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

John Young

John Young

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,330
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Up until now I have used my old Nikon 70-210 in good light or with flash and my even older 80-200 f2.8 for bad light at weddings and they have worked great but the Nikon has suddenly died and the 80-200 is a BIG heavy old beast so I am thinking it may be time to upgrade.

I looked straight away at the Nikon as I know its legendary (and so is the price ) but then I kept coming across reviews of the Tamron with excellent reviews and comments

Anyone tried both these lenses and how do they compare ?

I don't want people saying Nikon just because its Nikon - Is the Nikon actually better and worth the extra money
 
John Young said:
Is the Nikon actually better and worth the extra money
Click to expand...
•


The heavy usage I make of my lenses requires some
minimum qualities that are found only in higher end gear
if considered together.

Yes, good zooms can be made of plastic, barrels too but
for how long? Lens also have chips, axial motors etc. That
was some of the electro-mechanic parts of lens,

A lens is first an optical work that should support your vision
and your efforts. Many makers have some important features
but Nikon has the most of them and better ones.

I don't buy Nikon because it is but for the qualities I'm after.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


The heavy usage I make of my lenses requires some
minimum qualities that are found only in higher end gear
if considered together.

Yes, good zooms can be made of plastic, barrels too but
for how long? Lens also have chips, axial motors etc. That
was some of the electro-mechanic parts of lens,

A lens is first an optical work that should support your vision
and your efforts. Many makers have some important features
but Nikon has the most of them and better ones.

I don't buy Nikon because it is but for the qualities I'm after.
Click to expand...


So you would say the Nikon over the Tamron as its built better ?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
John Young said:
So you would say the Nikon over the Tamron as its built better ?
Click to expand...
•


All the works I do require tools. The features and qualities
of the tools are defined by the difficulties, the requirements,
the image quality the jobs demand.

I sum up all these features and, if I don't want to compromise
in anything, it's Nikon.

Some will have this or that in more or less… but the overall
tool quality and features for me is Nikon made.

It is not the individual elements only that need some consi-
deration but the SYSTEM as a whole too.

One should not spend money on gear but invest in a system, IMO.
 
Last edited:
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...

Hmmm.... Interesting. So the Tamron is good but a bit of a vacume cleaner. So what's the Tamron like wide open ?
 
John Young said:
Hmmm.... Interesting. So the Tamron is good but a bit of a vacume cleaner. So what's the Tamron like wide open ?
Click to expand...

It's a very sharp lens even wide open like I said above its every bit as good as the Nikon VR2 up until 180-200mm but then it drops of slightly, its still pretty good but not VR2 good.

In terms of cost the Tamron is very good value for money, the VR2 is better if money isn't a factor though. Its just going to be up to you decide if the extra £1000 is worth the marginal difference.

There are quite a few images taken with the Tamron on my flickr, have a nosey if you like https://www.flickr.com/photos/sodafarl/
 
Last edited:
John Young said:
Thanks... To be honest it was the Nikon I had in mind until I saw some reviews on the Tamron
Click to expand...

If money was no object everyone would buy the Nikon :D

For me though I had the VR2 then swapped for a camera body and a Sigma 70-200 which was rubbish. I ended up buying the Tamron as I didn't think I would use it that much. I ended up using it a lot more than I thought I would so upgraded to the Nikon again. Then after a while stopped using it so much as I had bought a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and primes suit me better. I ended up selling the VR2 again to help fund some studio equipment and bought another Tamron for the odd time I need something a little longer.

Was thinking recently about changing into the VR2 again but with it due to be replaced soon and I don't use that focal length much it's a hard one to call.
 
f/2.8 said:
If money was no object everyone would buy the Nikon :D

For me though I had the VR2 then swapped for a camera body and a Sigma 70-200 which was rubbish. I ended up buying the Tamron as I didn't think I would use it that much. I ended up using it a lot more than I thought I would so upgraded to the Nikon again. Then after a while stopped using it so much as I had bought a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and primes suit me better. I ended up selling the VR2 again to help fund some studio equipment and bought another Tamron for the odd time I need something a little longer.

Was thinking recently about changing into the VR2 again but with it due to be replaced soon and I don't use that focal length much it's a hard one to call.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you didn't like the Sigma, I love mine!
 
odd jim said:
I'm surprised you didn't like the Sigma, I love mine!
Click to expand...

I have also had 2 of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 O.S both where very soft wide open compared to the Nikon and Tamron versions.
 
I've said it before --- Nikon lenses are more expensive for a reason! Definitely go for the Nikon.
 
I think there is quite a bit of sample variation with the Tamron stuff so if you're prepared to go through a few to get a good one then it is a great option. Just make sure you buy one from somewhere that accepts returns. A bit of a ball ache but at least you ensure you get a good 'un in the end.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have also had 2 of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 O.S both where very soft wide open compared to the Nikon and Tamron versions.
Click to expand...

Must be copy variation (Sigma were at that stage a while back, not so much now!).

I have the non OS, but mk2 HSM "macro" version and that's very sharp at f/2.8, that lens was a bit of an oddity as is was the in between lens before they went OS only, and it's one of my most used lenses :)

That said, it's overdue a service as I think it's taken a knock (not sure when, as I'm pretty careful) as there's something not quite right about the left hand side that I'm not happy with that I noticed on its last time out :/
 
odd jim said:
Must be copy variation (Sigma were at that stage a while back, not so much now!).

I have the non OS, but mk2 HSM "macro" version and that's very sharp at f/2.8, that lens was a bit of an oddity as is was the in between lens before they went OS only, and it's one of my most used lenses :)

That said, it's overdue a service as I think it's taken a knock (not sure when, as I'm pretty careful) as there's something not quite right about the left hand side that I'm not happy with that I noticed on its last time out :/
Click to expand...

Yep could have just been copy variations but to be honest I am not really a fan of Sigma stuff, I have had quite a few of their lenses and the only one I have kept is the 35mm f/1.4 Art. It has been the only one I have had no issues with. I tried the 50mm art as well 4 of them :D and couldn't find a copy that was reliable in terms of focus even after tuning with the Sigma dock had similar problems with there 24-35mm as well. Made a decision a while back to only buy Nikon lenses going forward the only third party lenses I have now are the Sigma 35mm and the Tamron 70-200.
 
f/2.8 said:
Yep could have just been copy variations but to be honest I am not really a fan of Sigma stuff, I have had quite a few of their lenses and the only one I have kept is the 35mm f/1.4 Art. It has been the only one I have had no issues with. I tried the 50mm art as well 4 of them :D and couldn't find a copy that was reliable in terms of focus even after tuning with the Sigma dock had similar problems with there 24-35mm as well. Made a decision a while back to only buy Nikon lenses going forward the only third party lenses I have now are the Sigma 35mm and the Tamron 70-200.
Click to expand...

I must be lucky, all my Sigmas have been spot on straight out the box (70-200, 105 OS macro which is utterly sublime and the 150-600c), I'm a huge fan and look at Sigmas before anything else at the moment.

The 20mm f/1.4 is simply stunning also, need my own copy before I go to NY in Nov!
 
odd jim said:
I must be lucky, all my Sigmas have been spot on straight out the box (70-200, 105 OS macro which is utterly sublime and the 150-600c), I'm a huge fan and look at Sigmas before anything else at the moment.

The 20mm f/1.4 is simply stunning also, need my own copy before I go to NY in Nov!
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me that's been unlucky :D

I have bought and either sold or returned due to focus issues

Sigma 50mm art x 4
Sigma 24-35 x 3
Sigma 70-200 O.S x 2
Sigma 24-70 x 1
Sigma 120-300 O.S x 1

I did a few years ago have a 10-20mm Sigma which was good and their 85mm F/1.4 which I loved and the 35mm Art is a firm favourite.

But with stats like like that I will stick to Nikon, the only problem I have ever had with focus issues on a Nikon lens was with a 50mm f/1.4G which was just a bad copy and was able to return to the shop I bought it from.
 
f/2.8 said:
Maybe it's just me that's been unlucky :D

I have bought and either sold or returned due to focus issues

Sigma 50mm art x 4
Sigma 24-35 x 3
Sigma 70-200 O.S x 2
Sigma 24-70 x 1
Sigma 120-300 O.S x 1

I did a few years ago have a 10-20mm Sigma which was good and their 85mm F/1.4 which I loved and the 35mm Art is a firm favourite.

But with stats like like that I will stick to Nikon, the only problem I have ever had with focus issues on a Nikon lens was with a 50mm f/1.4G which was just a bad copy and was able to return to the shop I bought it from.
Click to expand...

Fair enough!
 
Everyone has made the relevant points, I have the Tamron as its good enough for light amateur use that I use. That said, I am a firm believer in Nikon for durability as Kodiak says. I got the Tamron for a very good price so it will do me, it's a little plasticky but sharp, renders very nicely and AF is snappy. I used to own the mk2 canon and image wise, there's nothing in it, just the marque models are built better. It will all boil down to cost, nothing more, if you can justify its use, the Nikon is the option.

I am cautious with 3rd party QC though, having been burnt far too many times with sigma in the past and as such swore never to use them again. A shame because the new Art ranges, optically, do seem better in many respects, but generally I prefer the build of the Nikons and invest for longevity. I'm not someone who swaps an awful lot these days, my core lenses are an investment for many years to come.
 
I have read bad things about the sigma which is why I discounted it. I have a sigma and tamron 24-70 f2.8 and the tamron is leagues ahead
 
Has anyone mentioned AF speed? The Nikon is supreme in this department and for sports etc where you need instant AF lock on there's only one choice imo. For IQ it's very close between the Tamron and Nikon, with the Nikon pipping it. The Sigma is very good, but AF speed is relatively slow compared to the Nikon, and I didn't like the colours as much. Also, fine tune didn't appear to work using the Sigma on my D750. The Nikon VRII renders images beautifully. I can't explain exactly what it is, but if you use it you'll know what I'm talking about.

One thing to be aware of is that the Nikon VRII has quite shocking focus breathing. Not an issue for me as I don't shoot close portraits, but if you do it might be an issue. I believe the Tamron focus breathes too, but not quite so bad. See here from about 4mins
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsWGkUT5A_Y
 
Not sure what focus breathe is but I'll look at video when not on phone. I won't be using the lens for sport. Just portrait and weddings
 
snerkler said:
Has anyone mentioned AF speed? The Nikon is supreme in this department and for sports etc where you need instant AF lock on there's only one choice imo. For IQ it's very close between the Tamron and Nikon, with the Nikon pipping it. The Sigma is very good, but AF speed is relatively slow compared to the Nikon, and I didn't like the colours as much. Also, fine tune didn't appear to work using the Sigma on my D750. The Nikon VRII renders images beautifully. I can't explain exactly what it is, but if you use it you'll know what I'm talking about.

One thing to be aware of is that the Nikon VRII has quite shocking focus breathing. Not an issue for me as I don't shoot close portraits, but if you do it might be an issue. I believe the Tamron focus breathes too, but not quite so bad. See here from about 4mins
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsWGkUT5A_Y
Click to expand...

The Tamron V.C's Autofocus is just as quick as the NIKON vr2 both do focus breath.
 
f/2.8 said:
The Tamron V.C's Autofocus is just as quick as the NIKON vr2 both do focus breath.
Click to expand...

All zooms focus breathe :). Much more obvious with long lenses though.
 
The OP mentioned the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.

My first question would be which body are you planning to use it on?

This lens was designed before Nikon went FF, and as such there is a noticeable vignette in certain circumstances. That may are what you are after and many regard it as a plus, but I would rather add such features afterwards in post. The VRII was specifically designed to eliminate this on a FF and is far superior, but if you are still crop frame, the Nikon 70 - 200mm f2.8 is still a fine lens and one I have used for over eight years.

And more than anything else, it is robust, which a plastic barrels is unlikely to be. I look after my kit carefully but accidents can happen and if you want a bomb proof solution, you have to be looking at the Nikon.
 
Despite my comments and the desire for a VRII, I have used it successfully for the last eight years on a FF D3 so use on a D750 would be fine, if you are looking to save a few pennies on the VRII, but if you can afford it, go for the latter.
 
Anibap has posted some great shots with the Tamron 70-200 on the D750 thread, really sharp and detailed.
 
If you really want the best 70-200, the canon mk2 version absolutely is superior to any of the above

I had it on the 5D mk3 and it was stellar

Like many others I'm mainly prime and try to physically get closer in weddings rather than rely on a zoom.

I have the Tamron VC model at the minute and when it hits the mark I found it to be better than the Nikon VR and VR2 versions I owned

The sigmas in my experience just did not perform well on high mp bodies (I traded with Tommy as he mentioned above lol)

Might actually sell the 70-200 as it's getting little to no use
 
F/1.4 said:
If you really want the best 70-200, the canon mk2 version absolutely is superior to any of the above

I had it on the 5D mk3 and it was stellar

Like many others I'm mainly prime and try to physically get closer in weddings rather than rely on a zoom.

I have the Tamron VC model at the minute and when it hits the mark I found it to be better than the Nikon VR and VR2 versions I owned

The sigmas in my experience just did not perform well on high mp bodies (I traded with Tommy as he mentioned above lol)

Might actually sell the 70-200 as it's getting little to no use
Click to expand...

You cannot beat zooming with your feet for sure BUT I do like the candid shots and the lovely soft background when zooming further away.

So which lens you thinking of selling ? the Tamron ?
 
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
 
John Young said:
You cannot beat zooming with your feet for sure BUT I do like the candid shots and the lovely soft background when zooming further away.

So which lens you thinking of selling ? the Tamron ?
Click to expand...
Yeah the tamron
 
Based on y experiences with lenses, Nikon are better than the 3rd parties... BUT... you also have value for money to consider. The 24-70 Nikon is better than my old 28-75 Tamron, but it cost me something like 4 times the price (£800 v £200). Not had the Tamron 70-200 but would consider that as I could do with that length but don't use it enough to fork out for the Nikon or the new Tamron. Have had two Nikon VR1s in the past and they are excellent lenses though.
 
I think I will go for the Tamron - I make money from my gear but I have always had an in built urge to get the best value for money (blame my parents) - I will get the best I can for my work but I wont spend just because its a brand name either. I don't buy apple phones or heinz tomato sauce ( I buy lidle) I go with the best value but not a compromise either it has to be right. I have not used either but from all the reviews I have read and what people say on here is seems the Tamron is an excellent lens in its own right without even taking into account the HUGE saving.

The tamron will serve me well and the money I saved can be used elsewhere - like buying loads of Heinz tomato sauce :coat:


Thank you everyone for your help and advice :wave:
 
John Young said:
I think I will go for the Tamron - I make money from my gear but I have always had an in built urge to get the best value for money (blame my parents) - I will get the best I can for my work but I wont spend just because its a brand name either. I don't buy apple phones or heinz tomato sauce ( I buy lidle) I go with the best value but not a compromise either it has to be right. I have not used either but from all the reviews I have read and what people say on here is seems the Tamron is an excellent lens in its own right without even taking into account the HUGE saving.

The tamron will serve me well and the money I saved can be used elsewhere - like buying loads of Heinz tomato sauce :coat:


Thank you everyone for your help and advice :wave:
Click to expand...
Tamron is the best value for money one IMO. Buying used is even better value for money ;)
 
I've just been through this myself. I'm doing a system swap from Canon to Nikon and trying to minimise the cost. I used to have the Tamron for my Canon but had some focus issues with it (related to the dual cross type f2.8 sensor where I couldn't reliably use the centre 5 points of my 1DX/5D3, and could only use the centre point of my 70D), so I sold it and got the 70-200 II, the focus issues went away but the Canon wasn't much sharper, if at all. So when swapping to Nikon I thought of the Tamron and how it probably doesn't have the focus issues that were with the Canon. I used to have a VRII when I was with Nikon before so tried one out again. It is a lovely lens but costly, so I bought a Tamron again.

I'm pleased to say that I have no focus issues with my D500, I used it for some motorsport yesterday and it was awesome, even when it started raining there was no issues at all, and it is sharp!!

The only thing I wish it had is a focus limiter switch, but even without it is very fast and accurate.
 
Toggerman said:
I've just been through this myself. I'm doing a system swap from Canon to Nikon and trying to minimise the cost. I used to have the Tamron for my Canon but had some focus issues with it (related to the dual cross type f2.8 sensor where I couldn't reliably use the centre 5 points of my 1DX/5D3, and could only use the centre point of my 70D), so I sold it and got the 70-200 II, the focus issues went away but the Canon wasn't much sharper, if at all. So when swapping to Nikon I thought of the Tamron and how it probably doesn't have the focus issues that were with the Canon. I used to have a VRII when I was with Nikon before so tried one out again. It is a lovely lens but costly, so I bought a Tamron again.

I'm pleased to say that I have no focus issues with my D500, I used it for some motorsport yesterday and it was awesome, even when it started raining there was no issues at all, and it is sharp!!

The only thing I wish it had is a focus limiter switch, but even without it is very fast and accurate.
Click to expand...


That is great to hear - thank you

I had originally set my mind on the Nikon and I knew one day I would have to bite the bullet and fork out the cash for one as my old Nikon 80-200 f2.8 although good is getting old is VERY heavy has a dented zoom ring so is stiff (I did not do it) and has no VR at all. I also had a Nikon 70-210mm F/4.0-5.6 D which was a cracking lens for good light and with flash and cost me under £100 but its sadly broke - its just stopped working with a ERR on the camera when I try and use it

So when the Nikon 70-210 broke I thought OK time for the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8 - but then I read a few reviews with the Nikon side-by-side with the Tamron and it got brilliant reviews so I thought - Ohhhh


Thinking of buying from DigRev - Did they not used to have a 2 year warranty as its one now ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top