Tamron 70-200 vc vs non vc

mattstarkeyphotos

mattstarkeyphotos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
68
Hey I want to buy a new 70-200 2.8 and was wondering if the only difference between the lenses was vc. I'm a sports photographer so I don't have much need for vc and was wondering if I could save the 400 dollars.
 
The older non VC version was known to have rather slow AF speed whereas the newer VC version has been ranked up there with Canon and Nikons own versions
 
the older one that is fatter at the front has a internal motor on canokia, but it sucks.

sony and pentax are screw drive so not as bad
 
Basically you want the VC one, it is a different design altogether and really rather good. As said, the old one has sloooooooow AF which isn't what you want for sports.
 
The old one can be got new for half the price of the new, and would be fine if you're just casual shooting. It supposedly has pretty good macro and very decent IQ. But, if you're looking for a snappier lens, more reliable ... then the VC would be the better option.

On Amazon UK the Nikon 70-200 f/4 is actually cheaper right now though, for the money I'd probably get that. The Tamron is supposedly a little soft at 200mm 2.8
 
Well worth it for that I'd say!

Wouldn't mind one myself, sold my Nikon 70-200 last year, got an 85mm and a 300 f4. Love both, but there are times I wish I had a 70-200 instead, or along with even better :D

I've read some reviews that stated the tamron was a bit soft at 200mm 2.8, any users here confirm this?
 
Impressive, where it stands in their overall lens rating listing too, when tested on the D800E. If it's better than the Nikon though, how come more aren't using it?
 
Maybe! who knows. I know that the tammy 17-50 2.8 I used across 3 cameras remains one of my favourite lenses to date still. They do have some gems.

I wanted the original Tamron 70-200 so bad when it came out, but was broke :/ and when I did have the funds someone convinced me to get the old sigma 70-200 instead, which I never liked.

Sigma have definitely pulled ahead though lately with their new offerings. I'd like to see Tamron back competing. Always great value.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Impressive, where it stands in their overall lens rating listing too, when tested on the D800E. If it's better than the Nikon though, how come more aren't using it?
Click to expand...

Think that comparison is with the VR1 Nikon 70-200 not the latest version.
 
No, it's the VR II

The tamron is at #118 and the Nikon at #197, both tested on D800E
 
Last edited:
Ah ok, I went from there to the overall lens rating list :) The tamron still beats the VR II according to them. Though much closer than the comparison to the VR1. The tamron scores 33, the VR II 31.
 
Last edited:
Yea I tried out the non vc version and the auto focus was too slow I think I'm gona bite the bullet and buy the vc version
 
I've been pondering on this all day, and watched some vids by the likes of Matt Granger and others, on the Tamron VC. I kind of want one now :D
 
gadgeteer said:
Forget the non vc version if you're a sports photographer. The IQ is pretty good but the AF is terrible. Hunts regularly in situations it really should nail
Click to expand...

Yea I borrowed a friends to shoot a football game and the auto focus was terrible. It only had a hit rate of about 10 percent once the sun went down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top