Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 v Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 D. Which for Sport photography.

SlimShaney

SlimShaney

Messages
2,621
Name
Shane
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I will be shooting American Football, and can not decide between the 2 lenses.

I currently use a Nikon 70-300 VR, which is fine for sunny/sunnyish days. I would also use the new lens for portrait/lower light subjects now and again.

The Tamron is less expensive and has great IQ, but many reviews have said the AF is too slow. I will be using a (gripped) D90, no doubt with a monopod/tripod.

Seeing that both lenses would be camera driven can anybody shed light on the real life difference between the AF on these lenses - and whether the Tamron would be too slow after all.

Thanks,
Shane.
 
The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 wouldn't be camera driven, it has it's own (very fast) af motor, or do you mean the 80-200 f/2.8, which doesn't have a motor? Either would be a better choice than the Tamron...
 
The Tamron I had was lens driven as is the Nikkor glass. For faster moving sports the Tamron will struggle as I found out trying to use it at motorsport. As a portrait lens though, the Tamron IQ is supposedly on a par with the Nikkor.

EDIT - I've never used a 80-200, sorry.
 
I would only ever consider using the Tamron for portrait/candid shots. Nikon all the way. :)
 
@skyman.

Thanks for the reply.

I was looking at the Sigma - it would be a great compromise of cost, AF speed, and IQ. However, i have read a lot of reports of focus problems which seems to have swayed me away from the lens.

I know that any lens can potentially have these issues, and that i could try different copies, or that the Sigma could be returned/replaced/calibrated etc - but it annoys me that i may have to do that with a new lens straight out of the box.

The Tamron and Nikon do not seem to suffer from build/quality issues (or certainly no where near as much).

Maybe i'm wrong about the Sigma and should give one a try. Just too paranoid about the problems associated with the lens.

Ta,
Shane.
 
I sold my Tamron in favour of the Sigma and can't say there were and differences in build quality. Both are sturdy lenses and I'd say they'd take a knock well. If anything, I'd have said the Tamron was of lesser quality, but just a little (a bit more placticy) My keep ratio (shooting motorsport) improved with the Sigma as the Tamron just wasn't up to speed, my 70-300VR felt quicker.
 
Again, many thanks for the comments :-)

I wouldn't mind further comments, but it looks as though I've got to see if my local camera shop have a Sigma in stock I can test.

Ideally, I wouldn't mind playing with a Nikon 80-200mm, but no where around Stoke on Trent will have one I would assume.

I could hire one... mmmm. Damn pesky photography... Grrr! <shakes fist>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top