Nikon vs Tamron - D7100

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ!
  • Start date Start date
JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,822
Edit My Images
No
I was looking at the Tamron 20-70 but have decided the cost and lack of wide angle have ruled that one out (although I still keep looking at it!!).

I have decided on a 2 lens set up (plus the odd prime) and have narrowed my choices down to:

Nikon 16-85vr & 70-300vr

Or

Tamron 17-50vc & 70-300vc

I have never used Tamron before, but reviews seem very positive on the above lenses.

Pros and cons I can see (please point out others!).

Nikon = perfect compatibility. Fast focus on both nikon lenses. Whole range covered. 16-85 is great focal length for walk around. No f2.8 constant!

Tamron has 2.8, some reports saying the vc is better and that the 70-300 out performs the Nikon. 17-50 is quite short and focus speed not as quick from what I have read.

Lenses will be used for all manner of subjects including horses for which I was using a 55-200vr years back.

Low light work will probably be saved for 50mm of some sort.

Any opinions/thoughts appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I have the 16-85 and the Tamron 17-50 (non VC). The 16-85 is super sharp with fast focus and benefits from VR. I haven't used the Tamron much yet as I recently got it but the focus is slower and seems to hunt a bit more. The only benefit of it is the constant 2.8. I also use a Nikon 35mm f1.8 for indoor stuff and for shallow DoF and a Sigma 80-200mm for longer reach.

Sorry, I haven't been much help have I? :bonk:
 
Lol - every bit of info helps! I think my zooms will be mainly for outdoors.
 
I have this kens link
And I think it is superb. I know it isn't f2.8 but my budget isn't able to stretch that far.

These were shot with it
link
 
The 16-85mm is faster to focus and covers a bigger range and I would say it has a better built quality to that of the Tamron. Obviously the Tamron is F2.8 which is always useful to have specially in low light situations and getting more bokeh.

If your shooting is mainly outdoors then I would go for the Nikon 16-85mm or may be save a bit more and go for the Nikon 17-55mm
 
twist said:
Didnt we discuss this all in your other thread yesterday?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. That thread was specific to the 24-70 and thought this thread would attract a different set of answers.

In hindsight I could have just changed the title in the other thread.
 
Think I need to find a camera shop to test all the lenses out in one go. God, why is this so difficult lol!
 
JJ! said:
Think I need to find a camera shop to test all the lenses out in one go. God, why is this so difficult lol!
Click to expand...
But it's not! :D

Go get a second-hand 16-85 like this £300 http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...es/nikon-af-s-16-85mm-f/3.5-5.6g-if-ed-dx-vr/
Wait with the longer one, until you know, if you really need it!

If you know now, you need the longer range, then I had the Tamron 70-300, a fine and very sharp lens and can only recommend it.
Sold mine, as I found I needed wider instead... and later even wider. :lol:

A Nikkor holds its value better than other brands, especially when bought second-hand. You'll probably be able to sell it at same price years from now...


Happy hunting! :thumbs:
 
I'm not worried about holding value, this will probably be my set up for a while now. That's why I want to choose wisely. I do need a 70-300 and unable to buy both or do extensive tests so got to go on reviews and user opinions.

Same for the mid range, it either the 24-70 tamron with the aim to get a wide angle, the 16-85 or tamron 17-50. Again choosing by views and user opinions as my local shop stocks the best part of nothing and need to get lenses ASAP.
 
Buy the tamron lenses second hand then if you don't like them sell them on for a tiny loss and buy the Nikon glass.

I don't think.you will be disappointed by either of the trim lenses the build and performance of both is very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top