Eliminating price considerations, the lenses scored: 61, 39, 64, 63, 69. Eliminate weight as well and it goes to 51, 37, 64, 60, 65. Leaving the Sigma as the winner amongst DSLR lenses in "performance" categories. Though the Nikon and Sigma scored well in different categories so it really depends upon what is important to you. Thanks for the detailed comparison, very useful.
@@KylieSparticus it's the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD. Relatively new lens, can be had for pretty affordable used, and the photo quality punches well above it's price.
Hey ! I have a question, I want to change my 70-300 for a 70-200 f4. Did you use the tamron for animals and sport ? I don’t know if the price difference between the tamron 70-210 and the Nikon 70-200 f4 is worth or not
"I know when I'm smiling nice bc i make you smile" Very cute. Also "If you look at the difference between these two lenses the first thing you notice is her smile bc that what portraits are about" So sweet. Nice comparison of lenses too!
@@lior2538 pretty well the same way as it was working with Nikon D500 and I see no difference in autofocus and also its muuuch better than Sigma with FTZ (I have sigma art 35mm 1.4). there are an firmware update for compatibility with FTZ. When I bought the lens it alreay had that update, if not you can update it with tamron dock.
Hey ! I have a question, I want to change my 70-300 for a 70-200 f4. Did you use the tamron for animals and sport ? I don’t know if the price difference between the tamron 70-210 and the Nikon 70-200 f4 is worth or not
@@Pokzy I use it for street photography not for sports. Cant tell how it will perform for sports. But its much much cheaper than the nikom 70 200 F4. It costs 500 euros new and 400 second hand
I can't tell you how much I come to rely upon you both for your reviews. I was looking for 70-200mm f2.8 but the Nikon brands were so much more expensive. I saw the Sigma at a more budget-friendly price, but I wanted to know how it compared. Your controlled, user-friendly, review gave me a better depth of knowledge to make my decision. I'm going with the Sigma because it handled well and was mid-priced.
Dustin Abbott and Matt Granger did detailed reviews of the Tamron 70-200 g2 on their channels and they did great. They really liked the lens. Sharpness is excellent and autofocus speed is excellent. 70-200 g2 was not much inferior to the 2nd version from Canon 70-200 Matt Granger compared 70-210 and 70-200 g2. Autofocus on the 70-200 g2 was faster and it was sharper. Are they lying or are you? who to believe?
I often think about this as well. Although I will say I've owned the g2 for 6 years (and have had issues with it) and I have spent hours if not days researching people's thoughts and comments. It seems that many have success, many do not, and many have sent their lenses back multiple times before they got a acceptable one. So maybe that's why the difference in reviews results?
If you had updated the Sigma via its docking station you would have found it worked, you could also have set the lens to adjust focus correctly, it works fine on F Nikon bodies, its razor-sharp fast focusing not flaky, and produces good contrary images with great bokeh, many a professional written magazine has rated it the same as the F mount Nikon lens so the price makes it a better buy. The price of the USB dock is a pittance and it allows you to change the lens setting to what suits you, and use those four buttons on the lens body in the same way as back button focus buttons, very handy. I think you have done the Sigma lens an injustice, it is extremely good and the price makes it the best lens there other than the Z lens which costs an arm and a leg.
Interesting review but I appreciate the effort. However, to say "Tamron 70-200 isn't one you'd recommend" and it's disappointing?? That's very arguable and lots of professional photographers would disagree with that statement.
Thank you doing such a thorough analysis. I'm mostly shooting Canon DSLR exclusively. But your reviews have helped with several of my past lens purchases (and very happy with those choices). Keep it up.
Love this! I just bought the Sigma and so far love it! The eye af works great with the Canon R6 and R mount. Not sure why the Nikon had issues for you all.
Credible review. Most youtubers nowadays presenting how good canon and sony is, some of them just review nikons bad gears but never appreciate their good ones. You guys showed how good nikkor z 24-70 f2.8 s is compared with sony and canon.
I bought (for $500) the Tamron 70-210 F4 earlier this year so I can have inexpensive 200mm lens for shooing mostly nature. Im really happy with how it performs, and its pretty light. I took it to vacation last month and then I learned how well it performs for portraits. This video just confirms that I bought right lens :) I would love to have Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but maan the price is just too much for me right now. Maybe in time.
Thanks - this has made me glad I plumped for the Tamron 70-210 f4. Bought for (mainly) equestrian pics, I decided f2.8 was unnecessary as I mainly shoot outdoors in daylight and a shallow DoF was not really necessary. Paired with a Canon 70D and 6D I've been really pleased with the results. Great comparison review.
There is another used lens alternative in the 80-200mm f2.8D Nikkor. It is heavy, sharp, and beautifully made. It is also cheap at the moment. Since the AF is screw drive it would be manual focus on a Z body. I do not recommend manual focusing as it is difficult with such a narrow DOF.
I forgot to add thank you Tony and Chelsea for your hard work and putting this video out there is thoroughly entertaining informative and very much appreciated.
Tony overblows focus breathing out of proportions. For real life shooting (for people with legs, Tony not included) the effects are negligible if even noticeable. I had Tamron 70-200 G2 and Nikon 70-200 FL and have not seen much difference optically. Ended up keeping the Tamron G2 and trading the FL for Nikon 105 1.4 (plus cash). So people should not be afraid of looking into Tamron G2, it has a number of unique advantages.
I had the 70-200 Tamron G2 on my D850 instead of the FL ..What a great lens . However nothing beats my current Z version Nikon on my Z7 ..Next level asnd widely acknowledged as the Best 70-200 f2.8 ever made all brands included
Pointing out that a product does not deliver what you paid for is never blowing it out of proportion, it’s just stating a fact that is relevant to prospective buyers. There are many real world scenarios where taking even one step forward is physically impossible. If I pay for 200mm, I want 200mm.
I had a Tamron G2 on a D850, but focus/chromatic/all round results not good. Swapped it for another - not much better, also sent back. Then got the Nikon F mount - different league. Shame as the Tamron felt well built and obviously good value.
@@lenzyruffin agreed but Tony's test seems subjective as Ricci did exactly the same test with a camera body and shows almost no breathing so I guess you have to do your own research unless these reviewers can come up with an agreed upon test and terminology
The results you are getting with the Tamrom f2 G2 is not the results thatI get with my copy. Bokeh is better and backlit shots handle better than what shows in your images.
Regarding weight and price comparisons, it seems somewhat unfair to include an f4 lens in this test. It might also be an idea to brainstorm the percentage value of each of the features so that sharpness ranks relatively higher than weight, for example. Anyway, thank you for all the work that goes into such a comparison.
You can do this yourself. Grab their scores, put them in an excel sheet and multiply by a weigth factors per category you choose. You can play around varying weight factors and you ll get an idea where the lenses are at. For me, weight is not a factor but light and sharpness is.Then you ll get your preference outcome.
Thanks again for a very useful video but a little constructive criticism from an 8 year subscriber and customer, I've noticed the production quality and frequency of uploads has been decreasing lately, you're my favourite photographery channel and I have notifications turned on for your videos so this is coming from a place of love, no hate
Very interesting and I too appreciate the effort that went into this testing. Some of these criteria should not have equal weight, although what may be more important could vary amongst different photographers. They pretty much glossed over the sharpness, especially in the corners, which could make more difference to a lot of people than was expressed in this presentation. Getting that right can be costly.
You could make a simple little excel, use the scores from the review, multiply with a weight factor yourself and see for yourself what the outcome would be for you, given your own weight factors.
I've bought quite a bit of equipment from KEH and they are my "Go-To" camera store also. I've got the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 f2.8G lens cause it was in my price range. I've teested it in my neighborhood, but not in the field yet. My lens selection is 11 Nikon's and one Sigma. I've been interested in Nikon camera equipment since I was stationed in Hawaii in 1970, but couldn't afford one until 2015. Anyway, thanks for taking time to test out the equipment.
I just really love your content. Even if I I cannot afford the products that you showcase I just love watching your videos and the information you provide. Keep posting these type of videos and do keep up the great work.
I have the Sigma lens and found the firmware update helpful, that being said I’ve been wrestling with idea of buying the 70-200 S lens for my z7ii. Thanks for your work here. I’ll keep my Sigma and wrestle no more. Or was this the pill I needed to relieve my G.A.S.
Awesome comparison but in real life the Nikon z 70-200 is much much better then the Nikon F 70-200 FL, and the difference is even bigger compared to the VR2 and VR1. Compared to sigma and Tamron in my books the difference is even bigger. So if money is not an issue go for the z mount lens, for sure! If money is an issue, go for the VR 2 Nikon version.
I bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR I Gray version from someone in super good condition and still inside the box. I'm happy and thank you for your amazing lens review and the stats you show at the end of the video. Got it for $750
Good comparison. I've owned all these, except the Sigma. Your top marks lens, the 70-210 (cheapest), did not work out for me, besides being the cheapest and smallest. I've taken many photos , they are good but not one that made me say "WOW". I do not get into the nitty gritty specs. It's what makes me say "OMG" ! whatever that is !! The Z70-200 will consistently give me that. The F- mount E lens is a close second. Just my opinion. Thanks for the video guys !
how you're doing i just got my canon 80d and i want a good zoom lens like the sigma 70-200 and it's all black and i see it takes great pictures. i want a few lens but i don't want to kill my pockets you understand. but i'm in love with sigma products and plus it's cheaper than canon. i guess those photographers can buy them cause they get paid i do this for fun and i want to be good at what i do ya see.i want to get this 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 55-250 so i want your opinion i'm going to buy the 18-35 sigma lens the 35mm 1.4 sigma lens and the 70-200 that's a good combination right? i was thinking 24-105 and the 24mm pancake lens and my collection is complete
Thanks for another great video, Tony & Chelsea. You do take testing to a whole new level. I got the Nikon F mount G model, bought two weeks ago secondhand for about 1000 $, and I am very pleased with the performance.
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sport works fine with the mc11 on Sony. Eye AF was amazing. Only thing I didn't like was the weight. I did eventually trade it in with some other stuff for the 135 1.8 GM
So now we need you to do this for Canon and Sony. I have the Tamron f2.8 on Canon and I notice that at close focus it doesn't zoom out much (focus length seems to stay in about the same from 150 to 200). I'm also interested in a lighter lens. The 70-210 looks nice especially at used price
i dont understand why all the new 70-200 lenses move the zoom ring away from the body. especially with the focus by wire approach with the Z lenses and the awful manual focus performance of it, why would you want the focus ring closer to the camera? i found the manual focus override to be triggered alot when reaching for the zoom ring over the focus ring, which is quite an awful design flaw.
I bought the Tamron F2.8 G2 because of price but I enjoy the performance and quality that I get from this lens. By using the FTZ adapter to put the third party lenses on the Zfc and Z7 could it be possible to reevaluate the two Tamron and Sigma and the one Nikon F-mount lenses on a DSLR like the D850? Then compare the results.
My take on this... the Tamron 70-200 G2 for Nikon is a good lens ,IF you can put up with the inconsistency of the focus. The Nikon is higher priced, but focus is probably more consistent, so you're paying for that. Never shot with the Sigma, but have heard some good things about it. So it really comes down to focus accuracy and speed, and how much you want to spend. For non-professionals, I'd say the Tamron or Sigma should be sufficient, but for working professionals, the Nikon is the better choice. And if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg but want a Nikon lens, you can always get the slower, but still great, 70-200 f/4 version.
The test winner also has a sibling in the "HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR" lens. I think it is "joint" development but not sure how much each company contributed. The Tamron tripod collar works fine on the Pentax though (Pentax does not officially sell/provide a tripod collar).
You showed the Tamron when you presented the Sigma right? Good test. I already own one of them after trying another one of them before and I'm more than pleased with it.
I'm curious why you left out the Nikon 70-200 f4 F-mount lens? I'm wondering how that one measures up to the rest of the field since it's the one that I own : )
Very interesting video, but I have no buyer’s remorse for my Z 70-200 f2.8 S lens. One test you didn’t do that I thought was critical, is color rendering. The Z lens does a great job of that, and I get better looking bokeh out of it than yours, and that’s on my Z6, even. Maybe that’s why it was for sale at KEH, huh? I had a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens that brand new wouldn’t focus properly out of the box. I got it exchanged for another one, and it works fine, but not as well as the focus on my Z lens. So much so that I got the Z 2X TC to use with it, when I don’t need quite the reach, like in Sports photography. I still use that Sigma for bird and wildlife, though, as it’s good enough to get 50% of the shots focused, on my Z, or at 33%+ on my D7100. So usage does play a big part in picking a winner. However, I had to say that I ado find it hard to believe that the little cheaply Tamron could beat the Z lens. If that were really the case, Nikon would have not made it, I think. What would be the point? Focus ability should be weighted a bit more, too. If the cheap Tamron can’t get you more than 25% winners, versus 90%+ on the Z, then that will more than be worth the price difference. What do you think?
Great review, I was looking for something like this few months ago when I was shopping for 70-200 lens to my Nikon. I used your channel also to inform my decision and I'm very happy with my sigma. Your latest review just confirms that I chose right 😊 thanks for all your content 😊
Just want to thank you guys for all you do! I am in the market for a new 70-200 and this video is a great help in my decision. Thank you again! Be well.
@@barryobrien1890 That Sigma is the newest 70-200 2.8. It is definitively supported. The old ones are not even in this test and not relevant to this video.
Isn't focus breathing contingent on distance to subject and with these being portrait tests how realistic is it to be 4ft from the subject at the long end for portraits. A tight head shot of a real head, not mini Tony's, would be the better test and that puts you farther back from the subject instead of being so close to minimum focal distance.
So just curious about the focusing issue that you had with the Sigma 70-200. Was this only on the Nikon mirrorless body or by chance was this also checked on any other Nikon body, Such as the D500 or D850? Curious if you did by chance. Thanks and keep the great videos coming.
Those prices are so incredibly nice that I could get a flight ticket to the US, by the lens there, fly back, and still be cheaper off, including the ticket.
Having arrived very late to the D850, this video has been incredibly helpful sorting out my 70-200 options. Thanks for the excellent work that continues to be of value to F6, F5, and F100 legacy photographers. Brand new D850s are still an incredible value, provided they are attached to the right glass. Steve Briggs
I had exactly the same problems with the autofocus on my Canon R6 when I used the EF mount Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I had to return it and bought the Tamron 2.8 instead which workes perfectly (at least the autofocus).
Watching the whole comparison I have to add, that I'm just a hobby photographer and the shortcomings of the Tamron 2.8 (focus, Bokeh, focal shrinking?) have not registered with me and I'm more than happy with the results.
@@Yankeededandy62 I'm a professional shooter who owns both, the Tamron G2 and Nikon FL - I don't see a big difference either. The Nikon is slightly more reliable in the most challenging conditions, but the Tamron hasn't really disappointed me either in any way. In general, 70-200 lenses are workhorses - I'm rarely wowed by the images I get out of them (in contrast to, say, the 105mm f/1.4) but they get the job done. If I was a hobbyist I'd definitely buy the Tamron, not the Nikon. The difference in price is better saved or spent on an f/1.4 prime (as opposed to the f/1.8 version) for example.
Well, a lot of the categories they went through aren't very noticeable in real world use. I have the lens and I'd rather have slightly more nervous bokeh than flaky af like the Sigma. I shot lots of Sports with the Tamron and it's fine. Not a stellar lens, but quite decent. I'd call it a workhorse more than anything.
Agreed. The results you re getting are way of with the Jared Polin but also other review outcomes. Could you have had a bad lense specimen or a wobbly connection to your camera? Im in doubt which one to choose: the Sigma or the Tamron?
@@MrRFasters seems like they use KEH beaters so you never know. Another youtuber compared a beat up rental lens of one brand to a hand picked pre-production lens of another brand and that video is influencing viewers buying decisions lol
Thanks for this comparison. I've been shooting (mostly concert photography) with a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 for a few years now. At the time I bought it, I thought it had a better VR rating than the then-equivalent Nikon lens. Now that I spend much more time shooting than I figured I would back then, I kinda wish I had invested instead in the Nikon lens. This review/comparison is contributing "confirmation bias" to my thoughts on getting the Nikon Z-mount version. :) Given my need for a good low-light shooter, the f/4 lens isn't going to be what I get next. The Nikon F-mount, Sigma, and Nikon Z-mount are very close in score, but if I take away the price factor, the Z-mount version pulls further ahead.
Great work, guys! Tony, you're my favorite nerd of all time! I've had my old gen Sigma 70-200mm since about 2012, I think. It's time for an upgrade and this video helped immensely. I'm going with the latest Sigma 70-200. I can deal with the slow AF since it will be primarily for portraits. I got the Nikon 200-500 that has excellent AF on my D850 & D500 bodies with wildlife and sports!
Recently bought a Tamron 70-200…. Oh look at this review video….. oh man!!! Ugh. Oh well. It’s still a good lens. I like it even if it’s not the very best.
I've shot with the lens for a while. It's a workhorse. Nothing spectacular about it, but it's reliable and gets the job done. Definitely good value for money I'd say.
If you've already got an F/4, it would also be interesting to compare it to some of the vintage 80-200mm lenses for a true budget alternative. If you go full manual, you wouldn't even have to pay 40$ for some of them.
Enjoyed the review, I have the Nikon F 70-200mm f2.8e for both my Z7 and D850 and it performs as expected. I was hoping the difference between the Nikon Z 70-200mm would have been better (my friend isn't going to like this because he sold his F mount in favor for the Z mount), so at this time there is no need for me to buy another lens. I was very surprised that the $400 lens actually beat everyone out, goes to show the more expensive does not equates to better performance.
I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 S, the 500 f4 S and 150-600 S and shoot with a canon R6, the eye and animal eye AF works flawlessly with the EF to RF adaptor on all three lenses. Sigma has always had focus issues on Nikon bodies.
Thank you for the honesty, and properly prefacing judgements with the explanation that the art is more important than the cost of the equipment. And then ultimately explaining why the super expensive new lens is valuable in specific situations. And the icing on the cake is the unscripted chatter between the 2 of you as you work, just lovely. Thank you again.
It looks like the Nikon F is the best lens. Among others, the sharpness test proved it, though it is clear more time was spent in those fields that favored the Z mount. Yet I believe Nikon nailed it with the F mount and clearly adapted it to the Z mount saving some money and increasing its price.
I tested it at the same time (just to be efficient) and we plan to publish the video soon so be sure to subscribe. I haven't yet looked at the tests, though.
How refreshing to see a video focused on the lens performance not looking at the perceived limitations of the camera. Really great video that I am sure Nikon users will appreciate. If you can look at the 24-70, 105 2.8 and the long lenses when they come out in the same manner that would be awesome!
This is such a good comparison! I'd love to see a side by side of he Nikkor 80-200 (from like... the 90's?) and the 70-200 f/4. They're both competing for the same price point at ~$400 and the 80-200 works awesome on z cameras.
The Nikkor 70-200 f/4 for the F-mount is a strange omission lighter, less expensive and less focus breathing (according to some reviews I’ve read) than its f2.8 siblings.
@@peterjohnson1739 True, but the 70-200 f/4 version is still in the $600-900 range depending on the condition. It makes sense to compare the two, but I prefer the f/2.8 that the 80-200 comes with haha I've been using it for awhile now and I can't justify the extra couple hundred. If I have the chance, I'll be sure to give the 70-200 a fair shake though
@@aphenioxPDWtechnology it's actually about 50/50! Nikon made a ton of screw focus variants but more modern models have internal autofocus instead of screw focus 🙂
When there is discussion about Lenses, there are only two persons who bring our focus on focal shrinking every time, one is Tony sir and Dustin Abbott, thank you very much 💞 💕 ❤ 💖
I do not mind that the comparison was with present day lens. What KEH is known for is having older glass that everyday shutterbugs use. Like the older versions of the 80-200mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8. These are Nikons Rockstars! This was a one way comparison which should of included the older Nikon glass. Just IMHO.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Performance Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Eh5hItD4Mr0/mqdefault.jpg)
Eliminating price considerations, the lenses scored: 61, 39, 64, 63, 69. Eliminate weight as well and it goes to 51, 37, 64, 60, 65. Leaving the Sigma as the winner amongst DSLR lenses in "performance" categories. Though the Nikon and Sigma scored well in different categories so it really depends upon what is important to you. Thanks for the detailed comparison, very useful.
I've been extremely satisfied with the 70-210 f/4 adapted to my Z5. Serious value for money, and a near-macro shooter to boot. Thanks for sharing
Is that the Nikon/Nikkor f/4 … which is a lovely lens to use ?
@@KylieSparticus it's the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD. Relatively new lens, can be had for pretty affordable used, and the photo quality punches well above it's price.
Thanks for this comment I have the same camera and I’m about to buy that Tamron 70-210 mm lens
Hey ! I have a question, I want to change my 70-300 for a 70-200 f4. Did you use the tamron for animals and sport ?
I don’t know if the price difference between the tamron 70-210 and the Nikon 70-200 f4 is worth or not
"I know when I'm smiling nice bc i make you smile" Very cute. Also "If you look at the difference between these two lenses the first thing you notice is her smile bc that what portraits are about" So sweet. Nice comparison of lenses too!
Because the Nikon eye af isn’t as good. Z6 owner…
@@hotrod4x5 as good as what?
I loved it when she said that. The thing every couple wants to hear I'd say.
I lost it when he said “disturbing amount of detail.” 😂😂😂
Older people !!! Some folks, especially women, as they get older, tend to hate "details" in the photos.
😂😂😂
He’s a clown
I use Tamron 70-210 F4 with Z6 II for street photography. Its perfect for that as it lightweight and love the quality of photo I get.
Lens is so underrated. I dont know why it's so unpopular.
With the adaptor works well? I have the Nikon z5
@@lior2538 pretty well the same way as it was working with Nikon D500 and I see no difference in autofocus and also its muuuch better than Sigma with FTZ (I have sigma art 35mm 1.4). there are an firmware update for compatibility with FTZ. When I bought the lens it alreay had that update, if not you can update it with tamron dock.
Hey ! I have a question, I want to change my 70-300 for a 70-200 f4. Did you use the tamron for animals and sport ?
I don’t know if the price difference between the tamron 70-210 and the Nikon 70-200 f4 is worth or not
@@Pokzy I use it for street photography not for sports. Cant tell how it will perform for sports. But its much much cheaper than the nikom 70 200 F4. It costs 500 euros new and 400 second hand
I can't tell you how much I come to rely upon you both for your reviews. I was looking for 70-200mm f2.8 but the Nikon brands were so much more expensive. I saw the Sigma at a more budget-friendly price, but I wanted to know how it compared. Your controlled, user-friendly, review gave me a better depth of knowledge to make my decision. I'm going with the Sigma because it handled well and was mid-priced.
I always appreciate the depth of your comparison reviews, especially lens characteristics that I don't often think about
Dustin Abbott and Matt Granger did detailed reviews of the Tamron 70-200 g2 on their channels and they did great.
They really liked the lens. Sharpness is excellent and autofocus speed is excellent.
70-200 g2 was not much inferior to the 2nd version from Canon 70-200
Matt Granger compared 70-210 and 70-200 g2. Autofocus on the 70-200 g2 was faster and it was sharper.
Are they lying or are you? who to believe?
I often think about this as well. Although I will say I've owned the g2 for 6 years (and have had issues with it) and I have spent hours if not days researching people's thoughts and comments.
It seems that many have success, many do not, and many have sent their lenses back multiple times before they got a acceptable one. So maybe that's why the difference in reviews results?
Would have liked to see the older Nikon G version of the f/2.8 too.
If you had updated the Sigma via its docking station you would have found it worked, you could also have set the lens to adjust focus correctly, it works fine on F Nikon bodies, its razor-sharp fast focusing not flaky, and produces good contrary images with great bokeh, many a professional written magazine has rated it the same as the F mount Nikon lens so the price makes it a better buy. The price of the USB dock is a pittance and it allows you to change the lens setting to what suits you, and use those four buttons on the lens body in the same way as back button focus buttons, very handy.
I think you have done the Sigma lens an injustice, it is extremely good and the price makes it the best lens there other than the Z lens which costs an arm and a leg.
Interesting review but I appreciate the effort. However, to say "Tamron 70-200 isn't one you'd recommend" and it's disappointing?? That's very arguable and lots of professional photographers would disagree with that statement.
I own it and couldnt be happier with the results. some focus breathing on very close range, all the rest performs great.
Man I am glad I got the Tamron 70-210 F4. I love how compact it is making me more likely to pull it out to take pics!
really nice lens! love it :) I use it with Z6II and D500
Thank you doing such a thorough analysis. I'm mostly shooting Canon DSLR exclusively. But your reviews have helped with several of my past lens purchases (and very happy with those choices). Keep it up.
Love this! I just bought the Sigma and so far love it! The eye af works great with the Canon R6 and R mount. Not sure why the Nikon had issues for you all.
Sigma has always had focus issues with Nikon for some reason, just like tamron does with canon.
All my Sigma lenses work flawlessly on my R6 as well.
I have the Sigma 70-200 and mine has no issues with focus or eye auto focus on either the z7 or z6ii.
Credible review. Most youtubers nowadays presenting how good canon and sony is, some of them just review nikons bad gears but never appreciate their good ones. You guys showed how good nikkor z 24-70 f2.8 s is compared with sony and canon.
I bought (for $500) the Tamron 70-210 F4 earlier this year so I can have inexpensive 200mm lens for shooing mostly nature. Im really happy with how it performs, and its pretty light. I took it to vacation last month and then I learned how well it performs for portraits. This video just confirms that I bought right lens :) I would love to have Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but maan the price is just too much for me right now. Maybe in time.
Thanks - this has made me glad I plumped for the Tamron 70-210 f4. Bought for (mainly) equestrian pics, I decided f2.8 was unnecessary as I mainly shoot outdoors in daylight and a shallow DoF was not really necessary. Paired with a Canon 70D and 6D I've been really pleased with the results. Great comparison review.
There is another used lens alternative in the 80-200mm f2.8D Nikkor. It is heavy, sharp, and beautifully made. It is also cheap at the moment. Since the AF is screw drive it would be manual focus on a Z body. I do not recommend manual focusing as it is difficult with such a narrow DOF.
I forgot to add thank you Tony and Chelsea for your hard work and putting this video out there is thoroughly entertaining informative and very much appreciated.
Great video. It would have been fun if you included the 80-200 2.8 nikon just to see how things have moved on.
They still produce the lens funny enough the two-ring AF-D version.
Tony overblows focus breathing out of proportions. For real life shooting (for people with legs, Tony not included) the effects are negligible if even noticeable.
I had Tamron 70-200 G2 and Nikon 70-200 FL and have not seen much difference optically. Ended up keeping the Tamron G2 and trading the FL for Nikon 105 1.4 (plus cash). So people should not be afraid of looking into Tamron G2, it has a number of unique advantages.
I had the 70-200 Tamron G2 on my D850 instead of the FL ..What a great lens . However nothing beats my current Z version Nikon on my Z7 ..Next level asnd widely acknowledged as the Best 70-200 f2.8 ever made all brands included
Pointing out that a product does not deliver what you paid for is never blowing it out of proportion, it’s just stating a fact that is relevant to prospective buyers. There are many real world scenarios where taking even one step forward is physically impossible. If I pay for 200mm, I want 200mm.
I had a Tamron G2 on a D850, but focus/chromatic/all round results not good. Swapped it for another - not much better, also sent back. Then got the Nikon F mount - different league. Shame as the Tamron felt well built and obviously good value.
@@lenzyruffin agreed but Tony's test seems subjective as Ricci did exactly the same test with a camera body and shows almost no breathing so I guess you have to do your own research unless these reviewers can come up with an agreed upon test and terminology
The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 is the lens I will be recommending anyone who asks.
Something wrong with the approach as tamron G2 is way sharper and has better contrast than sigma lens for 70-200
The results you are getting with the Tamrom f2 G2 is not the results thatI get with my copy. Bokeh is better and backlit shots handle better than what shows in your images.
Regarding weight and price comparisons, it seems somewhat unfair to include an f4 lens in this test. It might also be an idea to brainstorm the percentage value of each of the features so that sharpness ranks relatively higher than weight, for example. Anyway, thank you for all the work that goes into such a comparison.
You can do this yourself.
Grab their scores, put them in an excel sheet and multiply by a weigth factors per category you choose. You can play around varying weight factors and you ll get an idea where the lenses are at. For me, weight is not a factor but light and sharpness is.Then you ll get your preference outcome.
Thanks again for a very useful video but a little constructive criticism from an 8 year subscriber and customer, I've noticed the production quality and frequency of uploads has been decreasing lately, you're my favourite photographery channel and I have notifications turned on for your videos so this is coming from a place of love, no hate
Very interesting and I too appreciate the effort that went into this testing. Some of these criteria should not have equal weight, although what may be more important could vary amongst different photographers.
They pretty much glossed over the sharpness, especially in the corners, which could make more difference to a lot of people than was expressed in this presentation. Getting that right can be costly.
You could make a simple little excel, use the scores from the review, multiply with a weight factor yourself and see for yourself what the outcome would be for you, given your own weight factors.
Thanks for all of the hours you put into this video. I can only imagine how much work had to go into this.
I've bought quite a bit of equipment from KEH and they are my "Go-To" camera store also. I've got the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 f2.8G lens cause it was in my price range. I've teested it in my neighborhood, but not in the field yet. My lens selection is 11 Nikon's and one Sigma. I've been interested in Nikon camera equipment since I was stationed in Hawaii in 1970, but couldn't afford one until 2015. Anyway, thanks for taking time to test out the equipment.
I liked there format of these tests
Bought the Tamron 70-210 f4 based on your recommendation and couldn't be happier. Awesome lense for the price! Thanks for your review.
Thank you for the comparison. I’m buying the the Tamron G2.
I just really love your content. Even if I I cannot afford the products that you showcase I just love watching your videos and the information you provide. Keep posting these type of videos and do keep up the great work.
I have the Sigma lens and found the firmware update helpful, that being said I’ve been wrestling with idea of buying the 70-200 S lens for my z7ii. Thanks for your work here. I’ll keep my Sigma and wrestle no more. Or was this the pill I needed to relieve my G.A.S.
How much better is the autofocus with the sigma after update on the ftz
Awesome comparison but in real life the Nikon z 70-200 is much much better then the Nikon F 70-200 FL, and the difference is even bigger compared to the VR2 and VR1. Compared to sigma and Tamron in my books the difference is even bigger. So if money is not an issue go for the z mount lens, for sure! If money is an issue, go for the VR 2 Nikon version.
Good review. It's a pity there was no nikon 70-200f4 in this comparison. Also I would suggest to add some points for mfd of the lenses.
I bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR I Gray version from someone in super good condition and still inside the box.
I'm happy and thank you for your amazing lens review and the stats you show at the end of the video.
Got it for $750
Good comparison. I've owned all these, except the Sigma. Your top marks lens, the 70-210 (cheapest), did not work out for me, besides being the cheapest and smallest. I've taken many photos , they are good but not one that made me say "WOW". I do not get into the nitty gritty specs. It's what makes me say "OMG" ! whatever that is !! The Z70-200 will consistently give me that. The F- mount E lens is a close second. Just my opinion. Thanks for the video guys !
amazing comparison, really appreciate all the effort put in it. Thank you!!
how you're doing i just got my canon 80d and i want a good zoom lens like the sigma 70-200 and it's all black and i see it takes great pictures. i want a few lens but i don't want to kill my pockets you understand. but i'm in love with sigma products and plus it's cheaper than canon. i guess those photographers can buy them cause they get paid i do this for fun and i want to be good at what i do ya see.i want to get this 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 55-250 so i want your opinion i'm going to buy the 18-35 sigma lens the 35mm 1.4 sigma lens and the 70-200 that's a good combination right? i was thinking 24-105 and the 24mm pancake lens and my collection is complete
Your audio levels are horrendous. It's all over the place throughout the whole video
Very annoying. I hope they fix it and reupload
Thanks for another great video, Tony & Chelsea. You do take testing to a whole new level. I got the Nikon F mount G model, bought two weeks ago secondhand for about 1000 $, and I am very pleased with the performance.
why did you guys skipped the 70 200 f4 from nikon?
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sport works fine with the mc11 on Sony. Eye AF was amazing. Only thing I didn't like was the weight. I did eventually trade it in with some other stuff for the 135 1.8 GM
So now we need you to do this for Canon and Sony.
I have the Tamron f2.8 on Canon and I notice that at close focus it doesn't zoom out much (focus length seems to stay in about the same from 150 to 200). I'm also interested in a lighter lens. The 70-210 looks nice especially at used price
i dont understand why all the new 70-200 lenses move the zoom ring away from the body. especially with the focus by wire approach with the Z lenses and the awful manual focus performance of it, why would you want the focus ring closer to the camera?
i found the manual focus override to be triggered alot when reaching for the zoom ring over the focus ring, which is quite an awful design flaw.
The z 70-200 images seems to "pop" more imo
I wish you included the Nikon 70-200 f4. I know you can review them all, but any thoughts on that lens?
That f/4 lens looks pretty darn compelling! Thanks for the tests, very cool.
I bought the Tamron F2.8 G2 because of price but I enjoy the performance and quality that I get from this lens. By using the FTZ adapter to put the third party lenses on the Zfc and Z7 could it be possible to reevaluate the two Tamron and Sigma and the one Nikon F-mount lenses on a DSLR like the D850? Then compare the results.
The F-Stoppers have done that comparison, it's on their channel here.
Very interesting test! Thanks for all the work you put into this!
15:08 by the way, on this pictures focus is more accurately at f-mount 70-200
My take on this... the Tamron 70-200 G2 for Nikon is a good lens ,IF you can put up with the inconsistency of the focus. The Nikon is higher priced, but focus is probably more consistent, so you're paying for that. Never shot with the Sigma, but have heard some good things about it. So it really comes down to focus accuracy and speed, and how much you want to spend. For non-professionals, I'd say the Tamron or Sigma should be sufficient, but for working professionals, the Nikon is the better choice. And if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg but want a Nikon lens, you can always get the slower, but still great, 70-200 f/4 version.
The test winner also has a sibling in the "HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR" lens. I think it is "joint" development but not sure how much each company contributed. The Tamron tripod collar works fine on the Pentax though (Pentax does not officially sell/provide a tripod collar).
You showed the Tamron when you presented the Sigma right?
Good test. I already own one of them after trying another one of them before and I'm more than pleased with it.
Thank you for taking the time to do this testing. It was so helpful
Any idea how would Nikon f mount 70-200f/4 perform against tamron 70-210f4 on z mount camera?
I'm curious why you left out the Nikon 70-200 f4 F-mount lens? I'm wondering how that one measures up to the rest of the field since it's the one that I own : )
Where did you get a Sigma 70-20 f/2.8 Sport for $1100? Used they sell for like $1500 and up.
Is the sigma the sport version?
Very interesting video, but I have no buyer’s remorse for my Z 70-200 f2.8 S lens. One test you didn’t do that I thought was critical, is color rendering. The Z lens does a great job of that, and I get better looking bokeh out of it than yours, and that’s on my Z6, even. Maybe that’s why it was for sale at KEH, huh? I had a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens that brand new wouldn’t focus properly out of the box. I got it exchanged for another one, and it works fine, but not as well as the focus on my Z lens. So much so that I got the Z 2X TC to use with it, when I don’t need quite the reach, like in Sports photography. I still use that Sigma for bird and wildlife, though, as it’s good enough to get 50% of the shots focused, on my Z, or at 33%+ on my D7100. So usage does play a big part in picking a winner. However, I had to say that I ado find it hard to believe that the little cheaply Tamron could beat the Z lens. If that were really the case, Nikon would have not made it, I think. What would be the point? Focus ability should be weighted a bit more, too. If the cheap Tamron can’t get you more than 25% winners, versus 90%+ on the Z, then that will more than be worth the price difference. What do you think?
Great review, I was looking for something like this few months ago when I was shopping for 70-200 lens to my Nikon. I used your channel also to inform my decision and I'm very happy with my sigma. Your latest review just confirms that I chose right 😊 thanks for all your content 😊
Just want to thank you guys for all you do! I am in the market for a new 70-200 and this video is a great help in my decision. Thank you again! Be well.
Wow, My Tamron sucks. Was thinking of going for the Z, guess I'm gonna have to make the switch. Thank You.
I calibrated my sigma lens using the USB dock and got significantly better autofocus. It's heavy but performs really well.
The older Sigma is not supported bu the dock
@@barryobrien1890 That Sigma is the newest 70-200 2.8. It is definitively supported. The old ones are not even in this test and not relevant to this video.
Isn't focus breathing contingent on distance to subject and with these being portrait tests how realistic is it to be 4ft from the subject at the long end for portraits. A tight head shot of a real head, not mini Tony's, would be the better test and that puts you farther back from the subject instead of being so close to minimum focal distance.
We also showed it with the mannequin. That is tight headshot range, but I thought the smaller subject made it easier to compare the difference.
So just curious about the focusing issue that you had with the Sigma 70-200. Was this only on the Nikon mirrorless body or by chance was this also checked on any other Nikon body, Such as the D500 or D850? Curious if you did by chance. Thanks and keep the great videos coming.
Thanks for the hard work, guys. Even though I've been shooting professionally for 9 years, I still bought one of your books recently to support you.
Those prices are so incredibly nice that I could get a flight ticket to the US, by the lens there, fly back, and still be cheaper off, including the ticket.
Having arrived very late to the D850, this video has been incredibly helpful sorting out my 70-200 options. Thanks for the excellent work that continues to be of value to F6, F5, and F100 legacy photographers. Brand new D850s are still an incredible value, provided they are attached to the right glass.
Steve Briggs
I had exactly the same problems with the autofocus on my Canon R6 when I used the EF mount Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I had to return it and bought the Tamron 2.8 instead which workes perfectly (at least the autofocus).
Watching the whole comparison I have to add, that I'm just a hobby photographer and the shortcomings of the Tamron 2.8 (focus, Bokeh, focal shrinking?) have not registered with me and I'm more than happy with the results.
@@Yankeededandy62 I'm a professional shooter who owns both, the Tamron G2 and Nikon FL - I don't see a big difference either. The Nikon is slightly more reliable in the most challenging conditions, but the Tamron hasn't really disappointed me either in any way. In general, 70-200 lenses are workhorses - I'm rarely wowed by the images I get out of them (in contrast to, say, the 105mm f/1.4) but they get the job done. If I was a hobbyist I'd definitely buy the Tamron, not the Nikon. The difference in price is better saved or spent on an f/1.4 prime (as opposed to the f/1.8 version) for example.
Something is for sure off with your guys Tamron G2. It should be very similar to the F mount Nikon 70-200E.
I think Jared Polin did a review between both of them at a baseball practice I think he said it was like 90% of the Nikon.
Well, a lot of the categories they went through aren't very noticeable in real world use. I have the lens and I'd rather have slightly more nervous bokeh than flaky af like the Sigma. I shot lots of Sports with the Tamron and it's fine. Not a stellar lens, but quite decent. I'd call it a workhorse more than anything.
Agreed. The results you re getting are way of with the Jared Polin but also other review outcomes. Could you have had a bad lense specimen or a wobbly connection to your camera? Im in doubt which one to choose: the Sigma or the Tamron?
@@MrRFasters seems like they use KEH beaters so you never know. Another youtuber compared a beat up rental lens of one brand to a hand picked pre-production lens of another brand and that video is influencing viewers buying decisions lol
I truly do appreciate you guys. Your reviews are always fun and interesting.
just a thought for the future, maybe bonus points for how smooth and precise the manual focus ring feels. loved the video 👍
Thanks for this comparison. I've been shooting (mostly concert photography) with a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 for a few years now. At the time I bought it, I thought it had a better VR rating than the then-equivalent Nikon lens. Now that I spend much more time shooting than I figured I would back then, I kinda wish I had invested instead in the Nikon lens. This review/comparison is contributing "confirmation bias" to my thoughts on getting the Nikon Z-mount version. :) Given my need for a good low-light shooter, the f/4 lens isn't going to be what I get next. The Nikon F-mount, Sigma, and Nikon Z-mount are very close in score, but if I take away the price factor, the Z-mount version pulls further ahead.
What's your advice on the kind of lens to use with my Nikon d7200 is it the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 or the tamaron 70-200mm SP 2.8?
ThankYou Two for all of the work to show us....
Great work, guys! Tony, you're my favorite nerd of all time! I've had my old gen Sigma 70-200mm since about 2012, I think. It's time for an upgrade and this video helped immensely. I'm going with the latest Sigma 70-200. I can deal with the slow AF since it will be primarily for portraits. I got the Nikon 200-500 that has excellent AF on my D850 & D500 bodies with wildlife and sports!
Im getting into photography because of your content. I really do appreciate the informative videos. Keep at it!
“That’s just me every day babe” killed me 😂😂. Great video y’all!!
Thank you for this video. Good timing before Christmas
Recently bought a Tamron 70-200…. Oh look at this review video….. oh man!!! Ugh. Oh well. It’s still a good lens. I like it even if it’s not the very best.
I've shot with the lens for a while. It's a workhorse. Nothing spectacular about it, but it's reliable and gets the job done. Definitely good value for money I'd say.
Wao very surprised about the Tamron 2.8 G2 !!! And the F4 too
If you've already got an F/4, it would also be interesting to compare it to some of the vintage 80-200mm lenses for a true budget alternative. If you go full manual, you wouldn't even have to pay 40$ for some of them.
Enjoyed the review, I have the Nikon F 70-200mm f2.8e for both my Z7 and D850 and it performs as expected. I was hoping the difference between the Nikon Z 70-200mm would have been better (my friend isn't going to like this because he sold his F mount in favor for the Z mount), so at this time there is no need for me to buy another lens. I was very surprised that the $400 lens actually beat everyone out, goes to show the more expensive does not equates to better performance.
I love my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 S, the 500 f4 S and 150-600 S and shoot with a canon R6, the eye and animal eye AF works flawlessly with the EF to RF adaptor on all three lenses.
Sigma has always had focus issues on Nikon bodies.
i own the tamron 70-210 and im very happy~
Why didn’t you include the Nikon 70-200mm f/4?
Keh stock
Thank you for the honesty, and properly prefacing judgements with the explanation that the art is more important than the cost of the equipment. And then ultimately explaining why the super expensive new lens is valuable in specific situations. And the icing on the cake is the unscripted chatter between the 2 of you as you work, just lovely. Thank you again.
Perfect timing for this review. I was just looking into this type of lens for my next purchase. Very useful information!!!
It looks like the Nikon F is the best lens. Among others, the sharpness test proved it, though it is clear more time was spent in those fields that favored the Z mount. Yet I believe Nikon nailed it with the F mount and clearly adapted it to the Z mount saving some money and increasing its price.
Do you guys know how the Tamron 70-180mm is in regards of it is a true 180mm?
I tested it at the same time (just to be efficient) and we plan to publish the video soon so be sure to subscribe. I haven't yet looked at the tests, though.
@@TonyAndChelsea Nice! Looking forward to it:)
I recommend KEH, too. Post-sale customer service is two thumbs up.
So no focal lenght lost by going to the tamron 35-150 instead of the G2 if it is only 135mm at 4ft
How refreshing to see a video focused on the lens performance not looking at the perceived limitations of the camera. Really great video that I am sure Nikon users will appreciate. If you can look at the 24-70, 105 2.8 and the long lenses when they come out in the same manner that would be awesome!
This is such a good comparison! I'd love to see a side by side of he Nikkor 80-200 (from like... the 90's?) and the 70-200 f/4. They're both competing for the same price point at ~$400 and the 80-200 works awesome on z cameras.
The Nikkor 70-200 f/4 for the F-mount is a strange omission lighter, less expensive and less focus breathing (according to some reviews I’ve read) than its f2.8 siblings.
@@peterjohnson1739 True, but the 70-200 f/4 version is still in the $600-900 range depending on the condition. It makes sense to compare the two, but I prefer the f/2.8 that the 80-200 comes with haha I've been using it for awhile now and I can't justify the extra couple hundred. If I have the chance, I'll be sure to give the 70-200 a fair shake though
@@aphenioxPDWtechnology it's actually about 50/50! Nikon made a ton of screw focus variants but more modern models have internal autofocus instead of screw focus 🙂
Just make sure you're looking at the bayonet Mount carefully so you can make sure you're buying right kind 😂
When there is discussion about Lenses, there are only two persons who bring our focus on focal shrinking every time, one is Tony sir and Dustin Abbott, thank you very much 💞 💕 ❤ 💖
Thank you so much for this video! This is so helpful having all the lenses being compared in one place :)
I do not mind that the comparison was with present day lens. What KEH is known for is having older glass that everyday shutterbugs use. Like the older versions of the 80-200mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8. These are Nikons Rockstars! This was a one way comparison which should of included the older Nikon glass. Just IMHO.