70-200 f/ 2.8 Tamron or Sigma?

I need a lens replacement for my Nikon D7000. I'm planning to get a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, and in my previous posts i have mentioned I have a 70-300 f4-5.6. Now, I need a replacement for the tele.

My dream DX setup would be a
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (on the way)
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G (got it)
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G (on the way)
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (still deciding which brand)

Now, weighing my options that I might be out of budget, which of the two third party lenses comes close to great performance such as the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2? They both fall on my desired budget, but which one? Please state maybe your pros and cons and a little thought on why you lean towards your lens of choice. You have one of these 3rd party telephoto lenses? I wanna hear your experience with it. Cheers!

Added (1). Sorry, i forgot to mention, i'm referring to the latest models of both brands. The Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM

Tamron. Personally I like Tamron better, and usually they're slightly cheaper. I've had a lot of joy using my tamron lenses, they do the job, they're sturdy and well, they're just good!

I never be happy with tamron lens, but sigma working fine

The Sigma. Tamron makes lenses, but from what I have read, this Tamron does not focus very fast. I have an older Sigma without OS and it works great.

Is there a reason you are in a hurry to buy a 70-200 mm lens?

If I were in your position, I would just save my pennies until I could buy the Nikkor 70-200 mm lens. That is exactly what I did. I started saving for one about two years before I actually bought it. Look for a refurbished lens and you will save some money.

I tend to use my lenses for decades, so it is important to me that my lens is the best, even if I have to wait a year to buy it.

Concerning the VR, VC or OS, these tech became a huge marketing argument for these companies because they like to make people think that they absolutely need it when in fact most people won't use it, it's just there in case that one day it might save the day if you don't have a tripod with you.

You really need to figure out if it's worth it or not for your own need, I have been using a Canon 70-200mm f/2,8L and a Nikon 70-300mm VR for several years now and the only time I used the VR with the Nikon it was basically to try it out. Since then I never really had to use it again because with both lens, whether I shoot in good condition or I have my tripod with me.

For sport, these technology won't help you because you need at least 1/500 to freeze the action.

If you shoot something that doesn't move in low light then these tech will be helpful but then again if you have a tripod the problem is solved however like I said above it might save the day at one point, if you're on a trip and have no tripod or the time or the place to use it etc.

All this to tell you that you should take a look at the Nikon 80-200mm f/2,8D which could be a great alternative, since you don't have to pay for the VR the lens cost $1100 and you gain this over the others brand:

-Lens is built like a tank. (metal vs plastic)

-Resale value is better.

-Without VR, VC, OS there's less stuff to break on the lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/..._2_8D.html

Have fun shooting!