Nikon 70-200vr**F4** vs Tamron 70-200vc**F2.8** Distortion

[mikoh4792]

Do either of these lenses show more distortion than the other?

I'm considering one of these lenses, and would like the one that has less distortion. The extra stop of light is not really important for me.

 

[jaomul]

I can't see to many owning both to compare for you. I would read 2 in depth reviews from the same but reliable website. Being how high tier these lenses are I wouldn't think distortion is a big deal, more especially if you shoot raw and use an editor with lens corrections

 

[LostLensCap]

These sites test them both.

Welcome to Photozone

Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f 2.8G ED versus Tamron SP 24-70mm F 2.8 Di USD Sony - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

 

[Microbois]

These sites test them both.

Welcome to Photozone

Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f 2.8G ED versus Tamron SP 24-70mm F 2.8 Di USD Sony - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

Heuuu... The OP is looking for lenses in the 70-200mm range, not 24-70mm... The Tamron is not on Photozone...

 

[ruifo]

According to DxoMark.com the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC has less distortion (0.2%) than the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G (0.4%).

Tamron SP 70-200mm F 2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D810 versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f 4G ED VR on Nikon D810 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

 

[mikoh4792]

I guess the difference is negligible if it's only .2%. Now I just need to decide whether I'd like to sacrifice light for weight. I said I wasn't too concerned with the extra stop of light, but I guess it's something to consider since both these lenses have their tradeoffs.

 

[jaomul]

If you will be using the lens regularly on long trips, day walks etc the weight is def an issue, if it's for more occasional use the weight might not be so much. If I had a good modern full frame that did well at high iso I'd go f4, If I had crop with iso not so good and needed f2.8 for seperation I'd get Tammy

 

[Braineack]

also consider that VC > VR

 

[jaomul]

What's the difference specs wise, a stop or so in favour of Tammy?

 

[Braineack]

I say it after using both VC and VR.

VC engages very smoothly, there's no jumping of the image. It seems to work in a very gyroscopic manner.

Some of the VR lenses I've used clunked into stabilization which caused a lot of shake that you could capture if you didnt let it settle down first. When active, it just doesn't seem to hold the frame steady as well.

 

[jaomul]

Seems like the Tammy has a lot to recommend

 

[ruifo]

The Tamron's VC is a three axes image stabilization system (vertical, horizontal and diagonal). The Nikkor's VR is a two axes only image stabilization system (vertical and horizontal). So the VC gives you more stops compesation than the VR, probably 1 stop better than the VR. The VC is also smoother.

The "only" 0.2% distortion difference means Nikon has the double and Tamron the half of the distortion of each other. Something to consider.

And one full extra stop of difference (f/2.8 vs f/4), that's a no brainner. The sweet spot of my Tamron 70-200 VC is around f/3.5-4 (that's an affirmation from my tests), and I'd guess the sweet spot of the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 should be around f/5-5.6? (that's a question only).

I guess the only concrete reason for you to go with the Nikkor 70-200 f/4 is the weight, once the Nikkor is 58% of the Tamron's weight (850g vs 1470g).

Some test shots of mine with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC:


Bokeh test at f/2.8 in low light:

Alice in Chains by ruimc77, on Flickr


Sharpness and resolution test at f/3.5:

Skyscraper by ruimc77, on Flickr


100% crop sharpness test at f/4:

Lunch Time by ruimc77, on Flickr


Landscape test at f/5.6:

Sierra Madre, Pico de Orizaba by ruimc77, on Flickr


Macro test (by croping) at f/8:

Macro by ruimc77, on Flickr


Long exposure test at f/11:

Freeways by ruimc77, on Flickr


Astrophotography test at f/4:

Orion Belt and Nebula by ruimc77, on Flickr


Action shot test at f/4:

Bite me by ruimc77, on Flickr


VC test (handheld), 135mm, 1/30 sec, f/4, ISO 8000:

Gilmore Car Museum by ruimc77, on Flickr


And a test using the Kenko/Bower 2x TC, at 403.2mm, wide open at f/5.6:

Zoológico de Chapultepec by ruimc77, on Flickr


A downside of the Tamron is that it becomes a manual lens with all TCs I can think of...


Others here:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f 2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

 

[jaomul]

Nice set there

 

[mikoh4792]

Wow awesome shots ruifo. I love how clean that pic is at iso 8000. I'm guessing you shot that with a full-frame? My shots start showing noise around 3200 on the d7100. In that case the f/2.8 of the tamron should be better for me since I'm using a less capable sensor(for low light).

 

[ruifo]

Wow awesome shots ruifo. I love how clean that pic is at iso 8000. I'm guessing you shot that with a full-frame? My shots start showing noise around 3200 on the d7100. In that case the f/2.8 of the tamron should be better for me since I'm using a less capable sensor(for low light).

These shots posted here were taken either with a D5200 or a D810. Click on them to see which camera. The D5200 shots are sharing the same 24 Mpix DX sensor with your D7100. f/2.8 does make a difference to work with lower ISO.

And yes, that one at ISO 8000 was with the D810.