which 70-200 f2.8

[Sploosher]

Seeing as thought the Sony 70-200 f2.8 is way out of my price range at the moment, I have decided to have a look at the Tamron and Sigma offerings for half the price.

I have heard good and bad things about both offerrings, and now have found it hard to decide which one to get.

[KevinBarrett]

There are at least a couple of different Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 offerings, ranging from $799 to $1699. To which are you referring?

[Sploosher]

sorry, I should have made this clearer.

I was referring to the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II Lens.

This ( and the Tamron)is around £600 at the moment, more than half the price of the Sony version

[KevinBarrett]

No problem, but you might amend the poll in the original post so that folks don't have to read this much of the conversation to vote. BTW, the APO Macro II version of the Sigma is pretty hard to find these days (I know, I was looking).

[pakodominguez]

Hi,

I think it will depend of how you will use the lens.
I understand the Sigma focus faster and it works good tracking subjects.
I understand the Tamron is better optically, corrected for Macro (and, in this regard, it is even better than the Minolta/Sony lens) and focus closer than any other 70-200 f2.8; but AF is slower (it is as fast as the beercan, by example).

I bought the Tamron because at that time, the Sigma wasn't available (I found the previos model less interesting) and it works fine for me: I do events and portraits and the lens do what I expect it to do. If I were doing sports, I would have switched to the Sigma HSM long time ago.

[Sploosher]

No problem, but you might amend the poll in the original post so that folks don't have to read this much of the conversation to vote. BTW, the APO Macro II version of the Sigma is pretty hard to find these days (I know, I was looking).

poll amended................