Nikon vs Tamron f/2.8 70-200mm

[Rosy]

I know the answer deep in my gut but my wallet wants no part of 'this' thought process

My next purchase is a 2.8 zoom lens, note I have the nikkor 70-300mm 4.5/5.6, but when it comes to capturing indoor volleyball it really does not help

I know the Nikon 2.8 is part of the dream team lens kit. I've also heard great things about the Tamron, though the focusing is not as quick.

Can you give me your thoughts?

 

[12sndsgood]

I'm problaby not much help since I havn't tried out the Nikon 70-200 but I picked up the Tamron 70-200 about a month a go and have been enjoying it. It is soft when set at 2.8 but once past that its pretty sharp. and when I took it to a supercross event a few weeks back it did pretty good focusing considering how high i was sitting (about 5 rows from the furtherst highest seat in lucas oil stadium.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Is focusing speed critical to your shooting? If not, why not go for the Tamron VC or Sigma OS ?

 

[Rosy]

Is focusing speed critical to your shooting? If not, why not go for the Tamron VC or Sigma OS ?

I would need the focusing speed for the indoor volleyball shots

 

[Dao]

If you are talking about this one

Tamron -70-200mm F/2.8(Model A001)

then the AF speed is not that fast from what I read. The Sigma version has HSM which is faster.

 

[DorkSterr]

Than Nikon for sure! It focuses about 2-3 seconds faster than the competitors.

 

[cgipson1]

I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!

 

[Rosy]

I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!

How much is a healthy kidney going for these days?

 

[DorkSterr]

I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!

How much is a healthy kidney going for these days?

I believe upward of $20,000 USD. Nikon D4 14-24, 24-70 70-200 and 300mm f2.8. And your'll still have some left for flash, filters, extension tubes, tri/monopod...etc

 

[Rosy]

I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!

How much is a healthy kidney going for these days?

I believe upward of $20,000 USD. Nikon D4 14-24, 24-70 70-200 and 300mm f2.8. And your'll still have some left for flash, filters, extension tubes, tri/monopod...etc

AWESOME - i will post it right away.

 

[bhop]

The Tamron is fine as long as you never use the Nikon and get a taste of it because then you WILL end up buying it, although i'd choose the Sigma version if I were going 3rd party because the focus speed is wayyyyy faster and fo r me, that's a big deal.

That said, if you can afford to stretch the budget, the Nikon 70-200 VR is seriously one of the finest lenses in Nikon's lineup (that i've used anyway). Like I said, you will end up buying it if you ever have the chance to use one, so might as well just spend your money once IMO, even if that means saving up for a little while longer.

 

[Derrel]

I was on pBase last week, looking at some excellent family photography done by a guy who goes by the name JoeMama on a few forums. He's kind of a "lens nut", and shoots a lot with primes, as well as zooms. He had a gallery of shots done with the Tamron, and his introductory blurb was that it was one of the sharpest, best-imaging lenses he had owned (he's a Canon shooter), and that he never would have sold the lens had it not be for the "abysmal focusing" system it was saddled with. So, he just confirmed what every single user has said about that lens--good price, good optics, but crummy focusing.

The version one Nikkor 70-200 VR is one of the best-focusing lenses one could hope for in terms of both one-shot focus acquisition, as well as continuous focusing. I've not owned the newer Version II model. If you look around, you *might* be able to find a used 80-200 AF-S, the short-lived model that was introduced just prior to the 70-200; I saw an 80-200 AF-S for $950 a few months ago, in fantastic condition. It too has a fast, sure, reliable focusing system.

 

[Rosy]

I was on pBase last week, looking at some excellent family photography done by a guy who goes by the name JoeMama on a few forums. He's kind of a "lens nut", and shoots a lot with primes, as well as zooms. He had a gallery of shots done with the Tamron, and his introductory blurb was that it was one of the sharpest, best-imaging lenses he had owned (he's a Canon shooter), and that he never would have sold the lens had it not be for the "abysmal focusing" system it was saddled with. So, he just confirmed what every single user has said about that lens--good price, good optics, but crummy focusing.

The version one Nikkor 70-200 VR is one of the best-focusing lenses one could hope for in terms of both one-shot focus acquisition, as well as continuous focusing. I've not owned the newer Version II model. If you look around, you *might* be able to find a used 80-200 AF-S, the short-lived model that was introduced just prior to the 70-200; I saw an 80-200 AF-S for $950 a few months ago, in fantastic condition. It too has a fast, sure, reliable focusing system.

Thank you All - think i'm going to save up and buy once smart rather than regret. I'm also going to attempt to sell my f4.5/5.6 70-300 since it will be obsolete when i purchase the 2.8

 

[sovietdoc]

I agree, save up till you can afford it, and then get the best. No regrets.

 

[KmH]

You might want to also consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
or a good used copy of the AF-S version of that lens Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras