Steve Spencer Online Upload & Sell: On
|
Ripolini wrote:
Those are two completely different lenses.
The 70-180 is a lightweight and compact telephoto zoom (81x141 mm, 815 g: E-mount).
The Z 70-200/2.8 is a beast, 89x220 mm weighing 1440 g (1360 g without tripod collar, i.e., 67% more than 70-180).
I'm not even sure the 70-180 is a "true" f/2.8 lens (and what about T??), being just 67 mm the filter thread (the same as my 70-200/4 VR). The Micro-Nikkor 70-180/4.5-5.6 I had long time ago had a 62 mm filter thread ... at 180 mm (at infinity) and f/5.6 ...
Are you comparing apples to oranges?
Well they are very different in size obviously, but not very different in focal length range and aperture. The key thing for the comparison for my use is can they serve the same purposes and that tells me for my use whether it is an apples to apples vs. apples to oranges comparison. I would us such a lens some of the time for portraits and for portraits I would us the 100-180 range most of the time. I would appreciate the smaller size of the Tamron, but I would also appreciate for VR of the Nikon for such shots. If this was my only use I would probably get the Tamron. It isn't my only use, however, as I would use the lens for shooting field sports sometimes too and it would probably get more use there. For field sports the 105-280 range at f/4 with my 1.4X TC would be the most useful for the way I shoot and you can't get anything like that with the Tamron. This whole other and more common for me use of such a lens justifies the larger size. Of course for other people who have other uses they might look at the comparison very differently.
|