Nikon 70-300VR v Tamron 70-200 f2.8

[PeteMo]

I'm after a mid-range zoom and there's a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for sale in the classifieds for £420 which I was tempted by (you reading this Daniel ? )

I could get a Nikon 70-300VR new for less.

Not sure I'd really need the extra reach of the Nikon but would be handy.

I understand the Tamron has slower AF but I won't be shooting sports or much low-light stuff to any great extent.

Has anyone used BOTH and has a preference or firm favourite ?

Using on a D90 by the way.

Cheers gang.

 

[puddleduck]

Yes, I've owned both.

The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 optically is stunning. Its as good as anything produce by Nikon or Canon optically. However on Nikon fit the AF stinks.. it has a diddy micro-motor than is completely unsuited to moving those lens elements around. The lens will hunt back and forth, and take over 2 seconds to go from closest focus to infinity. IMHO the motor renders the lens pretty useless for anything but static shots, unless you are shooting moving objects that don't change their distance much. But the optics are amazing..

The 70-300 VR is excellent, very sharp, between 70 and 200mm is REALLY good but 2 stops slower than the Tamron at 200mm more or less. The lens is very good at 300mm as well.

These are really chalk and cheese.

If the Tamron didn't have that useless motor it would blow the doors of the 70-300 VR. Unfortunately while I love the optics I can't overlook the shamefully poor AF motor designed to appease D40 and D60 owners but screwing everyone else over in the process. If you can overlook the AF, the Tammy is spectacular.