Nikon 70-300 or Tamron 70-210

[Timppa]

Hello!

Does anyone has experience with these 2? What would you recommend?
Nikon AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E ED VR
Tamron 70-210mm F4 Di VC USD

This is what I can see:
Nikon better than Tamron:
Lighter weight and bit smaller (180g and 3cm)
300mm (above 210mm)
Nikon brand
rated 4.5stops VR (above 3.5-4stops VC)

Tamron better than Nikon:
Constant F4 aperature (1stop better than Nikon at long end, 1/3stop better at short end)
Internal zoom
Distance scale
Minimum focus is closer

I can currently buy a used Tamron for 400€ or a used Nikon for 500€

Thank you in advance for replies

 

[Jeff15]

Go for the longer lens, you will regret it if you don't...........

 

[Braineack]

trying to fill the gap between your 80mm and 200mm?

 

[Timppa]

trying to fill the gap between your 80mm and 200mm?

Well, I have a 10-20 Nikon, a 18-35 Sigma and 16-80 Nikon
Basically I use the 16-80 mostly at 16 or at 80...
Since I have with those 3 lenses the 18-20mm range, I have no need for my Nikon 16-80
with VR and for landscapes I can use the 10-20mm
for great and sharp results and more speed, the sigma 18-35
The Nikon 200-500 that I have is great, but horrible for travelling lightly.
So, I am looking indeed to fill the gap and maybe bit more reach if I travel.
I would have the 10-20 / 18-35 and then a 70-xxx

The biggest doubt is 210mm at f4 OR 300mm at f5.6
I like that the nikon has more zoom, and this would be better for travelling.
But I also like to take pictures of birds, and will also use this lens at small events, (church, my brothers wedding), and then I think a f4 would be better... hmm!

 

[Timppa]

trying to fill the gap between your 80mm and 200mm?

Well, I have a 10-20 Nikon, a 18-35 Sigma and 16-80 Nikon
Basically I use the 16-80 mostly at 16 or at 80...
Since I have with those 3 lenses the 18-20mm range, I have no need for my Nikon 16-80
with VR and for landscapes I can use the 10-20mm
for great and sharp results and more speed, the sigma 18-35
The Nikon 200-500 that I have is great, but horrible for travelling lightly.
So, I am looking indeed to fill the gap and maybe bit more reach if I travel.
I would have the 10-20 / 18-35 and then a 70-xxx

The biggest doubt is 210mm at f4 OR 300mm at f5.6
I like that the nikon has more zoom, and this would be better for travelling.
But I also like to take pictures of birds, and will also use this lens at small events, (church, my brothers wedding), and then I think a f4 would be better... hmm!

And the Tamron lens is about max size I want to go, so under 1kg for sure! (The sigma-tamron 100-400 versions, just look to big again...)

I also know there is a 70-300 DX version that is really light and incredible oO, but the FX is better.
Or should I get the used 70-210 Tamron for events and maybe the cheap 70-300 DX version from Nikon for travel?

 

[RVT1K]

I had one (DX version) several years ago and really liked it. But, ultimately, I replaced it with a 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[Timppa]

I had one (DX version) several years ago and really liked it. But, ultimately, I replaced it with a 70-200 f/2.8.

I know a 2.8 is the dream, but to big and pricey for me :/

 

[Braineack]

sounds like you want a lens that doesn't exist. cant really help you.

 

[photoflyer]

Are either water sealed. I know for me that is important. I was out kayaking yesterday and had the camera and it was comforting to know that splashing water or rain was not an issue. Just a thought that we often forget about.

 

[Timppa]

Are either water sealed. I know for me that is important. I was out kayaking yesterday and had the camera and it was comforting to know that splashing water or rain was not an issue. Just a thought that we often forget about.

Yes they are, but the tamron zooms internal, so should provide even better protection

 

[Derrel]

Either of the two lenses would be nice to have . I think the 70 to 300 would be my choice for its lighter weight and greater zoom range. I own two Nikon 70-300 lenses and it is a really good lens length.

I really do not think the DX version is that much worse than the FX version. The AF-P VR DX is actually a pretty decent performer. If you have a DX camera only I think maybe you should consider it.

 

[ac12]

YOU need to think about the focal range and which fits what you shoot best.
If you shoot birds and such a LOT, then reach may be more important to you than lens speed.

If you shoot in low light, if you get the 70-300, you will forever be wishing you got the faster 70-210/4.
I speak from experience. In low light, FAST glass most always wins.

About the 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I shoot a 70-200/4. I got the f/4 lens over the f/2.8, because the f/4 lens was HALF the weight of the f/2.8 lens. When shooting for 5+ hours, that weight difference makes a difference, to an old man. So while I may WANT a f/2.8 lens for the speed, I do not want to carry it. Different story if I was 20 years younger.

​

The zoom ring on the Tamron, as opposed to the Sigma, turns in the SAME direction as Nikon. This helps a LOT if you zoom with muscle memory.
The forward position of the Tamron zoom ring initially bothered me. But when I used it, it worked out well. I hold the lens in my left hand, and my fingers worked the zoom ring. Very easy.

Unless the lens is rated as "weatherproof," I would not plan on shooting either lens in the rain, without protection.
But then is your D7500 weatherproof?

The other lens to consider is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.
It is the only current production lens to give a DX camera the classic FF 70-200/2.8 coverage, with a fast f/2.8 speed.

However, it does close down to f/4 on the long end.​

It is quite a bit fatter than the 70-210, because it is an extending zoom.
If this lens had existed when I got my 70-200/4, I may have bought it instead.

 

[Derrel]

We really cannot be of much help in making your decision.It is really _your_ decision and you know best what you really want and what would be best for you. You do not mention if you currently have an FX Camera or a DX camera, nor if you plan to use the lens on an FX Camera in the future. Both types of lenses exist for a reason.

 

[Timppa]

Thank you all for your input!
I can honestly say it has been a great help so far .

The idea of getting the tamron 35-150 has crossed my mind, but then again, I have the sigma 18-35 1.8
So The 35mm range I would prefer to use my sigma anyway.
Then I saw the great price of the tamron 70-210, and decided that's a better choice.

I wrote to a local store who has both the tamron 70-210 and nikon 70-300 afp DX version Used.
I might try to get both of those instead of the Nikon 70-300 fx.
I can have it for 600Eur.

In the end I can still sell one of them If I'm not happy.

Then I am covered for lower light situations and have a lighter travel lens for birds as well !

 

[Timppa]

Alright,
So I talked to a local camera dealer, and I am able to trade my nikon 16-80 for a used tamron 70-210 and a used nikon 70-300 fx!
No extra money involved. So I'm excited, hopefully I can pick it up later this week.
I will make comparisons and keep the one I prefer .