Nikon 55 - 200 or Tamron 70 - 300

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 23476
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 23476

Guest
Hey,
My latest dilemma is that i am looking for a longer zoom lens for use along side my default 18 - 55 kit lens.

I am trying to weigh up between the 55 - 200 vr from nikon and the 70 - 300 Tamron lens. While the extra reach of the Tamron would be nicer i am just not sure if i would be better off going with the nikon as it has the VR on it. Has anyone got any advice on which one of these 2 to go for

Thanks
 
roastchips said:
Hey,
My latest dilemma is that i am looking for a longer zoom lens for use along side my default 18 - 55 kit lens.

I am trying to weigh up between the 55 - 200 vr from nikon and the 70 - 300 Tamron lens. While the extra reach of the Tamron would be nicer i am just not sure if i would be better off going with the nikon as it has the VR on it. Has anyone got any advice on which one of these 2 to go for... Thanks
Click to expand...

i have the 55-200 VR - it's great optically and the VR works well when I hand held for some bird shots [stationary]
the downside was i needed to get within about 10feet

if you need the reach for wildlife the 300mm is not enough
also I have "read" the Tamron is a bit "soft" at 300mm

so - without knowing your image preferences - I'd stay with the Nikon and save for a decent 400 for wildlife
 
nikon 70-300 every time, great lens with very effective VR....
 
Dave Pickett said:
nikon 70-300 every time, great lens with very effective VR....
Click to expand...

As much as i would love a Nikon 70 - 300 VR i cant afford it at the moment but in the future may look at it.

Yardbent said:
i have the 55-200 VR - it's great optically and the VR works well when I hand held for some bird shots [stationary]
the downside was i needed to get within about 10feet

if you need the reach for wildlife the 300mm is not enough
also I have "read" the Tamron is a bit "soft" at 300mm

so - without knowing your image preferences - I'd stay with the Nikon and save for a decent 400 for wildlife
Click to expand...

Ye ive also read the Tamron is soft at 300, but also another advantage to it is because its a Full frame lens and i have a cropped body i will be getting something like 400mm out of it. I have used a 55 - 200 VR before after borrowing from a friend and was impressed with it but at time i felt maybe a extra 50mm or so of extra reach would be nice.

Anyone got anything at what the Tamron is like at the 70 - 200 mm mark as i think if its as good as the nikon or close then that will sway me towards the tamron and the the extra 100mm will be a bonus if i need it.

On regards to what im shooting, i would not be doing wildlife, now and again i may take a couple of bird shots for personal pleasure but nothing major, the main thiong i would be useing it for is shooting small local concerts and also shooting some sports.

PS: Thanks for the help so far
 
roastchips said:
As much as i would love a Nikon 70 - 300 VR i cant afford it at the moment but in the future may look at it.

, the main thing i would be using it for is shooting small local concerts and also shooting some sports......
Click to expand...

low light and fast action ... you may be looking at serious money,,:shrug:
 
This is a photo taken, hand-held, with a Nikon D5000, Tamron 70-300mm lens, I can't remember the F/stop I'm afriad, I had it on full auto at the time.

DSC_01292.jpg
 
If I may add something I have ordered a D5000 and it comes with that lens in the package, my idea is to buy a Sigma 150-500mm which comes in about £700 and I've seen very good bird photos with it. After that it seems its the prime lenes which are indeed very expensive. To get really good photos you may consider buying a hide, a small pop up hide they are very popular.
 
roastchips said:
but also another advantage to it is because its a Full frame lens and i have a cropped body i will be getting something like 400mm out of it.
Click to expand...

Being a FF lens has no effect on the focal length of a lens...........

Any lens used on a crop body will give a different field of view to the same lens on a crop body

so a 70-300mm lens used on a canon crop body (1.6) will give the same FOV as a 112-480mm on a FF body, and the 55-200mm will give equivalent FOV as a 88-320mm on a FF body.

The Tamron 70-300 is soft and suffers terrible CA
 
Consider the Tamron 55-200...It is a super lens, punches well above it's weight, and better still is as cheap as chips
 
Paddysnapper said:
Consider the Tamron 55-200...It is a super lens, punches well above it's weight, and better still is as cheap as chips
Click to expand...

agree to disagree..?....quick search Tamron about @£112

the Nikon optics will be better and the VR will be a bonus at 200mm

a Nikon can be found used for only little more money...
 
I've used the Nikon 55-200 VR and found it to be an excellent "cheap" lens, was sharp even at 200mm.

Here is a 100% crop from my Fuji S5 Pro.

175mm
ISO 100
f8
1/640th sec

4424633614_96acb53d14_o.jpg
 
Yardbent said:
agree to disagree..?....quick search Tamron about @£112

the Nikon optics will be better and the VR will be a bonus at 200mm

a Nikon can be found used for only little more money...
Click to expand...


College Cameras have the Tamron in stock at 64.99 NEW...I highly recommend this company, it was where I bought mine...:thumbs:
 
Yardbent said:
low light and fast action ... you may be looking at serious money,,:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, i know this is the case but im managing fine at the moment with my 18 - 55 just need more length is my biggest issue. These concerts are very well lit up on the stage area were i shoot.

Dogfish_magnet said:
Being a FF lens has no effect on the focal length of a lens...........

Any lens used on a crop body will give a different field of view to the same lens on a crop body

so a 70-300mm lens used on a canon crop body (1.6) will give the same FOV as a 112-480mm on a FF body, and the 55-200mm will give equivalent FOV as a 88-320mm on a FF body.

The Tamron 70-300 is soft and suffers terrible CA
Click to expand...

Thanks for that i knew there was something but dident know how to describe. Care to explain CA ?

Paddysnapper said:
Consider the Tamron 55-200...It is a super lens, punches well above it's weight, and better still is as cheap as chips
Click to expand...

Will defiantly look at that but i think if im gonna go 55 - 200 i will go nikon because of the VR and also being in my price range, thanks anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top