Shall I trade my 70-300 VR for the Tamron 70-200 2.8?

[Nikon_Josh]

A quick question.. I was just curious. In the UK the 70-300mm VR sells for the same price as a used Tamron 70-200 2.8. I was wondering whether you guys think this could be a good trade? I know the 70-200 is much more of a creative lens with it's 2.8 aperture and it seems to be incredibly highly rated. Apart from the AF system ofcourse which is rather slow, but then again my 70-300 VR is no speed demon in the AF department. I would love to do portraits with the lens, creative shallow DOF photography and a bit of wildlife, airshow's and car racing thrown into the equation? Will it suffice in these situations? My only real concern is the loss of 'VR' in a heavy lens? I'm wondering if this lens will be practical for handholding in overcast grey skied England? I know M_Leek is quite an advocate of this lens.

Thanks in advance!

 

[SCraig]

I think the real question to ask yourself is whether you need the additional reach of 300mm vs 200mm and is the additional low-light performance of f2.8 worth the trade? For me the answer is simple: I'd take the 300mm any day since I do need the reach and I don't need the low-light performance.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think the real question to ask yourself is whether you need the additional reach of 300mm vs 200mm and is the additional low-light performance of f2.8 worth the trade? For me the answer is simple: I'd take the 300mm any day since I do need the reach and I don't need the low-light performance.

I guess a teleconvertor though could help out in this department.. I'm not sure really whether I'm willing to trade my 70-300 VR as it's a great lens. Just a 2.8 aperture on a telephoto lens is highly creative and can create some interesting effects, whereas a slow lens like the 70-300 is a bit un exciting at times. I hope I am making sense! I'm not sure though the added weight of the tammy is worth it though and lack of VR bothers me aswell. But this lens could take some outstanding headshots and portraits. As VR works great on the Nikon!

 

[SCraig]

A 1.4 TC costs 1 full f-stop so you are back from f2.8 to f4 and only 280mm. Plus some of them have pretty bad image degradation (I have one) while others don't (I have one of those to). I'm not a big fan of teleconvertors when they can be avoided but they do have their place.

I have the 70-300 as well and for what I shoot it stays on my camera more than my other lenses combined. That's just me though. I don't do portraits but I do shoot a lot of wildlife. My 150-500 is pretty heavy so if I'm going to do a lot of walking I do tend to take the 70-300 and stick my 1.4 TC in my pocket (and hope I don't need it )

 

[Nikon_Josh]

A 1.4 TC costs 1 full f-stop so you are back from f2.8 to f4 and only 280mm. Plus some of them have pretty bad image degradation (I have one) while others don't (I have one of those to). I'm not a big fan of teleconvertors when they can be avoided but they do have their place.

I have the 70-300 as well and for what I shoot it stays on my camera more than my other lenses combined. That's just me though. I don't do portraits but I do shoot a lot of wildlife. My 150-500 is pretty heavy so if I'm going to do a lot of walking I do tend to take the 70-300 and stick my 1.4 TC in my pocket (and hope I don't need it )

Yes good point, the loss of light from the TC is another issue to comprehend along with the loss of VR. And as I say I do really like the 70-300 VR! Just wondering if a 70-200 2.8 will open up a new world to me, specially as it's so close in price to the Nikon. I would love a Siggy 70-200 2.8 OS but that is twice the price, so that's completely out.

 

[SCraig]

I can't say whether a different lens would open new worlds or not. Focal length has always mattered to me more than speed. As I said, I shoot a lot of wildlife photos and giving up 100mm is not something I would be interested in. Other people will have other ideas, I'm sure, so I hope they will provide some insight to your question.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I can't say whether a different lens would open new worlds or not. Focal length has always mattered to me more than speed. As I said, I shoot a lot of wildlife photos and giving up 100mm is not something I would be interested in. Other people will have other ideas, I'm sure, so I hope they will provide some insight to your question.

Thanks for your help! I really am 50/50 on this one.

 

[cgipson1]

I would stay with the Nikon.. that is actually a great lens for the money.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Any more input on the Tamron anyone?

 

[Derrel]

Over here, the 70-300 VR lens is now starting to show up a low prices on the used market...I bought a MINT example with case and caps this past spring for $345...the lens had barely been used. Considering how low the price is here is the USA, I would say definitely make the trade, and if desired, replace the 70-300 VR with a USA-sourced used lens for $300-$350.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Over here, the 70-300 VR lens is now starting to show up a low prices on the used market...I bought a MINT example with case and caps this past spring for $345...the lens had barely been used. Considering how low the price is here is the USA, I would say definitely make the trade, and if desired, replace the 70-300 VR with a USA-sourced used lens for $300-$350.

Thanks Derrel for the response... I was hoping you may chime in on this one! I will look at what I can get from the US on the Tamron.

Have you had any experience with the Tammy 70-200 2.8? And do you think the loss of VR will pose problems for me with handheld shots? I know the 2.8 aperture helps alot to balance this out. It seems to produce some stunning shots!

 

[Canuk]

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my canon. I use it a lot, the low light and clarety are great. I shoot a lot of pics @ motocross events.
My 8 year old daughter produces pretty decent results w/ this lense on auto. Well worth the money imo.