Nikon D750 & D780

rookies said:
Is the Nikon 200-500 a different standard to the tamron 150-600
Click to expand...
It's marginally better in terms of IQ, comparable to the Sigma Sports. But it's half a kilo heavier and £400 more. If you keep the Tamron to 550mm there's little in the sharpness compared to the Nikon, at 600mm it's a little soft, but not a lot.
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Marginally better IQ but is well balanced and constant aperture throughout zoom range. Not soft at full aperture and longest F/L - unlike Tamron and Sigma
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say the Tamron's soft at the long end, just not quite as sharp ;) I tend to keep mine at 550mm and under and it's pretty damn sharp.

How accurate this is I don't know, but at 500mm this would suggest the Tamron is sharper than the Nikon 200-500mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Have you been please with it. AF wise and sharpness
Click to expand...
Aye, both good but not my favourite focal length, unlike many others I find it's never quite long enough, or wide enough at times, plus a heavy lump for its length, something I'll accept on a 5 or 600mm but yes it's good.

All that said easy enough to use and carry with a black rapid
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Marginally better IQ but is well balanced and constant aperture throughout zoom range. Not soft at full aperture and longest F/L - unlike Tamron and Sigma
Click to expand...

Would you say we be better buying that Nikon over the tamron. It going be a share lens
 
snerkler said:
But then the Canon used is even less still :confused:
Click to expand...

You really do struggle don't you, of course the bloody canon used is also cheaper. But as you made the point youre talking 400 quids difference both used then instead of 850 difference new thats what..... a few hundred quid! What was your alternative again?
 
Last edited:
JYC said:
You need to calm down a bit @rookies and stop posting on here, go take some photos and take your mind off new gear ;)
Click to expand...

I do need another lens for my bag. Which is a 70-200 which I don't know yet. The other is a share lens
 
JohnN said:
Aye, both good but not my favourite focal length, unlike many others I find it's never quite long enough, or wide enough at times, plus a heavy lump for its length, something I'll accept on a 5 or 600mm but yes it's good.

All that said easy enough to use and carry with a black rapid
Click to expand...

What your fave lens :)
 
rookies said:
Would you say we be better buying that Nikon over the tamron. It going be a share lens
Click to expand...
As above, take from this what you will

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Having seen that mint Tamron with 12m warranty for £550 I'd really have to question paying £1200 for a heavier lens that may not even be as sharp at 500mm. Of course without doing side by side tests myself I can't say how accurate those test charts are, but I know a lot of people question themselves which is sharper and if there's that much confusion it suggests to me that you're splitting hairs between them.
 
twist said:
You really do struggle don't you, of course the bloody canon used is also cheaper. But as you made the point youre talking 400 quids difference both used then instead of 850 difference new thats what..... a few hundred quid! What was your alternative again?
Click to expand...
Who's the one comparing apples with oranges tonight? ;) :p
 
rookies said:
Would you say we be better buying that Nikon over the tamron. It going be a share lens
Click to expand...

Just depends whether you need that extra reach.... I found that the Tamron at f8 sorts out any softness - I do prefer the Nikon though.
 
snerkler said:
As above, take from this what you will

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Having seen that mint Tamron with 12m warranty for £550 I'd really have to question paying £1200 for a heavier lens that may not even be as sharp at 500mm. Of course without doing side by side tests myself I can't say how accurate those test charts are, but I know a lot of people question themselves which is sharper and if there's that much confusion it suggests to me that you're splitting hairs between them.
Click to expand...

From that chart the tamron sharper at 500.

Trying see if Nikon extend as long
 
snerkler said:
Who's the one comparing apples with oranges tonight? ;) :p
Click to expand...

Who's the one that likes shooting down alternatives when they can't even come up with one themselves. 400 quid extra between 2 people, that's lunch money for a lens if it suits requirements.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
As above, take from this what you will

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Having seen that mint Tamron with 12m warranty for £550 I'd really have to question paying £1200 for a heavier lens that may not even be as sharp at 500mm. Of course without doing side by side tests myself I can't say how accurate those test charts are, but I know a lot of people question themselves which is sharper and if there's that much confusion it suggests to me that you're splitting hairs between them.
Click to expand...

Having both lenses I'd say the Nikkor is marginally better than the Tamron.
 
twist said:
Who's the one that likes shooting down alternatives when they can't even come up with one themselves. 400 quid between 2 people, that's lunch money for a lens.
Click to expand...
:love:

Well 'we've' given him enough info to be able to decide (y)
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Having both lenses I'd say the Nikkor is marginally better than the Tamron.
Click to expand...

But is the Nikon worth the extra £600? Bearing in mind I can get a tamron 150-600 for £550
 
chuckles said:
Having both lenses I'd say the Nikkor is marginally better than the Tamron.
Click to expand...
Fair cop. Is that comparing both at 500mm or the Tammy at 600mm?
 
From the chart the tamron seem
Better at 500
 
rookies said:
Wow really can't fault those images at all. Hope I am looking at the correct tamron.

Why did you get Nikon 70-200 f4 and not 2.8. Budget??
Click to expand...
Assuming you are asking me.

I bought the Nikon 70-200 F4 for constant F4 across the range and it is definitely a better lens than the Tamron in all aspects. Later I sold that too as I was not using it and realised I don't shoot long lenses much. Then bought the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for a friend and the lens was with me for some time and started using it and fell in love with it and decided to keep it for me.

In short, i realised that I love shallow DOF and compression both and the 2.8 lenses are fantastic. I have shot 4 times more shots with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 in two months compared to the Nikon 70-200 F4 in 1 year.

I chose Tamron 2.8 over Nikon 2.8 fo two reasons 1. Loved the IQ of the Tamron as I used it. Super sharp, great bokeh, fast AF and nice colours. I guess Nikon is similar or better, but have not used it. 2. Price of course - I could have bought the Nikon, but reviews suggested the Tamron is very close and performs way over its price point. for my use it is more than enough and comes with 5 year warranty which is a bonus.
 
twist said:
Yes, 'we' have, I never said it was the best option. He wanted another which I provided. I'd personally go with the sigma c.
Click to expand...

Oh god sigma now lol. Which sigma C the 150-600
 
rookies said:
But is the Nikon worth the extra £600? Bearing in mind I can get a tamron 150-600 for £550
Click to expand...

You get a whole half stop at the long end :)
Everybody seems to forget that bit when making comparisons.

snerkler said:
Fair cop. Is that comparing both at 500mm or the Tammy at 600mm?
Click to expand...

Believe me - it's at everything and on five Nikon Digital cameras! Looking through my bag - there's a couple I've not tried it on yet
 
rookies said:
From the chart the tamron seem
Better at 500
Click to expand...
It does, but sometimes you have to take them with a pinch of salt. Don't get me wrong, they're useful, but shouldn't be taken as gospel. That same site makes the 18-35mm G look poor, but as we know it's a cracking lens with great edge to edge sharpness.

If I had the money and arms of Popeye I'd probably choose the Nikon just because, well it's Nikon isn't it :lol: But £400+ cheaper and half a kilo lighter the Tamron is an option that shouldn't be ignored (plus the Nikon wasn't out at the time :lol:)
 
twist said:
Wasn't it to big? What you need is a sigmonster
Click to expand...

Yes too big to use a lot but if going half with a friend it no brainer really is it?? Surely that be better than a 2x tc on a 70-200
 
chuckles said:
You get a whole half stop at the long end :)
Everybody seems to forget that bit when making comparisons.



Believe me - it's at everything and on five Nikon Digital cameras! Looking through my bag - there's a couple I've not tried it on yet
Click to expand...
TBH 1/3 stop aperture doesn't concern me, ISO on the D750 is good enough and I doubt I'd see any meaningful difference in DOF. Plus to get the best from these lenses you want to stop down to f8 anyway. I'd be interested to try the Nikon one day though and just see how much sharper it is. Any chance you have a soft example of the Tamron, in typical tamron fashion there's a hell of a lot of sample variation. For once I think I got a decent one ;)
 
Don't you guys go lower than f8 on these huge lens
 
The tamron 70-300 at £239 seem a steal
 
Bet your 70-200 2.8 be better
 
Just though as anyone use crop mode on the camera to get let say 450mm on the 300mm
 
JYC said:
Why would you not just take the photo and crop in post?!?!
Click to expand...

Was just wondering if taking images on the camera in Dx mode be better than cropping in process.

Ie if take images in Dx mode are the pictures still full
Size other than cropping in process the images gets smaller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top