That extra 10%

rogermbyrne

rogermbyrne

Suspended / Banned
Messages
325
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
I see this touted around a lot.

"the Tamron is 90% the Nikon but for 1/2 of the price"

Having had a Tamron 70-200mm before and now in my hands is the Nikon, I can honestly say that 10% is a much bigger percentage than it seems.

If I had listened to people in the first place I would have saved the 200 Euro I lost on the Tamron.

C'est la vie ;)

O.K so I'm blathering but the moral of this story is buy the best you can and don't 'settle' even if it means waiting a couple of more months to get that 'better' thing then WAIT! ;)

Any other similar stories?, might help others save some pennies.

Or do you disagree that only 10% is worth the price/performance compromise?
 
If it was only 10% difference then yes I'd take the Tamron but in the case of the 70-200 I think the Tamron is quite a bit less than the Nikon especially when it comes to AF. I have a 17-50 Tamron and a 50-150 Sigma. I looooove the Tamron but the AF is almost prehistoric if you compare it to the Sigma.

Given that Nikon higher end lenses are amazingly fast to focus and that the Tamron 70-200 has always been seen as a very poor AF performer I'd say it is far less than 90% there. Of course it all depends on how much AF speed matters to you.

Unless they are all saying it is 90% image quality wise in which case it is a whole different story.
 
strangely I was having a similar conversation just now with my wife about the 90/10 statement, agree the Tamron isn't 90% (just a number I had heard touted around).

also saying image quality is 90% is a bit misleading, how many shots do you take to get those images that are 90% as good as the Nikon with that Tamron?
 
A Chimpanzee has 99% the same DNA as a human, that extra 1% makes quite a difference (in most cases :D)
 
A good example why buying second hand can be so worthwhile - you save on buying price and can trade on the gear that doesn't do what you want at little or no loss.
I totally agree that the extra layout is so worthwhile most if not all of the time.
I bought a canon 70-300 zoom as it was way cheaper than the 70-200 lenses Canon make, but it was so slow to focus that I rarely used it - now I have a 70-200f4 and it gets serious use !
 
Unfortunately I think this is definitely one of those hobbies where you simple have to buy the best or get a second hand deal. I used a friends Tamron and thought the same as you guys, it really was crazy slow! IQ was OK, but by no means as good as my Sigma. In fact said mate ditched the Tamron instantly and is currently saving for the Nikon glass. He reckons if he doesn't take the lens with him then it makes him realise how much he needs to save for the Nikon version.

My aim this year is to save for a good fast 70-200mm lens. Other than that it is primes really, but they are SO expensive and I do like the option of zooming...
 
So much is about compromise - prime lenses are so sharp, fast etc, but can be limiting if you cannot move to compensate for not being able to zoom in or out.
To Roger, the OP, I have to say that a 200 euro loss is not a bad way to learn as most of us have lost way more....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top