Nikon 70-300 VR II vs Tamron 70-300

[Pejacre]

I have had the Nikon 70-300 VR twice now - first one failed with a VR fault but despite that I bought another as I thought it was worth it (one thing to note is the failure rate of this lens is unusually high compared to others - check out via Google search) This shot was taken this evening in the back garden with my replacement 70-300 VR. Bird was 30' up a tree so 210mm, ISO 2800, F/7.1 at 1/1250 and cropped mercilessly.

 

[StratLou]

Well, finally obtained the Nikon 70-300 for my daughter, but am confused with regards to the VR vs VRII. The lens doesn't say VRII anywhere on the barrel but several members and ads I've ssen mention the VRII. Is there a 70-300 VRII? What makes a lens a II vs just a VR? Thanks.

 

[PaulWog]

Well, finally obtained the Nikon 70-300 for my daughter, but am confused with regards to the VR vs VRII. The lens doesn't say VRII anywhere on the barrel but several members and ads I've ssen mention the VRII. Is there a 70-300 VRII? What makes a lens a II vs just a VR? Thanks.

There is only one 70-300 VR lens in the Nikon lineup. The "VRII" just refers to the iteration of the vr technology in the lens. It confuses a lot of people. You have the best (and only) version of the Nikon 70-300 VR.

 

[greybeard]

Not sure about the Tamron but the Nikon VR is pretty soft at 300mm. Fine if you don't crop much.

MANY telephoto lenses look "soft" at 300mm when the shutter speed is at 1/500 to 1/640, but they become "amazingly sharp" once the speed hits about 1/1250 second. Sheer SPEED stops subject movement, wind motion blurring, and camera-swinging movement as well as camera shake and jostle. VR can keep the camera steady, but it cannot stop the movement of the world's objects and people.

I have the older AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 non VR. I never shoot it below 1/1000 and it is still sharp at 300mm.

 

[DarkShadow]

Well here some shots with the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

DSC_0068 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

 

[StratLou]

Well here some shots with the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD.

DSC_0068 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

Thanks a lot! Now I have to get her this lens as well (yeah, right. No funds left for that)! Those are awesome photos! (I'm starting to feel that the subtleties between the various lenses are lost on me, though).

 

[Larry Menzel]

Hi All,

Does anyone have any thoughts/experience using either. I read somewhere that the Tamron is less expensive (yes) and is sharper at the 300mm vs the Nikon. Also, does anyone know how quickly the AF responds on the Nikon (in general) and vs the Tamron.

Lastly, is it possible to "turn off" the auto focus on an AF lens and focus manually (if I don't want the lens to continually front and back focus)? Thank you.

Well, I used to be a lens snob and only bought Nikon lenses for my camera (shooting a D610 now). I think Tamron has so upped their game over the past few years that they're really worth the look. I have a Tammy 70-3oo and find it to be just an excellent lens, especially for the price. I use it all the time and enjoy the extra reach it offers. Even gets really shape photos in DX mode. I think you'll not be disappointed in either lens, but I think the Tamron is an excellent value. Here are a couple of shots I took with my 70-300.

 

[fmw]

I have used both. I would say both of them are worth their asking price.

 

[greybeard]

My experience with the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 is that it is really great from 70-200. At 300 it needs to be stopped down to f/10 and 1/1000.

little bird bb by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr