Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 - Is it better than the nikon varient???

BGilbert

BGilbert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
991
Name
Ben Gilbert
Edit My Images
No
Ive just been speaking with my local camera shop about buying a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 af-s. He told me he didnt have any in stock, but had a couple of Tamron 70-200mm f2.8s, which he had delivered last week. Now, I told him I would rather stick to Nikon glass as its sharper, he stopped me in my tracks and said they had run tests on the 2 lenses, and alongside the Nikon 70-200, and they cannot see any difference in the lenses, the Tamron is as he says, super sharp, and there is NO difference.

Has anyone got the tamron 70-200mm on here that could either confirm or write this off?? As its very interesting.
 
I'm guessing that he probably mis-ordered the Tamron lenses and is desperately trying to shift them before the next stocktake.

Ask to see the results of the tests they did - decent sized prints, side by side.

In terms of value for money, the 3rd party lenses possibly come close to manufacturers' own lenses but in terms of ultimate image quality, I doubt VERY much whether they do (although I'm very happy with the results I get from my Sigma 70-200 and the other Sigmas I use).
 
First thing that comes to mind, if I am not mistaken, is that the Tamron has a conventional and not an ultrasonic motor so you immediately have a noisier, slower AF with a, most likely, absence of dual focus (MF while in AF mode)

Please correct me if I am wrong as I mostly have experience with Canon fit lenses. This info was taken from DPreview.

And, even though this might Not be the case for you, most salesmen would try to sell something they have in stock rather than something they have to order.
 
I have the Tamron 70-200 and it is a nice lens. It's not as good as the Nikon 70-200 though!

It is a fraction of the cost however (which is why I went for it!).

I don't know a massive amount about the 80-200mm Nikon but I did a fair bit of research into Nikon-fit 70-200 lenses before I bought the Tamron and I seem to remember that the following is a rough consensus on general opinion:

Nikon 70-200mm
Amazing but very expensive

Tamron 70-200mm
Excellent image quality but a little slow to focus

Sigma 70-200mm
Very fast focus but not quite as good image quality

Hope that's helpful. There's obviously loads of reviews/comparisons out there!
 
The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is superbly sharp, as is certainly up there with the Nikon lenses (can't comment on the VRII)

However the Tamron has an awful built-in motor, and in AF performance (speed) the Nikon lenses will be much faster to focus.

For subjects that don't move much the Tamron is stellar - but the crappy motor is a killer IMHO.
 
As Andy says really, I think the sharpness and general IQ difference will be minimal, but AF is poor. What will you be shooting? Anything fast moving, go for Nikon.
 
I have previously owned a Tamron 70-200mm and now own the Nikon lens. Without a shadow of a doubt the Nikon glass is better. It is sharper, focuses quicker and gives better contrast. The Nikon also has the VR which helps immensely in low light conditions.

The value for money the Tamron is good but if you can afford the extra for the Nikon then go for it and you'll never look back.
 
Hmm... a Tamron better than a Pro-Nikon lens...?

Nope...
 
I have the tamron in canon fit.

The sharpness of the shots is on par with the canon 70-200's (maybe not as sharp as the new Mk II though?), but the AF speed is slow compared to all the canon 70-200 offerings.

If you don't need the AF speed, it is a bargain lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top