Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR or Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VR ?

Turbo-G said:
If you can justify the price (e.g you make your money from it) go for the Nikon - it will be superior, but the difference is marginal from what I have seen and read.

For info, I have a Tamron, and whilst I've not used it in anger - I'm quite pleased with it.

I've noticed everyone mentions getting a good or a bad "copy" - which doesn't make much sense. This is a mass produced lens (as they all are), so of course you'll get some quality variances from time to time, dependent on how good their QC is.

What are the issues people have had with a "bad" tamron, so I can put mine through its paces...?

Thanks,
Grant
Click to expand...
Tamron seem to have more sample variation than others at the moment. That being said I've had more issues with Sigma.
 
John Young said:
Thinking of buying from DigRev - Did they not used to have a 2 year warranty as its one now ?
Click to expand...

Unsure, but if you pay a bit more, and buy a UK market model, you'll get a 5 year warranty with Tamron themselves, which is great.

I paid £995 from Amazon recently, still less than half price of the Nikon equiv.

Grant
 
Turbo-G said:
Unsure, but if you pay a bit more, and buy a UK market model, you'll get a 5 year warranty with Tamron themselves, which is great.

I paid £995 from Amazon recently, still less than half price of the Nikon equiv.

Grant
Click to expand...


Yeah quite a bit more to pay though and that's on offer normally a lot more......... Maybe I imagined it with DigRev or it was an offer or a different supplier :thinking:
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
The VR2 is £1800 for a UK market one...
Click to expand...
Crikey they've gone up :(

Edit, just seen the second post with the jessops price. That's what I paid for mine from them, although I got £250 cash back too so worked out at £1329.
 
Last edited:
Damn this thread gonna have to sell the Tamron and get the VR2 again :D
 
f/2.8 said:
Damn this thread gonna have to sell the Tamron and get the VR2 again :D
Click to expand...

lol just wait lad until the replacement. I reckon they will actually try to match the Canon model this time

I remember you telling me you used to take it out of the box to look at lol Gear whore ya lol
 
Turbo-G said:
I've noticed everyone mentions getting a good or a bad "copy" - which doesn't make much sense. This is a mass produced lens (as they all are), so of course you'll get some quality variances from time to time, dependent on how good their QC is.
Click to expand...

It's not down to QC, but to consistency of manufacture and tolerances. As you say, this is a mass produced lens with that isn't completely consistent copy-copy, and while a 'bad copy' (bad presumably because it isn't sharp wide open) doesn't look so good to us, it is still within manufacturers tolerances.
 
Worth mentioning you can't use a tele convertor with the Tamron, in case that influences your decision.
 
wezza13 said:
If it helps at all, I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC.

It's the best lens I own in regards to value for money, performance, super-fast AF performance.

I bought it second-hand from mpb a few months ago for around £650 and it was worth every penny (y)
Click to expand...


Thank you that is certainly good to know and just what reviewers were saying

Stu Meech said:
Worth mentioning you can't use a tele convertor with the Tamron, in case that influences your decision.
Click to expand...

I won't be using a Tele-convertor I don't need any more extra reach than the lens comes with - I don't plan to have my bride & grooms that far away :)

But seriously though thank you for pointing it out it might have been an issue (y)
 
f/2.8 said:
I have had a couple of each of these.

The Nikon is sharper at the longer end but the Tamron is as good up to about 180-200mm. The Tamron V.C is as good if not better than the V.R on the Nikon.

The Nikon is much better made, the Tamron is known for sucking in quite a bit of dust both of the copies of this lens I have had have ended up with quite a few dust particles inside the lens which seem to accumulate around the front element. It is not a huge issue as doesn't effect images but worth mentioning as I found it a little annoying. If you use the lens a lot it won't be long before you see this happening. If it's just a lens for occasional use it won't matter so much.

The Tamron also doesn't work with teleconverters so get the Nikon if thats's important to you.
Click to expand...

Stu Meech said:
Worth mentioning you can't use a tele convertor with the Tamron, in case that influences your decision.
Click to expand...

John Young said:
Thank you that is certainly good to know and just what reviewers were saying



I won't be using a Tele-convertor I don't need any more extra reach than the lens comes with - I don't plan to have my bride & grooms that far away :)

But seriously though thank you for pointing it out it might have been an issue (y)
Click to expand...

(y) ;)
 
John Young said:
Yeah funny how originally I had my mind set on the Nikon
Click to expand...

You should be very happy with it (y)

The only fault (?) with it is that when you shoot at F2.8 then you get a vignette on the image. But all I do in LR is enable the Lens Correction check box and it gets rid of it in one click. Simples :)

Easily fixed.

Enjoy the new lens (y)
 
I tend to like a slight vignette so rarely correct mine.
 
OK just an update to this thread - I now have the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC (From DigRev - Great service and fast delivery :) )

So far only tested in the house but - WOW !! What a superb lens this is, very fast focusing and really sharp. It also seems to focus a lot closer than my Nikon 80-200 but I would need to compare at some point. But first impressions are really, really good


First lens I have had with any kind of VC and its brilliant - its like a new way to take photographs and not having to keep the focal length rule in my head all the time :banana:
 
recently sold my Nikon 80-200 and brought a Tamron 70-200.it def is a cracking lens real sharp and quick to focus and the vc is great. my only trouble is my partner loves it too and I hardly get to use it. :(
 
razer said:
recently sold my Nikon 80-200 and brought a Tamron 70-200.it def is a cracking lens real sharp and quick to focus and the vc is great. my only trouble is my partner loves it too and I hardly get to use it. :(
Click to expand...


Yeah I bet not let Katie try this out at our next wedding :police:
 
Im losing lenses fast , first she borrowed my Nikon 24-120. f4 ,now the Tamron .luckily she cant handle my Sigma 150-600 C .;)
 
razer said:
Im losing lenses fast , first she borrowed my Nikon 24-120. f4 ,now the Tamron .luckily she cant handle my Sigma 150-600 C .;)
Click to expand...

Ha..ha..... brilliant (well for her anyway ;) )


I just took this photo out the back of the house 200mm at F2.8 and it was in RAW - opened it and saved it, did absolutely nothing to it no exposure compensation, and its had no sharpening add at all

tamron.jpg


This is 100% of above image - I did not even notice the little spider until I looked on PC

tamron-crop.jpg
 
danny_bhoy said:
Good stuff John - I've got the Tamron 70-200 VC as well, albeit for Canon, and it's a cracking lens. Glad you got a good copy first time too! :)

The VC is as good, if not better, than any VC/IS/VR I've tried before.
Click to expand...

So is it common to get 'bad' copies of these lenses ?

I did read and watch a lot of reviews before buying and no one really rubbished the lens and in some cases found it better - like one I saw with the canon and the tamron for chromatic aberration and the Tamron was better in that instance
 
Im extremely happy with mine ( when I get chance to use it ) I don't see the sense of paying out for the Nikon, Cannon version when you can get great photos from the Tamron.
 
razer said:
Im extremely happy with mine ( when I get chance to use it ) I don't see the sense of paying out for the Nikon, Cannon version when you can get great photos from the Tamron.
Click to expand...

That is very well said, the only thing any reviews seem to count the nikon or cannon over the Tamron was build quality - Even saw one who said if you do weddings ( as I do ) then get the Nikon as it will stand up the beatings better :thinking: Does he photograph weddings on a rugby field :D I know weddings can be hectic and hard on gear but the Tamron does seem very well built
 
I do the occasional wedding, also quite a few portrait shoots but have no qualms about using the Tamron, it seems well enough made to take the rigors of outdoor shoots, and the occasional knocks. the only thing is pos the weather sealing, but then again who would want there wedding photos taken out in the rain. or portrait shot either.And I don't think I will ever accept any weddings on the Rugby pitch . :LOL: :LOL:.
 
razer said:
I do the occasional wedding, also quite a few portrait shoots but have no qualms about using the Tamron, it seems well enough made to take the rigors of outdoor shoots, and the occasional knocks. the only thing is pos the weather sealing, but then again who would want there wedding photos taken out in the rain. or portrait shot either.And I don't think I will ever accept any weddings on the Rugby pitch . :LOL: :LOL:.
Click to expand...

The Tamron does apparently have weather sealant - and I have shot some weddings in the rain, can look really nice sometimes if the bride & groom are willing :) but no rugby pitch weddings :eek:
 
No doubt I will get asked to do one at some point, I have done a wedding shot in the snow .And last year the bride and groom asked if I could do some group photos with them in a big dip on a green just after a big rain storm, great for getting the whole group in , but the lady guests where not too happy when they looked at there shoes after. I blamed the Groom .:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
razer said:
No doubt I will get asked to do one at some point, I have done a wedding shot in the snow .And last year the bride and groom asked if I could do some group photos with them in a big dip on a green just after a big rain storm, great for getting the whole group in , but the lady guests where not too happy when they looked at there shoes after. I blamed the Groom .:LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...


Yeah I have had many women slowly descending on grass as their heels dig into the soft ground :LOL:
 
I only did what the Bride and groom asked, so no comeback on me. :LOL:
 
OK for a bit of fun below are two photos at full size (well resized for forum) and their 100% crops - which was taken at F2.8 and which at F6.3 - No sharpening applied

No cheating looking at background of fence :D

1

tamron-test1.jpg


100% Crop
tamron-test1-crop.jpg




2
tamron-test2.jpg


100% Crop

tamron-test2-crop.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would have said 1st F2.8, second F6.3. But knowing me and my eyesight totally wrong. I must admit its very hard to see any difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top