Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

  1. #1

    Default NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Hi,

    I need the experts' advice on which of the above two lenses will I go for, considering that their price is close. I currently have Nikon D90 with 18-105 kits lens, I'm thinking extending my zoom reach for some long distance shots such as Triathlons or Birding. I've read the reviews of Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and it seems to be a good/fast lense as the aperture is f/2.8 wide, and with macro capability, but i'm not sure if it can beat the Nikkor 70-300VR in terms of sharpness. If money is not an issue, I will of just buy Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 as they said its sharper than the Tamron version.

    Thanks in advance for any advices you can share.
    Last edited by hcelrah; 25th March 2009 at 10:43 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    used the 70-200 nikkor once, nice to have but heavy. also $$$$$$$$$$

    for triathlon and birding, shd be in daylight. i think the reach of the 70-300 will be more useful. from the birding gallery here, doesn't seem like people shoot wide open at the long end, so f2.8 may not be that critical anyway.. also, 70-300 is cheaper and lighter than 70-200.

    70-200 more for events coverage imho. cos you'd really need the extra stop of light

  3. #3

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by boyboy View Post
    used the 70-200 nikkor once, nice to have but heavy. also $$$$$$$$$$

    for triathlon and birding, shd be in daylight. i think the reach of the 70-300 will be more useful. from the birding gallery here, doesn't seem like people shoot wide open at the long end, so f2.8 may not be that critical anyway.. also, 70-300 is cheaper and lighter than 70-200.

    70-200 more for events coverage imho. cos you'd really need the extra stop of light
    Thanks for the quick reply Boyboy. Yes I do agree that triathlon and birding are in daylight thus f/2.8 may not be that needed.

    Ok I do remember once that I needed a zoom lense with low light capability. It was once in Vivocity during those dance presentations from china that i wasn't able to squeeze in between the uncles that I moved up to the 2nd level (near the customer service counter). The 105mm end + VR of my kits lense showed its limitation, I wish I had the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 then.

  4. #4
    Senior Member erictan8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,885

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    get the tammron 70-200mm... it gives you faster focussing... important for triathlon and birding....
    can add a TC to get the reach...

    70-300mm is much slower in acquiring focus....

    anyway, both are a tad short for birding....
    normally need at least a 400mm + TC...
    500mm would be good... ha ha but the $$$ involved....
    Hope to learn from everyone here....

  5. #5

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by erictan8888 View Post
    get the tammron 70-200mm... it gives you faster focussing... important for triathlon and birding....
    can add a TC to get the reach...

    70-300mm is much slower in acquiring focus....

    anyway, both are a tad short for birding....
    normally need at least a 400mm + TC...
    500mm would be good... ha ha but the $$$ involved....

    Hi erictan8888,

    Thanks for your advise on Tamron. For now I'm actually leaning towards this lens as the f/2.8 might come in handy in future situations. BTW, i've seen its review on "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page2.asp", in terms of AF motor type its seems lagging behind its comperitor, is the "mico motor and manual focus clutch" something I have to worry about? It seems Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is better choice than Tamron...


    As for the birding, yes I agree that 200mm to 300mm is still tad short even with TC. I should not have said that I intend the lense for birding. Actually after I acquired either of the lense in this topic that I might lookout for tele-zoom of 500mm or 800mm for birding.
    Last edited by hcelrah; 26th March 2009 at 10:14 AM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Will there be any tips on how to test both lenses on store in terms of focusing speed and sharpness?

    BTW, is there Tamron service support in singapore?

  7. #7

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by hcelrah View Post

    BTW, is there Tamron service support in singapore?
    good question. new agent just take over. track record not established yet. only time will tell.

  8. #8

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    if you are looking at the tamron 70-200/2.8 why not look for a 2nd hand nikkor 80-200/2.8. the latter is still available new as well.

  9. #9

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by jfoo View Post
    good question. new agent just take over. track record not established yet. only time will tell.
    Yes, I've seen some discussion on how useless the Sigma service support (singapore) is, I just hope that Tamron is not the same case.

    Service support availability (or local warranty service) usually factors 50% in my purchase decision.

  10. #10

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    just my experience, I ordered a replacement for my tamron 180mm tripod collar since December 09. It has not arrived. 4 months! what do you think of the maintenance service? IMO, I am disappointed with Tamron. First was my tamron 90.. it's front element fogged within 2 years and i needed to get it changed within warranty. BUT, no glass available. Now, it sits in my cabinet still. tithes is out of business; so is my lens.

    Now, my tammy 180's collar is broken. Want to change it, but no part. 4 months; has not arrived. I can live without the collar but goes to show what kind of support you'll get from Tamron, from my experience.

    just my experience. It may differ from person to person.

    btw, the Nikkor AFS 70-300VR is extremely user friendly and is very sharp. To me, it is very fast focusing and certainly faster focusing than the tamron 70-200f2.8 which is screw driven. Here's a link to an approaching tern shot using the 70-300VR.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/...8e1ca1a6_b.jpg
    Last edited by Mendis; 26th March 2009 at 12:03 PM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by jfoo View Post
    if you are looking at the tamron 70-200/2.8 why not look for a 2nd hand nikkor 80-200/2.8. the latter is still available new as well.
    The Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 lacks in VR. For higher zoom range, I felt its important to have VR since I don't want to use tripods.

  12. #12

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Mendis View Post
    just my experience, I ordered a replacement for my tamron 180mm tripod collar since December 09. It has not arrived. 4 months! what do you think of the maintenance service? IMO, I am disappointed with Tamron. First was my tamron 90.. it's front element fogged within 2 years and i needed to get it changed within warranty. BUT, no glass available. Now, it sits in my cabinet still. tithes is out of business; so is my lens.

    Now, my tammy 180's collar is broken. Want to change it, but no part. 4 months; has not arrived. I can live without the collar but goes to show what kind of support you'll get from Tamron, from my experience.

    just my experience. It may differ from person to person.

    btw, the Nikkor AFS 70-300VR is extremely user friendly and is very sharp. To me, it is very fast focusing and certainly faster focusing than the tamron 70-200f2.8 which is screw driven. Here's a link to an approaching tern shot using the 70-300VR.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/...8e1ca1a6_b.jpg
    Hi Mendis,

    Thanks for sharing your experience with Tamron service. I think this is the risk we are taking when buying third party lenses, their service is not yet that established. Although I grown the liking for Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8, it puts me off when i realize that these will be disposable lenses because of not-so-good local service.

    BTW, I also liked the Nikkor AFS 70-300VR, but review from famous Ken rockwell puts it down as too plasticly. Anyway I have to try it out myself if plasticly feel is a real concern.

  13. #13

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    get the nikkor 70-200 or 80-200.. dun waste yr money & time on others..

  14. #14
    Member NeTHaCk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by hcelrah View Post
    Hi Mendis,

    Thanks for sharing your experience with Tamron service. I think this is the risk we are taking when buying third party lenses, their service is not yet that established. Although I grown the liking for Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8, it puts me off when i realize that these will be disposable lenses because of not-so-good local service.

    BTW, I also liked the Nikkor AFS 70-300VR, but review from famous Ken rockwell puts it down as too plasticly. Anyway I have to try it out myself if plasticly feel is a real concern.
    take ken rockwell's review with a pinch of salt...

    add some sugar by reviewing it yourself or asking around.

    the 80-200 nikon is IMO better, but the lack in VR is a sad bad point...

    if iwere you, maybe i'll save up even more... and then wait for good offers inBnS section

  15. #15
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by hcelrah View Post
    Ok I do remember once that I needed a zoom lense with low light capability. It was once in Vivocity during those dance presentations from china that i wasn't able to squeeze in between the uncles that I moved up to the 2nd level (near the customer service counter). The 105mm end + VR of my kits lense showed its limitation, I wish I had the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 then.
    I think What you need that time is a small ladder & a powerful external flash + diffuser....

    If you are taking never the CSC, chances are you are getting mostly forehead view of the shows with little eye contact... right?

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by hcelrah View Post
    The Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 lacks in VR. For higher zoom range, I felt its important to have VR since I don't want to use tripods.
    Handholding technique with lenses up to 200mm is easily trainable. I've shot under indoor lighting with shutter speeds of around 1/60s-1/100s at 200mm (no stabilizing tech) with no handshake before. Consider also that the Tamron is also not stabilized.
    Last edited by calebk; 27th March 2009 at 04:26 AM.

  17. #17
    Member luntut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    1,883

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    i shot at 300mm with the 70-300VR, with the VR turned off, handheld.

    Images came out pretty sharp. quite to my satisfaction. Its do-able. work on your techniques i will say, is more important, then buying all the expensive stuff with VR. You will have this false sense of security that the VR will make your images clear. if your hands shake like a vibrator (i swear i saw shooters with such hands before) and they all ask why their shots turn out blur even though VR is on. they then go on to blame the lens VR is faulty.

    Blame/Ask yourself first, before you even start to blame anything else, human or non-human.
    Fast Camera. Fast Lens. Slow Me. Sigh.
    My Flickr

  18. #18

    Default Re: NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

    Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega23 View Post
    get the nikkor 70-200 or 80-200.. dun waste yr money & time on others..
    Yeah, I tend to realize now that i won't buy third party lense because of support issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by NeTHaCk View Post
    take ken rockwell's review with a pinch of salt...

    add some sugar by reviewing it yourself or asking around.

    the 80-200 nikon is IMO better, but the lack in VR is a sad bad point...

    if iwere you, maybe i'll save up even more... and then wait for good offers inBnS section
    Yeah, I noticed Ken rockwell's review tends to be more of like a "IMO" thing, specially he reviews mainly Nikon. On reviews, I usually take note of the pro's and I investigate further the con's

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    I think What you need that time is a small ladder & a powerful external flash + diffuser....

    If you are taking never the CSC, chances are you are getting mostly forehead view of the shows with little eye contact... right?
    Yes I realized that time that a ladder would be good but I actually just passing by vivo city from my "sentosa flowers" shots. I just couldn't beat the uncles from positioning there for 3 hours before the event. I actually gave up taking shots when I see the forehead view on my shots.

    Quote Originally Posted by calebk View Post
    Handholding technique with lenses up to 200mm is easily trainable. I've shot under indoor lighting with shutter speeds of around 1/60s-1/100s at 200mm (no stabilizing tech) with no handshake before. Consider also that the Tamron is also not stabilized.
    hmmm... I'll take it as challenge to practice this. So far I don't drink coffee thus I think this is really doable

    Quote Originally Posted by luntut View Post
    i shot at 300mm with the 70-300VR, with the VR turned off, handheld.

    Images came out pretty sharp. quite to my satisfaction. Its do-able. work on your techniques i will say, is more important, then buying all the expensive stuff with VR. You will have this false sense of security that the VR will make your images clear. if your hands shake like a vibrator (i swear i saw shooters with such hands before) and they all ask why their shots turn out blur even though VR is on. they then go on to blame the lens VR is faulty.

    Blame/Ask yourself first, before you even start to blame anything else, human or non-human.
    Yeah i agree to you that we don't need to be dependent on VR as there is a limitation on its effect. Best thing is to improve hand stability, and i'm wiling to train for it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •