Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2010 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm

Loading
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


I have a Nikon D3100 with a 35mm f/1.8 so I'm looking for something with a little more reach. I'll be shooting surfing and some portraits at say 85mm and I'm currently looking at:

• Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF ($730)
• Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC ($400)

I don't care for the extra reach with the 300mm however at $330 less than the 70-200 is it a good buy? Will it be as sharp at 85mm? how about 200mm? The f/2.8 would be nice but at distance I usually punch it up to f/8, plus the additional weight of the 70-200 is a downer and the VC on the 70-300 a huge benefit... are they in the same league in terms of sharpness? and decent bokeh at 85mm?



Dec 31, 2010 at 12:37 AM
passthegravy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


I've never used either one of these lenses, but I have two comments. First, the 70-300 may be a fine lens, but I don't know why anyone would spend $400 on the Tamron when the Nikon 70-300VR can be purchased on the buy-sell forum here gently used for $400 or less. The Nikon is sharp, relatively fast focusing, relatively light and produces excellent colors and contrast. (I've got one and, no, I'm not selling it.)

Secondly, if you're going to shoot surfing, you're going to need more reach than a 200 or even 300 can give you.



Dec 31, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Loading
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


From the reviews and photos I've seen online it would seem the Tamron is better than the Nikon 70-300VR, I certainly wouldn't be against buying the Nikon even new if it were a better lens.

In the past I shot surfing with a 70-200L on Canon which framed my shots nicely, I suppose it depends how close the waves break. On a DX the 200mm is 300mm and 300mm a 450mm.

If the Nikon is the better lens the questions would be that vs a 70-200 equivalent.



Dec 31, 2010 at 02:10 PM
LLondon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Have the 70-200 Focus is slow. It hunts in lower light IQ is good but would rather have a Nikon VR1


Dec 31, 2010 at 03:35 PM
lorac
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Loading wrote:
From the reviews and photos I've seen online it would seem the Tamron is better than the Nikon 70-300VR, I certainly wouldn't be against buying the Nikon even new if it were a better lens..


You might want to read more reviews, because I don't think that's clearly true that the Tamron is better than the Nikon 70-300VR and some are quite the contrary. It's too soon to tell, until some serious pro reviews come out. I personally don't care for the lightweight build of Tamron lenses, but optically they make a few excellent ones.

Lora




Dec 31, 2010 at 03:58 PM
Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


The user reports I've seen all show the Tamron to be slightly better than the Nikon 70-300. I'd be curious to see some of those reports to the contrary. This is from the owner of a Nikon 70-300VR.

The lens looks nice to me:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Tamron-SP70300mm-f456-Di-VC-USD-14690

@ OP, it sounds like for your shooting needs you're focal length limited when shooting surfing. So you want the longest lens possible. I'd go for the 70-300 in your shoes.



Dec 31, 2010 at 05:01 PM
rsolti13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


I have had both lenses and the 70-200. I would never recommend the 70-200 to anyone. Used it on the D90 and the AF is even worse than anything you read. Horrible. Couldn't focus the least bit in low light and could never be relied upon for accuracy.

The 70-300 VR is excellent, the Tamron is better in almost all ways. Slightly sharper from 70-200 and MUCH sharper from 200-300. The VC in the Tamron is much better than Nikon's VR. I know, hard to believe, but believe it. Tamfon's new motor is fast (faster than Nikon) and quiet. Also, the Tamron is f/4 and faster throughout the range than the Nikon. Hands down, I would take the Tamron over the Nikon. There are a couple other posts in the Nikon forum here with several examples. Search



Dec 31, 2010 at 05:23 PM
lorac
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Jammy Straub wrote:
The user reports I've seen all show the Tamron to be slightly better than the Nikon 70-300. I'd be curious to see some of those reports to the contrary. This is from the owner of a Nikon 70-300VR.


I've read from many sources, but if you want take a look at the 100 or so posts over a few threads at Dpreview. The " the Tamron is better in all ways, sharper, faster AF etc opinion" like on this thread is not so clear. I own the Nikon 70-300VR and I'm not a fanboy/girl, but IMO it's still too soon for confirmation of the superiority of one lens over the other.

Lora



Dec 31, 2010 at 05:59 PM
rsolti13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


lorac wrote:
I've read from many sources, but if you want take a look at the 100 or so posts over a few threads at Dpreview. The " the Tamron is better in all ways, sharper, faster AF etc opinion" like on this thread is not so clear. I own the Nikon 70-300VR and I'm not a fanboy/girl, but IMO it's still too soon for confirmation of the superiority of one lens over the other.

Lora


When you have both and use both side by side the differences are there



Dec 31, 2010 at 06:19 PM
traveler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


What the Tamron's DO do is provide better sharpness and lack of CA, what they do NOT do is provide a faster more accurate autofocus. That 70-200 f2.8LD is a stunning $700 lens with a hugely disappointing focus motor. If they would EVER put that new Piezo VC system on that lens and sell it for under a grand they would sell a million+ of them. Optically you can't fault it, but focus motor will drive you NUTS.


Dec 31, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Mercaptan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


rsolti13 wrote:
When you have both and use both side by side the differences are there


Yup. I have both, and the Tamron is sharper at 300mm, at all apertures. Heck, even at 5.6 it's sharper than the Nikon at 8 or 11. When some people have posted photos of what they consider sharp from the 70-300 VR Nikon I'm left thinking - wow, that really isn't all that great. I wonder if there is a large amount of variation between lenses.

And someone above complained about the lightweight build of Tamrons - it's actually heavier than the Nikon 70-300 VR. The VC is much better as well, and the AF might be slightly slower, but I cannot seem to tell. The only issue I have with the lens is that it underexposes substantially when in Matrix metering mode. I've sent it back to be fixed, but I can do more comparisons when I get back. Believe me, I wanted the Nikon to be better, but at this stage I cannot say it is.






Jan 01, 2011 at 01:32 AM
lorac
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Mercaptan wrote:
When you have both and use both side by side the differences are there.

Yup. I have both, and the Tamron is sharper at 300mm, at all apertures. Heck, even at 5.6 it's sharper than the Nikon at 8 or 11. When some people have posted photos of what they consider sharp from the 70-300 VR Nikon I'm left thinking - wow, that really isn't all that great. I wonder if there is a large amount of variation between lenses.

And someone above complained about the lightweight build of Tamrons - it's actually heavier than the Nikon 70-300 VR. The VC is
...Show more

This is precisely why I'm waiting for some of the main pro reviews to come out on the Tamron before formulating an opinion. I appreciate the effort, but no pro review is going to choose images like these to depict sharpness or lack there of. I've heard the Tamron is sharper right at 300mm and I've also heard that AF performance is considerably slower and less responsive than the Nikon, both could be true I don't know at this point. There is nothing subjective about the fact that the build of Tamron lenses is the lightest of all the three manufacturers. I saw that the Tamron weighs a little more than the Nikon, but that does not mean the build is superior. If it is, then that's a first from Tamron. It could be I don't know, since I haven't seen the Tamron in person.

I never buy lenses when they first come out until enough time has elapsed to have the accurate information to ferret through all the claims and get to the truth about a lens performance. For me that involves a combination of certain respected pro reviews along with consumer user reports. This will take a while and if the OP needs a lens in the next few weeks or sooner, I would suggest he try the Tamron and see for himself how it performs.

Lora




Jan 01, 2011 at 03:13 AM
Mercaptan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


I'm not quite sure what images they would choose, but even over doing comparison shots with 30 different scenes from a zoo and botanical garden, the Tamron was sharper throughout approximately 500 different individual frames. Would it be better if I shot images of a static resolution board at 5 feet? I did that too, but my impression was that the Nikon was better at this distance. For shots of anything past minimum focusing distance I found the Tamron to be better. I chose those shots because they had a mix of regular and irregular geometry with some contrast throughout, and the first was taken from 50 yards, while the second was taken from 2/3rds of a mile away. I'm not convinced the Nikon is truly in focus for some shots though, it seemed to front focus slightly. I'll do another series of comparisons after AF tuning the lenses and see what works out.

By the way, what would you consider to be a 'professional' review site? I know that DXO has looked at the Tamron and found it to be subpar to the Nikon specifically, but most other reviews (anecdotal, website based) seemed to favor the Tamron.



Jan 01, 2011 at 07:56 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


^ ALL your 'test shots' look terrible You may also have a dud of a 70-300 VR
Here's one of mine...100% crop, shot from a rolling 4Runner @300mm f6.3 SOOC
The proof's in the Exif's puddin' DX shot BTW, it's even better on FX

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg31/rvrsbnd/70aa104c.jpg

Edited on Jan 01, 2011 at 09:43 AM · View previous versions



Jan 01, 2011 at 09:29 AM
passthegravy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


trenchmonkey wrote:
. . . You may also have a dud of a 70-300 VR
. . . .


That's why I don't put much stock in reviews. There seems to be so much sample variation these days. (Maybe there always has been but it's just more evident in the internet age.)

Generally, the only solution is to quit reading and analyzing, and go buy one and start shooting. If you like the results, great. If not, sell it and buy something else.



Jan 01, 2011 at 09:39 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Agree Throw operator error into the mix, and one REALLY has to try for themselves with the way/what they shoot.
Many adopters have little or no long lens technique, on DX these lenses are an effective 450mm Just sayin'



Jan 01, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Mercaptan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


trenchmonkey wrote:
^ ALL your 'test shots' look terrible You may also have a dud of a 70-300 VR
Here's one of mine...100% crop, shot from a rolling 4Runner @300mm f6.3 SOOC
The proof's in the Exif's puddin' DX shot BTW, it's even better on FX


I should probably mention those shots were 100% crops from the center of the frame with the focus points being in the area cropped down. They were tripod mounted with shutter speeds > 1/100s for the plant shots, and > 1/1800 for the outdoor house shots.



Jan 01, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Loading
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Thank you all for input, I found it very helpful. I am definitely going with the Tamron 70-300mm, the VC, 300mm and lightweight are all favorable over the 70-200mm. It's out of stock at Amazon but at around $350 AR I'll go ahead and place my order and hope they get it in soon!

@Mercaptan Thank you for the comparison shots, at 100% this is good enough for me.

@trenchmonkey Nice shot but it looks like you added sharpening to the bird?



Jan 01, 2011 at 05:14 PM
James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


Loading wrote:
Thank you all for input, I found it very helpful. I am definitely going with the Tamron 70-300mm, the VC, 300mm and lightweight are all favorable over the 70-200mm. It's out of stock at Amazon but at around $350 AR I'll go ahead and place my order and hope they get it in soon!

@Mercaptan Thank you for the comparison shots, at 100% this is good enough for me.

@trenchmonkey Nice shot but it looks like you added sharpening to the bird?


You might have missed Trench's point--the 70-300's IQ is pretty stunning for a 1K lens. Every digital pic requires some sharpening.



Jan 01, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Gaylon Holmes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Tamron 70-200mm vs 70-300mm


I've owned the Nikkor since its introduction and had the Tamron for a couple months or so. Shot them side-by-side during that period on DX bodies.

Both very good lenses and I ended up keeping the Nikkor for a variety of reasons that pertain to my specific preferences. The one glaring fault of the Tamron that killed it for me was its close focus performance - or lack thereof. I use lenses such as these for close up fun in the field and the Nikkor noticeably outperformed the Tamron in such scenarios. Could easily have been my samples, I suppose.

That said, I would feel quite comparably equipped with either lens in the field for most applications.

70-300 VR at 300mm, f/10:
http://holmes.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v7/p1013032186.jpg



Jan 01, 2011 at 06:08 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.