Have you ever used 70-300 Lens?

[Trangela]

I ask a question to people used 70-300 Lens:
What do you think about
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC
and
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR,
Which one is better?

 

[pixmedic]

i had the nikon 70-300 VR lens.
fantastic lens.
always regretted selling it.

 

[480sparky]

I upgraded my Nikkor 70-300 with a 70-200 VRII, but kept and still use it.

 

[fjrabon]

The Tamron isn't a bad lens by any means, but the nikon is simply better. Better color, better focusing speed and accuracy, better contrast. In the middle of their range they're about equally sharp. But the Nikon is sharper at the extremes of 70mm and 300mm.

 

[Derrel]

I own the Nikon 70-300 VR...it's a decent lens.I have bigger, better lenses, and yet I often select it for its size and weight and ease of carry. I've heard the Tamron is an okay lens though. For all I know the Tamron might be as good, or maybe even better...I really have not checked into the Tamron. You could probably check out some of the review sites to see how the Tamron performs and how the VR lens performs.

 

[sm4him]

^Agree with the others.

I've never used that particular Tamron. I've got a 70-200 f/2.8 Tamron that I really like.
But that Nikon 70-300 is just one of the best lenses, for the price, that you're likely to find. Like sparky, I have long since "upgraded" to a 70-200 f/2.8, plus I have a Sigma 150-500…but so far, I just can't make myself part with the 70-300.
Great "Bang for the Buck" with that lens.

 

[fjrabon]

Just to clarify, I've used the canon version of the tamron. Though there usually isn't a difference between the canon and nikon mounts of a given third party lens.

That being said, my comparison doesn't use the same body, I'm comparing the Nikon 70-300 on a D7000 to the tamron 70-300 on a 7D. I used both for open daylight sports (mostly soccer).

 

[alv]

use one on my nikon for walk around lens .the tamron. gave my 55-300 to my son . some pics on flicker

 

[DarkShadow]

I had the Tamron 70 300 I used on a Nikon D90 and D3100. Its is a good lens,plenty sharp and the VC is fantastic.Here is a couple samples I shot with it on the D90 and D3100 if it helps you any.

The D90 with Tamron 70 300 vc
DSC_0068 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

And the D3100 with the Tamron 70-300vc
DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

 

[Mr.Photo]

The Tamron isn't a bad lens by any means, but the nikon is simply better. Better color, better focusing speed and accuracy, better contrast. In the middle of their range they're about equally sharp. But the Nikon is sharper at the extremes of 70mm and 300mm.

I would have to disagree with this statement. I own the Tamron 70-300 VC and actually chose it over the Nikon after testing the two of them side by side. The Nikon 70-300 VR is a good lens, but the Tamron is a little better wide open especially between 200-300mm. I didn't get the opportunity to test the focus speed between the two with moving subjects, but I've photographed everything from fast moving planes, cars, and motorcycles at close range as well as dog action shots, and even a little bit of birds in flight, and I do not find the auto focus speed lacking in any way.

Another point in favor of the Tamron is the VC offers better stabilization at slower shutter speeds than the Nikon. During my testing I could get consistently sharp shots down to 1/125, and even as low as 1/60 with good technique. With the Nikon at 1/125 I wasn't getting as good a hit rate, and at 1/60 it was near impossible.

Tamron in the last few years has significantly stepped up their game and are producing lenses that match or in some cases surpass the performance of lenses by Nikon or Canon, and at a far lesser price.

Also, Tamron offers a 6 year Warranty on it's lenses, and their Customer Service is second to none. I've dealt with both Tamron and Nikon's Customer Service, and I would put Tamron above Nikon any day. With Nikon if you call to get an update on a warranty repair you have to speak with someone half way around the globe. If you call Tamron you speak with someone at the repair center, and can usually get an update right then.

Here's a shot I got of a Pigeon in flight using my D7000 and Tamron 70-300 VC.

 

[jaomul]

I had the Tamron on Canon and with a d7100. Its good value, fast to focus and sharp. I would say the backgrounds are not rendered fantastic imo, but I do still think its a good lens.

The Tamron images seem more subdued (less contrast and saturation) than what I have seen from the nikon 70-300 vr. The newer nikon seems to be sharp and vivid with the 70-300mm vr seeming to give similar type results to the under rated (again imo) 18-105mm kit lens. So to me the nikon 70-300 vr is like a better built, longer kit lens, and I mean that in a positve way.

I think that the tamrons images actually look more like the older nikon 70-300g, but the tamron is sharper. The older 70-300g does not really get good reviews but I like that also and it has nicer out of focus area.

In short any internet reviews you read pitch these 2 co close that I think they are both pretty much on par. The tamron post processing may need a touch contrast and sauration, the nikon may need to reduce these a touch. Probably half way between both would work for lots of shots. If they were both the same price I'd go Nikon, simply for the forward compatability. Where I live the tamron was about 40% cheaper so I went with that. I havent enough experience with the Nikon to recommend it, and I wont say the Tamron is better, but its an inexpensive competitive option

 

[JimMcClain]

I bought a Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD to replace my Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR FX and am very happy with it. I keep meaning to put the 70-300mm Nikon on ebay, but I haven't got around to it yet. I have a real nice B&H circular polarizing filter for it too. If anyone's interested, send me a PM.

 

[Matt Glick]

What about the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G w/out the VR? B&H has it for $130. Is that a super outdated lens or would that be a good buy if I didn't need VR because I'm always mounted.
Is that lens a manual only focus lens?

 

[Mr.Photo]

What about the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G w/out the VR? B&H has it for $130. Is that a super outdated lens or would that be a good buy if I didn't need VR because I'm always mounted.
Is that lens a manual only focus lens?

No, that lens is much older than the 70-300 VR and is nowhere near as good optically.

 

[Dave442]

I have the Nikon 70-300VR and I think it is a decent lens, especially for the price. It fits in both of my small travel bags so I always take it with me. I found the VR to work very good (the only lens I have with VR so I am comparing it to not using VR).

I have 8210 shots with the lens in the last 4 years, 18% at 70mm, 7% at 200mm, 35% at 300mm. Of my four lenses, this one was used 21% of the time. I should probably add a 300mm prime, but I know I would not take it with me all the time like with this 70-300mm lens.