Nikon VS NIKON VS TAMRON

Lunchbox · Apr 30, 2009

I need a Real lense. Options

nikon 80-200 2.8

Nikon 70-200 2.8

Tamron 70-200 2.8

obviously i would choose the nikon 70-200 2.8VR but its more than double the price

I was wondering what peoples thoughts and if you have any sample photos with these lenses.

Mostly what i would be using it for will be automotive photography (track, dragstrip, other)

is the VR really worth paying double?

show me some pics if you can and what camera your using also....thanks

ann · Apr 30, 2009

why not go to a local camera store, and take your camera, or at least your own compact fash card and test these lens.
take the same image at each major focal length and at each full stop. then go home and look at them on your monitor, you will have your answer.

For myself, i find the VR function at nice feature, especially with the type of work you will be doing. (I do own the 70-200 2.8 vr nikor lens and i have the 80-200 2.8 as well.) It is my personal decision not to own a third party lens. I am sure you will find many others who disagree with me, which is fine. That is why i suggest you test for yourself, then make a choice based on what you see first hand.

Garbz · Apr 30, 2009

VR has benefits for panning shots since it would give you vertical VR but ignore horrizontal movement, but really I don't think it's anywhere near worth double the price, and with minimal effort you can get great panning shots without it.

Other than that the Nikkor 70-200 brings nothing more to the table. The 80-200 can easily track a fast car coming towards you, providing it's on a capable camera. The focus speed depends exclusively on the camera body it's attached to and the lens is very well geared.

jdwyer · Apr 30, 2009

First time posting images here - lets hope it works. Took these with a D60 and the Tamron 70-200. I also have the 2x converter for it which doubles the effective range, only the last image used the 2x converter. no PP on any of these photos
1.

2.

3.

4. This one I did use the 2x converter for - kinda happy with it.

jdwyer · Apr 30, 2009

cool man posting photos worked. yea, the tamron 70-200 is a great lens. it focuses a little loud (but who really cares) and the manual focus ring has a tendency not to engage. usually requires a second try a little harder.

bdavis · Apr 30, 2009

I would vote for the 80-200 2.8....good piece of glass.

benhasajeep · Apr 30, 2009

The nikon 80-200 f/2.8D is a rock solid lens. If you look for used make sure its a twist zoom and not older push pull. The twist zoom is faster focusing than the older push pull.

The 80-200D is really close in price to the third party lens makers. It's a great buy. As for the VR and being worth it. Just look at some of the older copies of car / bike racing mags and books. They got those pictures without VR. Just takes practice. I am big on buying good glass but I still only have 1 VR lens and that was a kit lens that came with the D40X I bought for travel. All my other Nikon lenses are F/2.8D's including an 80-200 that is about 8 years old and going strong, no issues with it ever!

bhop · Apr 30, 2009

I would avoid the Tamron for automotive sports. Everything i've read about it says that it's super sharp, but the focus speed is slow, although I haven't tried it personally. That was a dealbreaker for me for shooting fast moving cars. I couldn't afford the Nikons, (80-200 is cheap but without the AF-S) so I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM and use it for motorsports. Works great. Focus is fast and it's sharp. Sure it's not as sharp as the nikons but it's literally half the price of the 70-200 for example, and I am extremely happy with it.

some shots with it
Flickr: Search bhop's photostream

djacobox372 · Apr 30, 2009

Like everybody has said, tamron zooms take excellent photos, but their focus is loud and slow.

BUT, if you don't care about focus speed then you may consider saving even more $$ and buying an older, used tamron 70-210mm f2.8; those sell used for about $350 and are fantastic lenses EXCEPT for focus speed.

ANDS! · May 1, 2009

Slows probably relative. To me, the 80-200 AF-D is "slow".

Lunchbox · May 2, 2009

i just wish i could get my hands on a 80-200 to compare...noone around here has one....I have seen one in the past year and it sold in 2hours...lol

bhop · May 2, 2009

Lunchbox said:
i just wish i could get my hands on a 80-200 to compare...noone around here has one....I have seen one in the past year and it sold in 2hours...lol

Well, the AF-S version should be comparable to other AF-S lenses, which would be good, if not great, but the AF-D.. that'd depend on the AF torque of the camera you're using it on. For example, my Sigma 70-300 lens (no internal motor) is annoyingly slow on my D70, slightly better on my D200, but useably fast on my F100.

Lunchbox · May 2, 2009

i am shooting a d200

Garbz · May 3, 2009

The Nikkor 80-200 is sufficiently fast on a D200. I say sufficiently because a lot of people complain that it's "slow" and lets face it, it has no silentwave motor in it. That said it had no issue tracking a Yamaha R1 coming down towards me on a straight. It also had no issue tracking a football game. So the question is what does define too slow?

benhasajeep · May 4, 2009

Well I think there is some confusion in which 80-200 people are refferring to sometimes. As the older push pull version was offered as an 80-200 af-D model. Then in late 90's Nikon changed the design to twist zoom lens with a faster acting focusing system (gearing). This was also listed as a 80-200 af-D. So even though they are 2 different lenses they had the same identification. The later lens, still in production was a bit faster than the original version.