70-200.

[Braineack]

Why, IYHO, is the VR1 at $1200 the best choice for DX? Please don't answer: Because Nikon.

 

[MGRPhoto]

I was going to write a somewhat lengthy reply but I agree with everything TheLost said. I've used all of them but I only own the Nikon VR1.

 

[MGRPhoto]

Why, IYHO, is the VR1 at $1200 the best choice for DX? Please don't answer: Because Nikon.

Because the image quality is just as good as the Tamron for anyone who doesn't sit at a 30" monitor pixel peeping all day and it's AF performance is significantly faster. And it can usually be found for less money. The Tamron looks a lot better on paper and it IS a fantastic lens. The IQ is a bit better than the VR1 but unless you're a studio photographer the difference does translate to real world benefit.

 

[Braineack]

Why, IYHO, is the VR1 at $1200 the best choice for DX? Please don't answer: Because Nikon.

Because the image quality is just as good as the Tamron for anyone who doesn't sit at a 30" monitor pixel peeping all day and it's AF performance is significantly faster. And it can usually be found for less money. The Tamron looks a lot better on paper and it IS a fantastic lens. The IQ is a bit better than the VR1 but unless you're a studio photographer the difference does translate to real world benefit.

Almost the same reasons someone would pick a Tamron over a VRII

Although I'm having a hard time finding a VR1, on the market right now (searching about 5 sources), for less than an equivalent Tamron. My Tamron was $1200, I'm not seeing any VR1s for less in similarly rated condition, they are many for much MORE than the Tamron.

From the research I did, a lot of people were saying the Tamron was on-par if not faster AF over the VRI, maybe a notch slower than the VRII but really hard to tell any measurable difference.

I'm not defending the Tamron, I have no stake in the game, but every single comparison I was trying to find would always just be like, if I had the choice I'd go with the Nikon, well, because it's the nikon, without any real objective reasons why, so I was curious. I listed the reasons I went with for a Tamron, and they work for me.

 

[MGRPhoto]

Why, IYHO, is the VR1 at $1200 the best choice for DX? Please don't answer: Because Nikon.

Because the image quality is just as good as the Tamron for anyone who doesn't sit at a 30" monitor pixel peeping all day and it's AF performance is significantly faster. And it can usually be found for less money. The Tamron looks a lot better on paper and it IS a fantastic lens. The IQ is a bit better than the VR1 but unless you're a studio photographer the difference does translate to real world benefit.

Almost the same reasons someone would pick a Tamron over a VRII

Although I'm having a hard time finding a VR1, on the market right now (searching about 5 sources), for less than an equivalent Tamron. My Tamron was $1200, I'm not seeing any VR1s for less in similarly rated condition, they are many for much MORE than the Tamron.

From the research I did, a lot of people were saying the Tamron was on-par if not faster AF over the VRI, maybe a notch slower than the VRII but really hard to tell any measurable difference.

I'm not defending the Tamron, I have no stake in the game, but every single comparison I was trying to find would always just be like, if I had the choice I'd go with the Nikon, well, because it's the nikon, without any real objective reasons why, so I was curious. I listed the reasons I went with for a Tamron, and they work for me.

So eBay wasn't one of your 5 sources? A simple search for "nikon 70-200" came up with (I only looked at the first page of 50) 37 good condition copies at $1,100 or less with over 1000 total results. I rented the Tamron from LensRentals and Borrowlenses as well as borrowed a copy from a friend. At some point I felt like I needed to upgrade my VR1 for some reason but I didn't feel like paying for the Nikon version. With the DXO analysis being so strong for the Tamron I figured it would be a great upgrade. Yes the IQ is great. All 3 copies were significantly slower than my VR1 though. Unacceptably slower in comparison. Typically this would be a difficult thing to measure just by using them side by side but the difference is great enough that no technical measurements are necessary. So I'm saving up for the VRII.

 

[Braineack]

No, I didn't search ebay to keep the comparisons more "scientific" if you will, I tend to avoid ebay myself since. I also only did a really quick comparison prior, because I shoot FX and wasn't going to use the VRI.

When I search ebay's sold records they are coming up between $1,050 and $1,200 depending, but it looks like if you play your cards right you can get one for ~$900. Looks like the Tamron's are selling at about the same range between $1050 and $1150.

Good to know, seriously, it was hard to find info like this.

 

[Gavjenks]

None of these things are kit lenses. None of them even approach any definition of junk. The Tamron or Sigma or whatever versions are just as good for any practical purpose in terms of optical quality at almost any setting.
The Nikon version might be a smidgeon better, like, wide open at either extreme, MAYBE. If you zoom in to 100% alone in the dark with your computer monitor. Otherwise, whatever.

There are other advantages, like weather sealing, probably somewhat nicer or at least more consistent autofocus (Tamron in particular seems to have some odd issues with that), etc. But I don't think image quality is a significant difference, really, at any but the most extreme circumstances. And even then, not at all worth the massive price differences by itself.

If you need the weather sealing and extra build quality and super reliability because you're going mountaineering in the Himalayas with your zoom, or something, then get the Nikon. Or if you make tons of money from your photography, get the Nikon. But most people are probably better off saving the money.

 

[alexandermjoyce]

thank you for all the solid feedback!
but how about this…
say instead of going 70-200 i would go the route of 24-70, and tamron recently released a new 24-70 2.8.
comparable to nikkor? reviews seem solid, but individual feedback is always better.


:thumbup:

 

[robbins.photo]

thank you for all the solid feedback!
but how about this…
say instead of going 70-200 i would go the route of 24-70, and tamron recently released a new 24-70 2.8.
comparable to nikkor? reviews seem solid, but individual feedback is always better.


:thumbup:

Well I can't speak to some of the other lenses mentioned, but I do have the Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 and I love it. The image quality is more than sufficient for my needs, in fact most of the "reviews" I've seen they always seem to be using it on FX bodies, which I think might be part of the reason that they seem to notice issues that I've never seen using it with either my D5100 or D5200 crop sensor.

I recently purchased a sigma 2 x teleconverter for it, did some testing and honestly I couldn't see anything more than a minute loss of IQ that was easily corrected in post. So I've just ordered a sigma 1.4 x teleconverter for it as well, so now I have a 200 mm at f/2.8, a 280 mm at F/4 and a 400 mm at F 5.6 and all I have to carry is the one lens and a couple of small teleconverters that easily fit in my jacket pocket (or on my belt once things warm up a bit).

So all in all I'm very happy with it - it's been an excellent lens and with the teleconverters it becomes even more versatile.