Nikkor 70-200mm f4 vs Tamron 70-200mm f2.8

[goodguy]

I always read that the D5200 has a Toshiba sensor, like the D7100 as well. The only two with this sensor. Here's one link about that. And yes, the tests for the D5200 sensor are pretty good.

The D5300 and D5500 have Sony sensor instead. The D3200 has a Nikon own sensor, like the DF and D4s.

After closer check you are correct, both are made by Toshiba, still on DXO the D5200 sensor is leading (very slightly) in DR and low light performance.

 

[wezza13]

I wanted a 70-200 2.8 lens for a long time. I couldn't justify the cost of the Nikon as It's just a hobby for me.

So for a long time I have been looking at the Nikon 70-200 f4. The cheapest I could get it is around £900 for new. Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC is around the same price new. Even second-hand the Tamron 2.8 is roughly the same as the Nikon f4.

I went with the Tamron in the end as it's a 2.8. I can use it for low-light sports (lots of that over here in England!) and lovely bokeh with portraits with my D600.

Since buying it second-hand (mint condition) a couple of weeks ago, I can honestly say it's the best lens that I've ever used. Sharp as a razorblade.

Really glad I didn't buy the f4 as I would be regretting the extra whole stop of light, which I need for shooting football (over there you call it soccer).

Hope this helps

 

[Braineack]

I went with the Tamron in the end as it's a 2.8. I can use it for low-light sports (lots of that over here in England!) and lovely bokeh with portraits with my D600.

Since buying it second-hand (mint condition) a couple of weeks ago, I can honestly say it's the best lens that I've ever used. Sharp as a razorblade.

Really glad I didn't buy the f4 as I would be regretting the extra whole stop of light, which I need for shooting football (over there you call it soccer).

This doesnt make sense. It's a f/5.6 lens!!!!

 

[Peeb]

I like to vote before I peek to see what everybody else did. Was surprised to see that I had joined a Tammy landslide ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍

 

[wezza13]

I went with the Tamron in the end as it's a 2.8. I can use it for low-light sports (lots of that over here in England!) and lovely bokeh with portraits with my D600.

Since buying it second-hand (mint condition) a couple of weeks ago, I can honestly say it's the best lens that I've ever used. Sharp as a razorblade.

Really glad I didn't buy the f4 as I would be regretting the extra whole stop of light, which I need for shooting football (over there you call it soccer).

This doesnt make sense. It's a f/5.6 lens!!!!

 

[A/Ox4]

The fall off in the corners with the Tamron is NOT nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I hardly notice it. I love my Tamron 70-200.

(Not that I always add a slight vignetting to my images)

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[hamlet]

I cant complain about the tamron, the thing is a stellar lens. Other than that it's a f5.6, the visual design of the lens could have been sleeker. (not that that in any way impacts photography, it's just a preference)

I like the Nikon look more:

 

[wezza13]

Other than that it's a f5.6, the visual design of the lens could have been sleeker.

It's not a 5.6 lens it's a 2.8!

As goodguy has already said, if people don't like it wide open, enable profile correction in lightroom!

 

[Braineack]

Other than that it's a f5.6, the visual design of the lens could have been sleeker.

It's not a 5.6 lens it's a 2.8!

Not according to KmH.

really sharp at f/5.6 too.


DSC_0772-2 by The Braineack, on Flickr