Tamron 70-200 2.8

n.hubb22 · Oct 20, 2012

I am looking to pick up a 70-200 2.8 to use for concert shoots that i've been doing a lot of lately. Wondering how quality i am going to lose in comparison to price going from the nikon to the tamron lens...? Obviously the cheaper price for the Tamron is an attractive aspect, but i'd rather fork over the 2,000+ for a high quality lens that i'm going to LOVE!

Any and all input is appreciated.

Thanks

Yantropov · Oct 20, 2012

I have looked at the 3rd party lens for my 70-200mm coverage and I came to the conclusion that I prefered to "invest" into the Nikon 70-200 VRII as the lens would retain a good value over the years and the fact that this lens is simply amazing! However, I have not tried the Tamron 70-200, curious to see feedback from people who have tried both.

n.hubb22 · Oct 20, 2012

Yantropov said:
I have looked at the 3rd party lens for my 70-200mm coverage and I came to the conclusion that I prefered to "invest" into the Nikon 70-200 VRII as the lens would retain a good value over the years and the fact that this lens is simply amazing! However, I have not tried the Tamron 70-200, curious to see feedback from people who have tried both.

Not surprised to hear you love the nikon VRII version. I've heard nothing but great things about that lens. Also very curious to hear what others have to say...!

Netskimmer · Oct 20, 2012

I have the VRII as well and it is truly is an amazing lens. I have not used the others either but there are several comparisons between the Nikon, Tamron and Sigma 70-200 2.8s on YouTube.

Ballistics · Oct 20, 2012

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Here's a set from the Sigma OS version. It's 1399 now, but you can find it for around 900 used. I know the title says Tamron, but I love the sigma.

MLeeK · Oct 20, 2012

The tamron is a super lens for the price. I don't think I have any concert work with it, but I do have sports work.

1/500; ISO 2500; f/2.8; 128mm

1/200; ISO 3200; f/2.8; 70mm

f/2.8; 1/200; ISO 2500; 70mm

f/2.8; 1/400; ISO 3200; 70mm (noise removal used)

Through glass f/3.5; ISO 400; 1/250

McCrackus · Oct 20, 2012

First of all, apologies for just posting a similar thread. I thought I'd reply to this one too...

I'm considering this Tamron lens too for my Canon 7D. My main question is regarding some reviews I've read that criticize the AF speed, which is a concern I have since concert photography (much like sports photography, I imagine), doesn't leave a long window of time to get your shot. Can anyone comment on the Tamron lens line's AF speed and whether it's a non-issue or a major problem?

MLeeK · Oct 20, 2012

As you can see I shot sports with it. It is slow to focus, but slow is also relative... It's slower than other lenses, but that doesn't mean it's slow as pond water either. Yes, I missed some shots because of the focus, but I shot with it two years successfully before upgrading. I'd imagine that concert photography would be much easier. You are almost always at a fairly fixed distance and pre-focusing is definitely an option. The speed wouldn't then be a problem then. The band moves around a LOT, but you aren't talking about traveling 100 yards down the football field here. You are talking MAYBE 20 feet. MUCH closer, much less hunting and following than with sports.

I upgraded to the Sigma OS version and I love that lens. If you can swing up to it, it's worth it.

12sndsgood · Oct 20, 2012

I havn't used the Nikon version, I have the Tamron and have been quite happy with it. as far as focusing ive never had any problems finding focus while shooting indy cars doing 220+mph or bikes, or drifters. only thing about the concert photography is it will likely be darker, but as long as you hit your intended target and focus I wouldn't think it would be an issue. Would I like the Nikon? sure, i'd love to upgrade when money isn't an option, but for me at the time it was. If you have the money for the Nikon now i'd say just go that route and be done with it.

myvinyl333 · Oct 20, 2012

I posted in another post about this as well. Nikon is better in low light which is key to most concert work.

swiftparkour94 · Oct 20, 2012

I like how everyone is recommending the Sigma I've been drooling over

the price for the value you get, omg....DUDE, if you can, by all means save up for the Sigma! I cannot recommend it because I've never even touched it, but it seems like the best choice for your money. Plus, with the 7D you get that extra reach which is why i may consider it over Canon's 100-400mmL for that 2.8 constant aperture.