Nikon or Tamron

[Braineack]

VC > VR

 

[Braineack]

You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.

While it's a completely valid point--
I bought my 24-70 ($1025) & 70-200 ($1200) for roughly the same price the one Nikon in the class. I'd rather have two incredibly awesome lenses that I can still sell for ~80% of what I paid for them, than only 1 lenses that costs just as much and doesn't perform twice as well just so I can retain resale value.

Also if you bought new, the Tamrons seem to be holding value a tiny bit better than the Nikons:

A new 70-200 in Tamron is $1500; used they go for ~$1200 or 80%.
A new 70-200 in Nikon is $2400; used they go for ~$1850 or 77%.
A new 24-70 in Tamron is $1200; used they go for ~$920 or 76%.
A new 24-70 in Nikon is $1900; used they go for ~$1350 or 71%.

Had I bought Nikon I wouldn't have been able to get both, and in regards to the 24-70, I'd have a HUGE heavy lens that doesn't even have VC--that's an incredible value add from Tamron.

Unless Nikon comes out with a competing 24-70 VRII that sells for under $1000, there's no way the value of that lens will drop to 50% of the value. Just no way.

the Tamrons are sharper, smaller, lighter, have longer warranties, have better stability control, and cost marginally less. Seems no brainer.

I will conceede that the Nikons both probably have subjectively better bokeh. But that alone, nor the resale value, wasn't worth sticking with Nikon over Tamron.

also: in before "build quality"

 

[Ted Evans]

Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII?

Yes, most definitely. Thats why Nikon offered the VR2 so quickly.

I cannot spend $2400 for a new VRII which is what I would like to have. Thanks for your comments.

You could go for the 70-200mm f4 VR, which gives you the same or better image quality, at half the price AND weight.

After viewing many images made with the Tamron 150-600 and 70-200 f/2.8 and considering that I am a hobbyist, in addition to the price difference, I chose the Tamron. I got it new with a six year warranty for $1050 so for me that makes more sense than $2400 for the Nikon. After selling 5 or so Nikon lens from film days and my F4s, I still have a 20 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 micro, 200 f/4 micro and a 80-200 f/2.8, I do not feel the need to be Nikon pure as I once did. So far, I have been very pleased with the two Tamron lens and feel no remorse for their purchase.

I appreciate your comments.

 

[goodguy]

Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII?

Yes, most definitely. Thats why Nikon offered the VR2 so quickly.

I cannot spend $2400 for a new VRII which is what I would like to have. Thanks for your comments.

You could go for the 70-200mm f4 VR, which gives you the same or better image quality, at half the price AND weight.

After viewing many images made with the Tamron 150-600 and 70-200 f/2.8 and considering that I am a hobbyist, in addition to the price difference, I chose the Tamron. I got it new with a six year warranty for $1050 so for me that makes more sense than $2400 for the Nikon. After selling 5 or so Nikon lens from film days and my F4s, I still have a 20 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 micro, 200 f/4 micro and a 80-200 f/2.8, I do not feel the need to be Nikon pure as I once did. So far, I have been very pleased with the two Tamron lens and feel no remorse for their purchase.

I appreciate your comments.

Congrats on the new lenses.
Wow, you do have a nice range of lenses there!
Enjoy the new toys with good health and all you need to do is go out and have fun

 

[Ted Evans]

Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII?

Yes, most definitely. Thats why Nikon offered the VR2 so quickly.

I cannot spend $2400 for a new VRII which is what I would like to have. Thanks for your comments.

You could go for the 70-200mm f4 VR, which gives you the same or better image quality, at half the price AND weight.

After viewing many images made with the Tamron 150-600 and 70-200 f/2.8 and considering that I am a hobbyist, in addition to the price difference, I chose the Tamron. I got it new with a six year warranty for $1050 so for me that makes more sense than $2400 for the Nikon. After selling 5 or so Nikon lens from film days and my F4s, I still have a 20 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 micro, 200 f/4 micro and a 80-200 f/2.8, I do not feel the need to be Nikon pure as I once did. So far, I have been very pleased with the two Tamron lens and feel no remorse for their purchase.

I appreciate your comments.

Congrats on the new lenses.
Wow, you do have a nice range of lenses there!
Enjoy the new toys with good health and all you need to do is go out and have fun

Thanks goodguy....the weather has proven my timing for the purchases terrible. Very little sun and much precipitation.

 

[ruifo]

Here my 100+ sample shots with the 'Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD'. Just love it.

Link:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

These are taken with a D810 and a D5200. It seats pretty well with these two bodies:

 

[MSnowy]

My vote is Tamron. I have one and it is fantastic. You also get a 6 year warranty. If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money. If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...

Don't they have a six year warranty because they expect it to break for six year then fall apart completely in year 7?

Nikon if you can afford it Tamron if you cant

 

[Braineack]

My vote is Tamron. I have one and it is fantastic. You also get a 6 year warranty. If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money. If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...

Don't they have a six year warranty because they expect it to break for six year then fall apart completely in year 7?

Nikon if you can afford it Tamron if you cant

its an incentive; like Hyundai. Now major manufacturers are emulating them.

 

[Mr.Photo]

These Nikon/Canon vs Tamron/Sigma debates always bring out the die hard brand loyalists. I currently own two Tamron lenses, and they have yet to let me down, or left me wanting for something better. I love most all of Nikon's lenses as they are absolutely fantastic, but companies like Tamron and Sigma have excelled so much in the past 10 years that the gap has closed to almost nothing making the price gap between Nikon/Canon lenses more about the name than a dramatic leap in performance.

While I have no experience with the 70-200's from either Nikon or Tamron, I have done comparisons between the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR and my Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC. When I was looking to buy my Tamron I tested it extensively against the Nikon at my local shop, and found that the VC in the Tamron was much better, and that the images were noticeably sharper when shooting wide open between 200-300mm.

Also I have dealt with Nikon's repair services and the customer service sucks. Both times I had to send in my D3100 and D7000 for warranty work my cameras were gone for over a month. Trying to contact someone to get an update was useless as you can't call the repair facility directly, and have to speak with someone on the other side of the globe who will tell you basically the same thing the Nikon repair website tells you. I had to send my Tamron lens in recently for a small warranty repair, and aside from a small misunderstanding on Tamron's part which required me to have to send the lens back a second time (Tamron covered shipping cost), the customer service was fantastic. I called Tamron repair on two separate occasions and both times I was speaking with someone at the repair facility. When I sent the lens back to them they fixed it the day it arrived, and because of the mishap they overnighted the lens back to me. Turn around time for the first attempted repair was about 1 week including shipping to them, repair time, and return shipping to me. Second time was less than a week total.

 

[MSnowy]

You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.

While it's a completely valid point--
I bought my 24-70 ($1025) & 70-200 ($1200) for roughly the same price the one Nikon in the class. I'd rather have two incredibly awesome lenses that I can still sell for ~80% of what I paid for them, than only 1 lenses that costs just as much and doesn't perform twice as well just so I can retain resale value.

Also if you bought new, the Tamrons seem to be holding value a tiny bit better than the Nikons:

A new 70-200 in Tamron is $1500; used they go for ~$1200 or 80%.
A new 70-200 in Nikon is $2400; used they go for ~$1850 or 77%.
A new 24-70 in Tamron is $1200; used they go for ~$920 or 76%.
A new 24-70 in Nikon is $1900; used they go for ~$1350 or 71%.

Had I bought Nikon I wouldn't have been able to get both, and in regards to the 24-70, I'd have a HUGE heavy lens that doesn't even have VC--that's an incredible value add from Tamron.

Unless Nikon comes out with a competing 24-70 VRII that sells for under $1000, there's no way the value of that lens will drop to 50% of the value. Just no way.

the Tamrons are sharper, smaller, lighter, have longer warranties, have better stability control, and cost marginally less. Seems no brainer.

I will conceede that the Nikons both probably have subjectively better bokeh. But that alone, nor the resale value, wasn't worth sticking with Nikon over Tamron.

also: in before "build quality"

I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?

 

[Braineack]

but money IS a factor.

 

[ruifo]

You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.

While it's a completely valid point--
I bought my 24-70 ($1025) & 70-200 ($1200) for roughly the same price the one Nikon in the class. I'd rather have two incredibly awesome lenses that I can still sell for ~80% of what I paid for them, than only 1 lenses that costs just as much and doesn't perform twice as well just so I can retain resale value.

Also if you bought new, the Tamrons seem to be holding value a tiny bit better than the Nikons:

A new 70-200 in Tamron is $1500; used they go for ~$1200 or 80%.
A new 70-200 in Nikon is $2400; used they go for ~$1850 or 77%.
A new 24-70 in Tamron is $1200; used they go for ~$920 or 76%.
A new 24-70 in Nikon is $1900; used they go for ~$1350 or 71%.

Had I bought Nikon I wouldn't have been able to get both, and in regards to the 24-70, I'd have a HUGE heavy lens that doesn't even have VC--that's an incredible value add from Tamron.

Unless Nikon comes out with a competing 24-70 VRII that sells for under $1000, there's no way the value of that lens will drop to 50% of the value. Just no way.

the Tamrons are sharper, smaller, lighter, have longer warranties, have better stability control, and cost marginally less. Seems no brainer.

I will conceede that the Nikons both probably have subjectively better bokeh. But that alone, nor the resale value, wasn't worth sticking with Nikon over Tamron.

also: in before "build quality"

I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?

I had this choice last year, and money wasn't a factor. I had to choose between the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. I did go with the Tamron, because it proved to be ahead of the Nikkor in all aspects I looked for. And with the price difference, I got myself a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, brand new. Great deal!!!

The Tamron trinity (15-30mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8) are really leting the Nikkors and the Canons behind. Just like the new Sigma prime lenses (the art series) is doing the same. I hope this will push Nikon and Canon to update their lenses even further.

 

[Braineack]

but money IS a factor.

But to play along, when shopping for my 24-70, I'd still go with the Tamron because the VC puts it WAY ahead of the Nikon.

I dont have enough experience with the Nikon 70-200 VRII to really say either way. I believe it does have better bokeh, so if money wasn't a factor, I might have ended up with one of these instead. But like I mentioned before VC > VR. If the 70-200 VRII works anything like the 70-300's VRII then I'd still probably pick the Tamron.

 

[goodguy]

but money IS a factor.

I own Nikon and Tamron good fast glasses, DXO mark shows that the differences between their top lenses is very small.
Yes if money wasn't an issue most likely Tamron and Sigma would be out of business but money does count and they give an awesome bang for the buck.
They simply make sense, buying the Tamron 70-200mm gave me an access to capabilities I needed for 1000$ less then Nikons pretty much identical lens in performance.
On the other hand I had the chance about a year ago to buy a used Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G for less then what a new Tamron equivalent lens cost from a very solid source so I got the Nikon.
Both lenses are awesome Tamron and Nikon.

 

[MSnowy]

You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.

While it's a completely valid point--
I bought my 24-70 ($1025) & 70-200 ($1200) for roughly the same price the one Nikon in the class. I'd rather have two incredibly awesome lenses that I can still sell for ~80% of what I paid for them, than only 1 lenses that costs just as much and doesn't perform twice as well just so I can retain resale value.

Also if you bought new, the Tamrons seem to be holding value a tiny bit better than the Nikons:

A new 70-200 in Tamron is $1500; used they go for ~$1200 or 80%.
A new 70-200 in Nikon is $2400; used they go for ~$1850 or 77%.
A new 24-70 in Tamron is $1200; used they go for ~$920 or 76%.
A new 24-70 in Nikon is $1900; used they go for ~$1350 or 71%.

Had I bought Nikon I wouldn't have been able to get both, and in regards to the 24-70, I'd have a HUGE heavy lens that doesn't even have VC--that's an incredible value add from Tamron.

Unless Nikon comes out with a competing 24-70 VRII that sells for under $1000, there's no way the value of that lens will drop to 50% of the value. Just no way.

the Tamrons are sharper, smaller, lighter, have longer warranties, have better stability control, and cost marginally less. Seems no brainer.


Ok so you've
I will conceede that the Nikons both probably have subjectively better bokeh. But that alone, nor the resale value, wasn't worth sticking with Nikon over Tamron.

also: in before "build quality"

I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?

I had this choice last year, and money wasn't a factor. I had to choose between the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. I did go with the Tamron, because it proved to be ahead of the Nikkor in all aspects I looked for. And with the price difference, I got myself a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, brand new. Great deal!!!

The Tamron trinity (15-30mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8) are really leting the Nikkors and the Canons behind. Just like the new Sigma prime lenses (the art series) is doing the same. I hope this will push Nikon and Canon to update their lenses even further.

Ok so you've shot both these Tamrons and the Nikons and compared both results then chose to go with Tamrons. I did the same thing and chose Nikons. Just like most of the things people can see thing differently.