70-300mm Nikon VS Tamron

[molested_cow]

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR VS Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD

Price wise, the Tamron is a tad lower. I was asking about the Nikon but the dealer(Nikon dealer) actually recommended the Tamron. He's a professional photographer.
I will do come research on the image quality, but since the Nikon has VRII which is said to be able to compensate 4 stops. What about the Tamron VC?

 

[TheLost]

I compared my friends Tamron to my Nikon 70-300 VR a few years ago when the Tamron first came out.. I found it to be a very sharp lens (a titch sharper then the Nikon past 200).

The two things i didn't like about the Tamron:

1) Focus speed. It's not as bad as some Tamrons I've played with (Im talking about you Tamron 70-200 f/2.8!!) but its not a speed daemon. It's AF speed is about the same as the Nikon 55-200mm and other kit lenses. It also would hunt for focus in low light. By comparison, the Nikon 70-300mm VR has amazingly fast auto focus.

2) Build Quality. The Tamron feels a bit too 'plasticky'(?) for my liking. The Nikon is a semi-pro FX lens and has a good solid feel to it. I abused my Nikon 70-300mm all around the word (Jungles, snowy mountains, urban jungles.. etc) and it took all the abuse i could dish out. I'm not sure the Tamron would have survived.

Other then those two things... Its a good lens. IMHO, I like the Nikon better. I ended up selling my Nikon for $50 less then i paid for it... 3rd party lenses don't seem to hold their value. If it was me buying, i would look for a good used/refurb Nikon (but im cheap)

 

[shadowlands]

I use to own the Nikon and it was a great lens. Get the Nikon. Later when it's time to resale, you'll be happy you did.
Save money with a clean, warranted used copy or refurb.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR VS Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD

Price wise, the Tamron is a tad lower. I was asking about the Nikon but the dealer(Nikon dealer) actually recommended the Tamron. He's a professional photographer.
I will do come research on the image quality, but since the Nikon has VRII which is said to be able to compensate 4 stops. What about the Tamron VC?

The Tamron has a significantly lower dealer cost, and a significantly HIGHER dealer profit margin. So, yes, of course the dealer will tell you to buy a lens with a one-year warranty instead of a higher-cost Nikkor with a five year USA warranty. Now that you know why your dealer is suggesting a Tammy to you, maybe you'll have a better idea of how truthful he is with you. I say this only because I have worked at photo retail before, and I know why sales people often "push" one brand or one product over another.

 

[JaronRH]

I still would go for the Nikon 70-300. I used to own that lens and can tell you it has a fast AF and the VR works very well. The only "downside" - and the reason I sold mine - was the variable aperture. It definitely sold well (kept its value better) though and helped pay for my 70-200

 

[coastalconn]

The tamron actually comes with a six year US warranty. After rebate it is 350 and I almost never see them sell below 275 used. I don't use mine very often because I always shoot my 500. The VC on the tamron is awesome and I have gotten handheld shots sharp at 1/10 at 300mm, but I am a robot
anyways, this is wide open at 300mm

Sparrow Portrait - 2 by krisinct, on Flickr

 

[sm4him]

The tamron actually comes with a six year US warranty. After rebate it is 350 and I almost never see them sell below 275 used. I don't use mine very often because I always shoot my 500. The VC on the tamron is awesome and I have gotten handheld shots sharp at 1/10 at 300mm, but I am a robot
anyways, this is wide open at 300mm

Sparrow Portrait - 2 by krisinct, on Flickr

I hate you, coastalconn.
Just kidding--but I DO envy your bird-shooting skills! I couldn't get that sharp if the thing landed right next to me, and sat there and posed. Well, maybe then, but that hasn't happened lately.

 

[molested_cow]

I'm not in the US of A so warranty terms are different here.

Resale value wise, I am not too worried about it because I tend to use my lens for a looooong time. I have the 70-300mm ED that I've been using for about 9 years. It's kinda ****ty now that my other lens are all "pro" grade, that's why I am looking to refresh it with a updated one. I can't justify getting a F2.8 70-200mm.

The thing about getting used lens here is, I live like 6 hours from anywhere populated so it's not possible to meet and check the lens myself. There's a used lens online store, but I still don't feel comfortable buying without seeing it for myself ( although I found KEH to be really reliable). That's why I am looking at getting it new, otherwise, I am definitely a very cheap guy.

Ok, so the big difference between the Tamron and Nikon is the AF speed? I guess that alone is enough to make a decision. I was shooting elementary school track and field. The kids aren't THAT fast and my 70-300mm ED was able to keep up for the most part, just with terrible fringing. I hope the VR version will make me smile big the next time I have to put it to test. Thanks peeps!!!

BTW, you know what's an AWESOME lens? 105mm macro VR! From bugs to portraits to landscape to sports. I mean, why can't every lens be like that????

 

[nmoody]

I love my Tamron SP 70-300. Its a great lens and as other mention pretty sharp for the price. I did lot of research on 300mm lenses before purchasing it, and it was the clear winner in value to quality ratio.

It does much better than most 300s at the top end. The VC is pretty damn good, weird getting used to though.