New Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 or Cracked Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8

[daniel.garcia]

I am an amateur photographer in need of a 70-200mm f/2.8. I have been eyeballing the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for a while now and at $699, new, it's a great price. I know the biggest set back on that lens is the poor AF quality. Right before I pulled the trigger on purchasing the Tamron, I found an awesome deal on a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 (two-ring version) for $620. Its not the range I want but I'm hoping I can deal with the 10mm. The catch with the Nikon is that the A/M focus ring is cracked, which is the major design flaw of this model. I figure this could be a quick fix with some super glue or epoxy. I am just hesitant to purchase something that is already broken.

What would most of you do in this situation?

Buy the brand new Tamron which has the 70-200mm range and a 6 year warranty but suffers from poor AF or buy the used Nikon 80-200mm which is pro-glass but will need some work.

..And let me politely stop some of you now by letting you know I am on deployment to Afghanistan and can not justify spending $2000 on the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, as much as I would love to.

just a quick update to this thread.

i ended up buying the Sigma 70-200 HSM II (non-OS) which I kept for all of maybe a week. The lack of OS/VR caused a lack of sharpness since I shoot completely in hand.. instead of exchanging it for the OS model I bit the bullet and got a used Nikon 70-200 VRI. The difference in image quality between the sigma and nikon were like night and day. It's gonna be pro nikon glass for me from now on!

 

[MLeeK]

The AF is slow in the tamron, but if you aren't shooting racing or anything that requires extremely high speed focus? It's a fantastic lens. I did have 2 of these and I really love them. I replaced one this year with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS lens this year. Everything in this album was shot with that lens: PhotoReflect - CLake Sports Photography

 

[daniel.garcia]

The AF is slow in the tamron, but if you aren't shooting racing or anything that requires extremely high speed focus? It's a fantastic lens. I did have 2 of these and I really love them. I replaced one this year with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS lens this year. Everything in this album was shot with that lens: PhotoReflect - CLake Sports Photography

what was the reason for the switch to sigma? i read that the IQ was better on the Tamron. And no, I won't need fast AF. I plan on getting into wedding photography when I get home.

 

[MLeeK]

Fast AF. IQ is better on my sigma. THe IQ on the original sigma to the tamron may be what you are reading. The OS version is the equivilent of IS in Canon terms. I shoot sports heavily. I missed a LOT with the Tamron. The tamron is great for everything else. Love it for a portrait lens, weddings, photojournalism... It rarely left my 50D for a few years.

 

[MLeeK]

If you'd like to compare images from the two here's a game shot with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS PhotoReflect - CLake Sports Photography

 

[daniel.garcia]

just a quick update to this thread.

i ended up buying the Sigma 70-200 HSM II (non-OS) which I kept for all of maybe a week. The lack of OS/VR caused a lack of sharpness since I shoot completely in hand.. instead of exchanging it for the OS model I bit the bullet and got a used Nikon 70-200 VRI. The difference in image quality between the sigma and nikon were like night and day. It's gonna be pro nikon glass for me from now on!

 

[nickzou]

just a quick update to this thread.

i ended up buying the Sigma 70-200 HSM II (non-OS) which I kept for all of maybe a week. The lack of OS/VR caused a lack of sharpness since I shoot completely in hand.. instead of exchanging it for the OS model I bit the bullet and got a used Nikon 70-200 VRI. The difference in image quality between the sigma and nikon were like night and day. It's gonna be pro nikon glass for me from now on!

Interesting, got any shots you can share? I'm in a similar dilemma right now. Do you have any shots with your Sigma on a tripod or were they all handheld shots?

 

[daniel.garcia]

just a quick update to this thread.

i ended up buying the Sigma 70-200 HSM II (non-OS) which I kept for all of maybe a week. The lack of OS/VR caused a lack of sharpness since I shoot completely in hand.. instead of exchanging it for the OS model I bit the bullet and got a used Nikon 70-200 VRI. The difference in image quality between the sigma and nikon were like night and day. It's gonna be pro nikon glass for me from now on!

Interesting, got any shots you can share? I'm in a similar dilemma right now. Do you have any shots with your Sigma on a tripod or were they all handheld shots?

I'm on deployment, so I all my shots are hand held.. no time to set up a tripod in most cases. Believe me when I say the difference between the sigma and the nikon are like night and day. The color and contrast are amazing with the pro lens. VR/OS/IS at 200mm is a necessity, IMO, especially with a lens built so heavily like the sigma. If you've got the extra money to throw at a the pro glass, you wont regret it.

 

[djacobox372]

You might want to consider the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S, which sells for around $800-1000, or perhaps a 70-200mm VR1 which can be had for around $1200.

 

[daniel.garcia]

You might want to consider the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S, which sells for around $800-1000, or perhaps a 70-200mm VR1 which can be had for around $1200.

i did end up buying the VRI, i posted an update about 3 posts up.

 

[APHPHOTO]

First you wouldnt notice a 10mm diff. Second, why would you buy a damaged lense. Ask your self why is this lense damaged. What caused the damage and what else is wrong with it. Wouldnt go there.