and the weight. I miss f/2.8. We all have to choose our compromises. I feel good about my choice. Something, sadly, you never know until after you make the choice!
Just when many thought that the maximum reproduction ratio on the new Tamron was possibly going to be it's only real Achilles heel, this new video seems to throw a spanner in the works in that department.......a bit of a surprise actually!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYXzborVt84
Tamron you sneaky little whatsits already!
Dave, what spanner are you hinting at? I watched the video and do not get what you mean?
No spanners.. just that I'm surprised that the Tamron G2 managed to get the best magnification given it's focus breathing, I was expecting it to be on par with the VRII(we know the VRII breathes), it also surprised me the Nikon VR200 F2 didn't do better(1.9mts MFD)
Weren't we expecting the G2 to struggle close up..., including Matt Granger?
Maybe I missed something, but in spite of the breathing the G2 gets the best magnification of the three by focusing the closest, enough maybe to appease potential G2 buyers into being actual ones!
I'm sure the VRE wiil beat it though, but at a price!
02-24-2017, 03:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-24-2017, 03:01 AM by Brightcolours.)
I do not get at all why Matt was surprised, it is all in the specs?
The 1st test shws the issue (focus breathing of the widening kind). The new Tamron is as bad as the old one and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 II.
The second test he shot at different distances (the lenses have different MFDs). Why does it surprise you that the Tamron at 0.9 meters gets more magnification than the Nikkor at 1.4 meters?
It is the same as the difference from the Tamron at 1.4 meters and 0.9 meters.
Man your up late, are you on nights?
Yes, but you understand these optical things better than most and probably pay more attention to the numbers , however, it seems to have come as a surprise to many, when the question about the G2's focus breathing was raised you got it straight off the bat,
I didn't notice the MFD of the first model or the second for that matter but in the end, surprise, knowledge, or whatever, the FB problem with the G2 is tamed to some extent by the MFD, least ways it does better than the VRII....asI see it!
Matt is not that technical, I am better at bar charts that specs, in fact I have a penchant for bars, fortunately in them , not behind them......but then who knows? 
Any thoughts on my AF20mm F2.8D fogged element scenario? I've googled about separating the elements and have found out what cement to use "Canadian Balsam" or a UV curing cement called "Vitrelit" (something like that) neither of which I know where to find. It seems so ridiculous to junk a otherwise decent lens for a couple of drops of lens cement.......
Your thoughts...
02-24-2017, 09:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-24-2017, 09:36 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote: Man your up late, are you on nights?
Yes, but you understand these optical things better than most and probably pay more attention to the numbers , however, it seems to have come as a surprise to many, when the question about the G2's focus breathing was raised you got it straight off the bat,
I didn't notice the MFD of the first model or the second for that matter but in the end, surprise, knowledge, or whatever, the FB problem with the G2 is tamed to some extent by the MFD, least ways it does better than the VRII....asI see it!
Matt is not that technical, I am better at bar charts that specs, in fact I have a penchant for bars, fortunately in them , not behind them......but then who knows?
Any thoughts on my AF20mm F2.8D fogged element scenario? I've googled about separating the elements and have found out what cement to use "Canadian Balsam" or a UV curing cement called "Vitrelit" (something like that) neither of which I know where to find. It seems so ridiculous to junk a otherwise decent lens for a couple of drops of lens cement.......
Your thoughts...
Object magnification and FOV are two separate entities. The widening of FOV causes more background clutter, a reason to choose 200mm over 135mm in the first place. :blink:
Else I could just make any photo where I need a certain magnification with 55mm and be done with it (such a light setup!)... 
That the G2 Tamron has a closer MFD than the Nikkor II of course is a plus for the Tamron G2.
According to the manufacture specs, the Tamron G2 reaches 1:6.1 at 0.95m. The Nikkor II reaches 1:8.3 at 1.4m. For comparison: The Nikkor E FL reaches 1:4.76 at 1.1m.
My Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM has 1.2 MFD and reaches the same magnification as the new Nikkor E FL. At 1 meter it reaches 1:3.45 (how, you may ask, do I go past MFD? With a 12mm extension tube  ). Compare that to the Tamron?
I hope this illustrates the 2 separate entities?
About the lateness, I woke up at around 4 and could not catch sleep right away again.
On the lens separation issue... I do not know what kind of glue Nikon used to make those AF lenses. I hope, that since it does separate, it is canadian balm.
The following link shows a guy using "normal" glass glue from UHU. I have a similar/same glue from Bison, it should be pretty easy to source. Mine came from a normal local hardware store.
http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Delamin...epair.html
I didn't shut an eye either! I used the 500mm F4 for semi macro for butterflies with I think 30mm of extension tubes.
Brilliant link to element gluing BC, I would never have thought of that and it's cured by UV and available in your local DIY store, like how sweet is that?
I'm not sure how the acetone is doing but actually the element looks a little less cloudy, probably my lack of sleep, if you stay awake long enough even kit lenses look sharp. B)
Thanks again for to tip!
Quote:The second test he shot at different distances (the lenses have different MFDs). Why does it surprise you that the Tamron at 0.9 meters gets more magnification than the Nikkor at 1.4 meters?
It is the same as the difference from the Tamron at 1.4 meters and 0.9 meters.
First of all, I want to apologize to Toni for my part in dragging the subject off topic from the original question. I couldn't help pointing out the magnification deficit, which might mean more to me than to you, but since I think you would really miss the closer option...
The second thing...Yes extension tubes are a good option if you plan on shooting a set distance. That actually might make the lens a lot more useful.
But, and remember, I don't have the Brightcolors or dave's clichés level of optical knowledge, but here is my innocent question. BC says that it's not surprising that there is more magnification at 0.9m than at 1.4 meters. And I agree, its not! By the same token I'm not surprised if bokeh is better at a closer focus distance at a given focal length. What did surprise me (I'm going to laps into feet and inches here, but if it helps 1.2m = 47.2", and 1.31m = 52.1", and the different in MFD ~= 10%
From my previous post,
<p class=""> Tamron MFD 51.2 in / Mag: .13x (Sigma a little longer distance, Mag. is also .13x)
<p class=""> Canon MFD 47.2 in / Mag: .21x
<p class="">
<p class="">The Canon has over 50% more magnification with only 10% difference in distance.
<p class="">
<p class="">To make matters worse, Canon at 1.2m has more magnification than the Tamron G2 has at 0.9m
I'm frankly confused by how at the same focal length, at the same distance, we arrive at very different magnifications. Basically, are numbers being manipulated? Is a constant aperture, really far from constant? Is the 200mm, far from 200mm in fact? I guess most defining characteristics are measured at infinity, and don't really apply very strictly at MFD. But at the very least there must be a lot of differences in these lenses, so much so that are we really talking about the same type of lens?
Canon: 0.21x is 1:4.8 @ 1.2m. G2, 1:6.1 @ 0.95m, Tamron VC 1:7.7 @ 1.31m
Those difference are big and non-linear. So...I just don't know that these can all be 70-200mm lenses. Yet, they are!
BTW - Good luck on your project Dave! I'm only read one story of someone attempting such a repair. He had skills, and he failed. But...I wonder...
In the story this person glued the lens elements inside,then went outside to let the sun be the UV source.
Well, since I never did it, I won't suggest how I would do it, but I will mention that they sell lights specifically to cure this kind of glue. So if one did the work in a blacked out environment it would not be necessary to more the unit to set it.
Specifically, my niece does make-up artist work, and such a light is used to cure things like synthetic finger nails.
Long story short, I wanted the guy to succeed! It would be a magnificent achievement! I hope you can do it!
|
