James R wrote:
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.
How can you tell from a processed image? It looks overly sharpened which could well be to compensate for a soft lens? The point of lens comparison is to view the raw data, not the work of photoshop right?
...here's a crop of a squirrel from a cheap $200 lens that isn't overly sharpened.
I had the Tamron 70-200 and it was excellent. The focus was slower than the Nikkor, but the optical quality in in Tamron vs the optical quality in the Nikkor I had were night and day, the Tamron was unbelievably sharper and much better contrast.
This was the VR1, and one sample each is one sample each. Take it for what it is.
I dont mean to hijack this thread, but I had a similiar question and would love some feedback.. I currently have the Nikon 70-300 VR and I'm happy with it - Ideally I'd like to get a Nikon 70-200 VRI or VRII but its out of my budget for quite a while, even used ones.
I understand the slow focus in the Tamron 70-200 is a big negative compared to the Nikon 70-200.. The Nikon 70-300 isn't quite fast, and its not as usable in low-light anyway (compared the the 70-200's), so I'm not sure I'd take a hit there.. Primarily this lens would be used for outdoor sports - mostly baseball. I use the 70-300 now and for those conditions its ok, but I'd still prefer a 2.8. Would the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 be a worthwhile upgrade over the Nikon 70-300 (f4.5-5.6) for someone on a budget (when low light doesn't matter?)
Is 200mm going to be long enough for baseball and other outdoor sports? If not, you're going to be using an extender to get more reach, and there goes any speed advantage.
If you don't need AF the Tamron 70-200 is great. The AF in it is 100% worthless based on my experience.
For outdoor sports, such as baseball, soccer, etc you will need more than 200mm. I found that the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is actually a great lens at a great price that is perfect for outdoor sports.
As I think I said before, the challenge with the Tammy 70-200 f2.8 is indeed the focus speed, mainly in lessor light. I took this pic handheld at dusk with the built in flash on the D700. I think optically the Tamron is pretty much above reproach. I had the 70-200 f2.8vrI and sold it because the Tammy spanked it all across the optical board. I just got tired of the slower focus of the Tammy and eventually decided to just stick with the 70-300vr as it was used most of the time anyway. Still if one is not shooting sports or fast moving subjects the Tammy is a lens to reckon with for sure. Sharp, contrasty and had NO CA.
I can deal with 200mm.. I had an 18-200 and the range was OK, having 300mm is nice, but I think I end up backing it off more than I end up using full 300.. Its nice to have it, but the speed and IQ would make up for it.
That being said, I've been pretty happy with the 70-300 VR on FX for it's lighter weight, longer reach, VR, and reliable AFS. Makes a great travel lens.
I'm tempted to sell the Tamron but I can afford both. If you REALLY need the AF, I'd go with one of the 70-300's over the 70-200, especially if you're on FX and need the reach.
I've held off purchasing for now as I seem to be doing people/portrait shoots and may concentrate on this for my future portfolio.
I was thinking I'd like to stick to primes for people and pick up a general walk about with a zoom, would something like the Tamron 18-270 compare to the 70-300? ~ Would any of these zoom lenses be a suitable choice for people pictures or would a 50/85mm prime destroy them in terms of sharpness/contrast?
Glad to see some love for the Tamron. Given I shoot DX though, I eventually sold it and went for a Tokina 50-135 so I had a more useful focal length for portraiture.
I have the Tamron 70-300VC and had the Nikkor. While the Nikon is a great lens, decently sharp to about 270mm wide open, the Tamron is sharper, and all the way to 300mm.
I am not a brand snob and don't care who's name is on the label if it does what I expect it to.
I also have the Tokina 50-135 and love it. Just posted an image from it in another thread. That is the lens I would prefer for portraiture.
Loading wrote:
would something like the Tamron 18-270 compare to the 70-300?
No.
~ Would any of these zoom lenses be a suitable choice for people pictures
Suitable yes (see example below)
or would a 50/85mm prime destroy them in terms of sharpness/contrast?
85/1.4D would be better for portraits, greater subject isolation, more pop, nicer bokeh. Sharpness/contrast is not really better compared to a 2.8 zoom, but that's not important for portraits. Personally, I rarely add sharpening or clarity to a portrait.
Here's one of the wife, Nikon 70-300 VR, F/10, 195mm on FX:
Loading wrote:
Would any of these zoom lenses be a suitable choice for people pictures or would a 50/85mm prime destroy them in terms of sharpness/contrast?
There's nothing inherently wrong with using a zoom like that for portraiture, you just have to realize you won't get the f/1.4 DOF effect with a f/5.6 zoom. That doesn't mean it's bad, not every one wants that look.
This was just a quick example to see what the 70-300VR looked like in the studio, portraits like that you'll often shoot at f/8 anyway.
Oh boy I am a sucker for bokeh! My thinking behind the tele zoom was too be able to shoot portraits AND surfing/distant subjects, however the 85/1.4 would give me my desired look. Call me crazy but I'm thinking about the Sigma 85mm/1.4 instead of the oringal zoom lens and just crop when used for distant subjects. (Thank you for the example pics!)
