Nikon 70-300 VR II vs Tamron 70-300

StratLou

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Location
Boston, MA
Hi All,

Does anyone have any thoughts/experience using either. I read somewhere that the Tamron is less expensive (yes) and is sharper at the 300mm vs the Nikon. Also, does anyone know how quickly the AF responds on the Nikon (in general) and vs the Tamron.

Lastly, is it possible to "turn off" the auto focus on an AF lens and focus manually (if I don't want the lens to continually front and back focus)? Thank you.
 
I don't have experience with the Tamron, but I own the Nikon. I can tell you the AF is quite fast and responsive on the Nikon. Actually it might be the second fastest focusing lens I have, behind my 70-200. As for sharpness, you're always going to loose some sharpness at the long telephoto end of these lenses. With that said, wide open at the long end, there is a noticeable loss in sharpness, but stopped down to f/8 or smaller, it getts pretty darn good. Overall, the Nikon 70-300 is a very well regarded lens, for the price.

As to your other question, the Nikon, and I would assume Tamron as well, has a switch right on the lens to switch from AF to MF. You can of course also make this change in the camera body. Hope that helps!

*Edit* Maybe to address your question even more, the modern AF-S Nikon lenses have the ability to manually override the AF at any time, so if it's missing or not grabbing focus using AF, you can just grab the focus ring and focus manually. Granted it will try to focus each time you push the shutter button, so switching it off is the best bet, but the full time override can be helpful.
 
Last edited:
My experience with Tamron vs Nikon lenses. The Tamron was not as sharp, the AF was slow and noisy and the color balance was different than Nikon lenses.
 
I have the Nikon. Focuses fast in good light as long as the focus is not wayyyy off from the subject distance; this lens will "stall" and not initiate AF if the focus is set close, and a longer-distabnce subject suddenly pops up. Many reviewers and owners will tell you this if they have used the lens in situations where the AF will go from close to very far within moments, like on say, youth soccer games.

Here's a straight out of camera look at the Nikon, wide-open at f/5.6 at 260mm at ISO 400 from I believe the EXIF says 5.1 meters. It's sharp enough, but it *is* a bit sharper at f/7.1.

155814568.jpg


[ traveloregon_D3X_7792_Aelisa.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

And YES, the AF can easily be switched off on the 70-300 VR.

The VR's good too. Here is 1/50 second at 240mm wide-open at f/5.6 about an hour before dark.

155745076.jpg


[ D3X_7369_PRINT.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Click on the links below each one to see it without TPF compression.
 
Nikon!!! I owned it back in the days. Great lens. You can always recoup when you sell Nikon glass later. The other brands drop in resale value.
 
I had the Tamron but the Stabilization would shift the image in the viewfinder a small amount when it came on which really irritated me. I recently found a great deal on the Nikon and I would have to say it is one of the sharpest lenses I own and the VR works great.
 
Would it be better to go for a lens with shorter focal length overall to not lose sharpness at the max end? Though I would hate for her to have to give up all that extra zoom. There's always a compromise, right!

Derrel, Beautiful pictures, btw. The forest scene looks like a Hollywood backdrop. Makes ME want to get a new camera as well (I'll have to settle for my old AT-1 after this purchase, though ;-).
 
Last edited:
Would it be better to go for a lens with shorter focal length overall to not lose sharpness at the max end? Though I would hate for her to have to give up all that extra zoom. There's always a compromise, right!

Derrel, Beautiful pictures, btw. The forest scene looks like a Hollywood backdrop. Makes ME want to get a new camera as well (I'll have to settle for my old AT-1 after this purchase, though ;-).

Well I've never shot the Tamron myself, but I did have a 70-300 mm AF-S G VR for a while, and if budget is not too much of an issue I would highly recommend it. It really is probably the sharpest lens in it's class, it really does take unbelievable photos. I sold mine quite some time ago when I switched to a 70-200 mm F/2.8, as a result the slower 70-300mm just wasn't seeing any use - but I dug up a couple of shots from back in the day when I was using it:


215 by robbins.photo, on Flickr


204 by robbins.photo, on Flickr

It really is a remarkable lens.
 
I had the Tamron on Canon. It was good. From what I read it's 50/50 between the Tammy and Nikon. If they were same price I'd go Nikon. However I think there is quite a saving with Tammy, so I'd go that if the saving was substantial
 
Here are some recent photos I took with my Nikon 70-300 VR lens. They're rough copy edits currently (all images are cropped), just got back from a camping trip. Shutter speed was quick on all of the shots (1/2000 or so). I had regular VR on, and I had single-servo focus on (for static subjects). I might have been better in AF-C mode, and I likely would've gotten slightly better shots with active VR (designed for being in a boat).

I like the Nikon 70-300 VR a lot. The vibration reduction isn't the absolute greatest, but it's good. Tamron's VC is supposed to be better (at least for static shooting, I don't know how it would function in a boat). One of these shots is at 145mm, and I think the rest are at 300mm. Everything is shot at f7.1.

Reviews tend to give the Tamron 70-300 the edge on the longer end, and the Nikon 70-300 VR the edge on the shorter end of the focal range. I'm not sure what I think about that. I've never owned a Tamron 70-300. I'd have to say that the Nikon 70-300 VR performs better than the average review of the lens indicates (and it already is a well-received lens).
 

Attachments

  • $DSC_0265-2.jpg
    $DSC_0265-2.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 386
  • $DSC_0264-2.jpg
    $DSC_0264-2.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 387
  • $DSC_0263-2.jpg
    $DSC_0263-2.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 439
  • $DSC_0262.jpg
    $DSC_0262.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 360
Last edited:
Every close up shot in this gallery is taken with the Nikon 70-300mm VRII.
Birds - Matt Ragan

...and every one of these is with the same lens. (composition sucks, these were more for practicing catching them in flight. yea, it's hard)
Birds in Flight - Matt Ragan
 
Not sure about the Tamron but the Nikon VR is pretty soft at 300mm. Fine if you don't crop much.
 
Hi All,

Does anyone have any thoughts/experience using either. I read somewhere that the Tamron is less expensive (yes) and is sharper at the 300mm vs the Nikon. Also, does anyone know how quickly the AF responds on the Nikon (in general) and vs the Tamron.

Lastly, is it possible to "turn off" the auto focus on an AF lens and focus manually (if I don't want the lens to continually front and back focus)? Thank you.
I owned that exact Tamron, and now I own that Nikon. The Nikon unfortunately for Tamron has beaten the Tamron in most aspects.. 1: The Tamron's Af is not super slow, but it is slower. 2: When you shoot in any light that is not 500/secs and above, it has problems. Example: It had just rained and it was about 4pm in last august. It was cloudy so the light was not the best, but I still had to shoot at about 1/60's and the corloring was awful. In all the dark areas is was a distorted purple color. So with multiple tests in different modes/areas and so on, I found that the lens was just great in full sun, but any slower and darker the more and more purple you see... Needless to say I returned it and bought the Nikon. Here are Tamron VS Nikon results:

Good on Tamron: Size, nice build, big thread. ( I like bigger heavier lenses ) 2: A lot cheaper.

Good on Nikon: Focus speed and it's quite. 2: Lighter but sturdy Build. 3: Good VR: 4: Extremely rare to see any discoloration ( Purple.. ). 5: It is sharper.

I'd go for the Nikon for sure.
 
Would it be better to go for a lens with shorter focal length overall to not lose sharpness at the max end? Though I would hate for her to have to give up all that extra zoom. There's always a compromise, right!

Derrel, Beautiful pictures, btw. The forest scene looks like a Hollywood backdrop. Makes ME want to get a new camera as well (I'll have to settle for my old AT-1 after this purchase, though ;-).
With the Nikon you won't lose sharpness hardly at all at max zoom.
 
Not sure about the Tamron but the Nikon VR is pretty soft at 300mm. Fine if you don't crop much.

MANY telephoto lenses look "soft" at 300mm when the shutter speed is at 1/500 to 1/640, but they become "amazingly sharp" once the speed hits about 1/1250 second. Sheer SPEED stops subject movement, wind motion blurring, and camera-swinging movement as well as camera shake and jostle. VR can keep the camera steady, but it cannot stop the movement of the world's objects and people.

I shot the 70-300 VR on 24MP FX almost one whole summer (2012). You know what **I found**???? That 1/640 is a speed that's full of blurring on all kinds of regular, everyday subject matter. At first I thought the lens was bad...I had bought it used...then I realized...hey...I went from a 12MP camera to a 24MP camera...I can now see the blurring from my shutter being too sloooooooow. Leaves, moving in the wind, hair blowing in the wind, people walking, moving their arms...at 1/640, those things ALL showed blurring. Consistently. With a 12MP camera, I had considered 1/640 with a 300mm lens to be fine....but no, not really, except on dead-static stuff.

Once I started aiming for 1/1000 to 1/1250, no matter what the ISO, the 70-300VR became "high-grade zoom lens" to me.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top