Tamron lens vs. Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SteinMaster, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. SteinMaster macrumors 6502

    SteinMaster

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I am looking to purchase a fairly good 70-200 2.8f lens for my Nikon D300. I am an amateur photo. and need a lens I can get good indoor shots at a sporting event. I was eyeing the Nikon 70-200 2.8f VR ($1,900). I spoke to a camera shop and they recommended a Tamron 70-200 2.8f (no VR) at 1/3 the price. Am I going to be loosing a lot of quality and functionality going with the Tamron? Is the Nikon lens 3x's the quality and build? I checked some Internet reviews on the Tamron. The most common complaint for the Tamron was the slow focus speed and lack of focus (some times). The Tamron sharpness and quality was said to equal the Nikon. I have not seen any bad reviews for the Nikon lens. Anyone with some experience using these two would be much appreciated. Thanks!
     
  2. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #2
    The quality glass from Nikon and Canon is just in a league of it's own. True professional stuff. Tamron builds lenses that are not equal to these high end lenses but a big step up from the kit lenses. I have the Tamron 28-300 Vibration Compensation lens on my XSi. It is nice and sharp and the VC works really well. It is well built, too. It will hunt or a focus spot if it is shooting a scene with a great distance between the foreground and background, like a field with a mountain range in the distance.

    That said, you defiantly need a 2.8 lens to shoot indoors sports. IS/VC will only help with camera movement, so I don't know how critical it is for sports where your subject is moving. If this is not paid work, the Tamron should do well. If you earn cash with it, go with the Nikon lens.

    My camera shop will let you rent before you buy. See if your's does too. These lenses can be rented online, too. Just run a search on "lens rental".

    Clear as mud, eh?

    Dale
     
  3. NEiMac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Location:
    THe really dry side of the Pacific NW
    #3
    From what I have read, optically the Tamron is great, but it's autofocus sucks.
     
  4. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #4
    First the good part: Resolution...

    From the DPR comparisons, it looks like the MTF50 starts out better, but drops out towards the edges of a DX frame at 200mm. I normally pay the most attention to the long end of a zoom because that's where I shoot >90% of the time. At 70mm, it also looks like it starts out sharper, but then falls off but ends up in about the same place as the Nikkor. DPR only tested on Canon, and the 40D results look worse than the 5D ones- however I think DPR only has data for the older

    Now the bad part- quality:

    http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-70-200mm-f2.8-F001N700/for-nikon

    That's a big, big problem. If the Nikon is too expensive, and you can give up some resolution look at the Sigma.

    Paul
     
  5. ronjon10 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #5
    Check out an older used Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED lens. I've had one for years that I kept from my film days. It does beautifully with my DX cameras. You can find them for 800-1000. Obviously no VR, but you wouldn't get that with the Tamron either.
     
  6. El Cabong macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #6
    For your purposes, the autofocus is the main difference between the two lenses. When shooting fast-moving sports, it's not easy to prefocus, especially wide open, so you'll probably miss a lot of shots while focus-hunting with the Tamron. An alternative is made by Sigma, which has fast AF and is closer to the price of the Tamron. The Nikon 80-200mm ED f/2.8 AF-S isn't a bad option, either, if you're willing to spend a bit more cash.

    IS/VR/VC won't do much for the focal lengths/shutter speeds at which you should be shooting, so it's no great loss. Faster action => Faster shutter speeds => Stabilization doesn't do much.
     
  7. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #7
    Nikon also has a cheaper 80-200 mm f/2.8 zoom which costs around $1,100. I have an older version of this lens which uses the same optics and I get superb results. Another possibility is to buy used. There are quite a few different models to choose from.

    Regarding non-Nikon lenses, I have three Nikkors, one Tokina and one Sigma. I've owned another Tokina lens before. In terms of built quality, the older Tokinas come very, very close to Nikon pro glass. The newer ones feel sturdy as well. For sure, the built quality is not 3 times better.

    I also wouldn't shy away from getting the Tamron, in fact, I may eventually pick up a 17-50 mm f/2.8.
     
  8. TH3D4RKKN1GH7 macrumors 6502a

    TH3D4RKKN1GH7

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    #8
  9. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #9
    Beware of the AF issues. Seriously, they might say minor AF miss focus issue but in practice, that amount of AF miss focus issue will end up being a BIG PROBLEM if you ended up doing events. Seriously, my Sigma 18-50 is a superb lens...if it is able to focus properly that is. Get a lil bit of low light and the tendency for it to mis focus shoots up sky high.

    If you can't afford the 70-200, I suggest getting the 80-200 instead.
     
  10. borrowlenses macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    #10
    The Tamron lens is not comparable to the Nikon. You get what you pay for, and the Nikon 70-200 is simply incredible. Fast focus, very sharp, totally silent, great contrast...and on down the line. The same is true for the other lenses such as the 24-70 (also $1,900)...amazing lenses and the Tamon/Sigma equivalents are not too bad for the money but not as good as the Nikkor. Not even in the same league really.
     
  11. polotska macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
  12. SteinMaster thread starter macrumors 6502

    SteinMaster

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    Thanks everyone for the helpful replies. I decided to go with the 80-200 2.8f Nikkor lens and all I can say is WOW! I played around with it tonight and got some stunning photos. The sharpness and color is excellent. The best I have seen on my D300. I have a little buyers remorse I did not get the 70-200 VR, but I could not see myself spending another $1,000 to have VR. I invested in a Manfrotto monopod and quick release swivel (that's my $200 VR). I will be shooting an indoor sporting event next weekend and am excited to use this lens.
     
  13. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #13
    Maybe not for the likes of the 70-200/2.8 from Tamron. Read the review from DPR.... http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/ Like others have said.

    The negatives were:

    -Slow and noisy autofocus motor
    -Somewhat clunky manual focus switchover mechanism
    -Tendency towards slight misfocusing (at least in Canon mount)

    To the OP, I would suggest trying the Tamron and see if it fits your needs from a retailer that has a return privilege.

    For some of my customers they have not disliked the slower focusing of the Tamron given its price point.

    Congrats on the new lens.... it is awesome for sure...

    For others that look in to this thread; the advantage in Canon or Nikon glass in the 70-200 range maybe the matched tele-convertors.... And even with your 80-200 :)
     
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    I think the lensrentals.com experience would negate any amount of sharpness in my book- I think most people treat rented lenses much better than they treat rented cars.

    Paul
     
  15. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    Not sure what sure their customers might have hoped from this lens... I will say that in all the copies of this lens - I have had only two returns - they told me that that they wanted IS/VR.... never for sharpness..
     
  16. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #16
    You made a good decision. It's probably one of the best lenses going for the money...especially for mint condition used ones. very rugged, fast AF on a pro body, and extremely good IQ.
     
  17. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #17

    good move!
     
  18. JCCash macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    #18
    I own a Nikon D5100 and use the Tamron 18-270mm lens. It's a very good lens for the money. It has vibration control. I was looking to buy the Nikon 180-200 lens. It also is a very nice lens. I chose the Tamron due to cost and a little bit more reach.
     
  19. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #19
    I have a Nikkor with the same optical construction and I can just tell you, it's the best lens in my arsenal. (I'm not going by test scores, just from the pictures that I've taken with it.)
     
  20. LatinGeek macrumors newbie

    LatinGeek

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    #20
    woah woah sure is "dissing the kit lenses" around here, come on guys
     
  21. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #21
    First, look at the date of the thread, its an old one ;)

    Secondly, I have found Nikon's kit lenses to be exceptional. True, you get even better performance from their other lenses but I've been quite happy with how the kit lens works as well
     

Share This Page