Nikon mount Lens Dilemma

[nitti48]

Thought this would be a better Forum

Sorry I have been away for quite sum time trying to give back my deed to bank in Florida(successful)

I want to buy either a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 2.8...I have seen several but 1 Sigma with OS is alot more than without the os..Any suggestions as to a lens on a Nikon D5100..Is the OS worth the extra say $400 or $500,and if not a Sigma or Tamron>> Thanks so much for your consideration

[Wingman]

For a tele-zoom, the OS does help for hand held shots at the long end of the zoom. Same if you plan to do low light photography where you may be using a slower shutter speed even at f2.8.

On the other hand, if you plan to use the lens on a tripod mount, I'd skip the OS.

Jehan

[TCav]

Image stabilization helps if you can't get the shutter speed high enough to meet the old rule of thumb:

Exposure time = 1 / ( Focal Length X Crop Factor )

So, (presuming we're talking about using a 70-200/2.8 telephoto zoom lens on an APS-C dSLR) if you can keep the shutter speed at 1/300 second or faster, you can probably do without image stabilization.

Though I'd like to add that, if you have image stabilization and don't need it, you can turn it off, but if you need image stabilization and don't have it, you can't turn it on.

Tamron's unstamilized 70-200/2.8 sells for $769, while Sigma's stabilized version sells for $1,299 (after a $100 instant rebate.) The Sigma is almost twice the price of the Tamron (especially after the instant rebate expires), and they perform about equally well, so you should be certain that you need the stabilization before your make your choice.

One last consideration is that the Sigma is reported to focus faster than the Tamron, so if you'll be using it for sports/action/wildlife, you should probably factor that into your decision just as much as whether or not the lens is stabilized.