70-200.

[alexandermjoyce]

so, the question is nikon or tamron!?
i recently picked up a D610 (moving up from a D90) and i'm looking forward to shooting hockey and snowboard photography..
and i figured a solid choice would a 70-200. but i'm undecided between nikon or tamron, from what i've heard tamron's auto focus struggles to keep up.
is it worth it to pay 2k more and get the nikon or is tamron's price point worth it? thanks for the input ahead of time.

 

[jaomul]

Is it really 2k more?
Truthfully you will likely struggle to find to many who have both. Everyone interwide seems to rave about the tamron but if they were both same price no one would pick it over the Nikon. How fussy are you?

 

[alexandermjoyce]

Is it really 2k more?
Truthfully you will likely struggle to find to many who have both. Everyone interwide seems to rave about the tamron but if they were both same price no one would pick it over the Nikon. How fussy are you?

yeah i'm pretty sure nikon's is about $2,700 and tamron's stands at $769 or something weird.
but i'm mean i'm kind of a perfectionist and most people that rave about it i feel are doing still photography so i wanted to make sure AF wasn't a total downfall. but i may be wrong, tamron's lens may be fantastic.
i had tamrons 90mm macro instead of nikon's when i was shooting with the d90 and i loved it.

 

[JTPhotography]

Stick with Nikon, if money is a main concern, consider used and definitely consider the 80-200.

 

[jaomul]

I think you are comparing nikons newest with Tamrons previous generation 70-200. Tamrons previous has no ultra sonic motor or vibration compensation and it's approx price you mention. They have a newer one with vc that's about 60-70% the price of the nikon. It is very highly regarded, but the Nikon does get named as having the edge.If you are not a fullframe user Nikon have an older vr version that is also highly recommended. They are all good lenses but as with everything you get what you pay for

 

[EIngerson]

If you can afford it get the Nikon. There's a reason they are more expensive. There are tons of people that are very happy with the Tamron, but it's not a Nikon by any stretch.



….and I'm a Canon shooter.

 

[alexandermjoyce]

i was wrong:

nikon is $2,300
and tamron is about $1,400 (i was looking at an older model)
but yeah i would rather save some money for a lens that is stronger. how is the 80-200?

 

[jaomul]

All the nikons are good. A pro I know rates his 80-200 as his sharpest lens. I am not sure which exact model he has. However the tamron is newer tech. Matt Granger who was the Nikon guy does a good comparison on you tube. To be honest a d610 and tamron 70-200 is probably "good enough" for the majority. I am toying with buying a 70-200 also but use a crop camera so am being swayed by the sigma 50-150mm. If I do go the 70-200 way it will likely be the tamron.

 

[ruifo]

The newer Tamron is pretty strong anh highly marked at DxoMark (better metrics than the VR II).

See these:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...mron-70-200mm-f-2-8-sp-di-vc-usd-opinion.html

Tamron Lens SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD versus competition - DxOMark

Best lenses for Nikon D610: Short telephoto and standard focal lengths - DxOMark

The new Tamron is shown as the best zoom for the D610 out there:
Best standard zoom lenses for the Nikon D610 - DxOMark

Strong video review:




I just bought the Tamron.

 

[ruifo]

 

[Braineack]

Is it really 2k more?
Truthfully you will likely struggle to find to many who have both. Everyone interwide seems to rave about the tamron but if they were both same price no one would pick it over the Nikon. How fussy are you?

yeah i'm pretty sure nikon's is about $2,700 and tamron's stands at $769 or something weird.

If you can buy a Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC for $769, buy it today and sell it for $450 profit tomorrow.

In the real world, you can buy a used VRII, today, for ~$1,900 where the Tamron would be ~$1,250. The difference being roughly ~$650. Retail the difference is $1,500 (current $100 rebate to $1,400) vs. $2,400, so roughly ~$1000 difference new.

That's a lot of difference to pay for a larger focusing ring and "better" build quality. I watched Granger's videos above before buying the Tamron, they were not helpful in my decision he's goes about it in a completely "mythbusters" way of it. i.e., non-scientific.

I bought it because:

1. great $$$erformance
2. lighter/shorter
3. I'm an enthusiast
4. Incredibly happy with Tamron's VC and USD; I've never had a nikon lens focus so quietly, the VC engages smoother and is quiet as well.
5. Distortion and vignetting (the only two real negatives that reviews mention) can easily be corrected in post with a click of a "lens correction on" button.
6. I don't believe in resting on laurels if there's no benefit in it. The Nikon and Tamron score very close on paper (DxO). The Tamron rating better sharpness, better transmission (more light gets to sensor), and less distortion than the VRII.
7. Matches the optics of my 24-70 2.8.

 

[bigal1000]

Where can you buy a new Tamron for $769 I want 2 of them !! Thats a $1500 lens......

 

[ruifo]

Only the old version, non image estabilized and old lens formula is around $700.
the new is $1499.

 

[Braineack]

no VC, no care.

 

[TheLost]

I've used all of these lenses..

The OLD Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF (~$700) is VERY VERY slow focusing... but, its slightly sharper then the same age Sigma if you can live with the focus speed.

The NEW Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC USD ($1400) is FASTER and on par with the Sigma 70-200 OS.. DxO gives it a great score... but..

The Nikon 70-200 VR1 is (IMHO) the best choice for that price range ($1200) on DX ..

The Nikon 70-200 VR2 is the KING and worth every penny.