Tamron 70-200 G2 vs 70-210...?

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Why would take on release a 70-210 f/4 when they have a 70-200 f/2.8. Is the $500 difference really worth it?

 

[Cortian]

Dunno, but what I'd like to see them come out with is a 400mm prime tele on-par with the 100mm macro I bought.

 

[Derrel]

Your queation is not worded very well. I'm not sure what it means, exactly. But...I guess a 70-200 or 70-210, with an f/4 conctant maximum f/stop, is smaller,lighter, and less-noticeable/threatening, and is MUCH easier to carry than an f/2.8 lens....over the decades, there have been MANY 70-210 models in the f/3.5 to f/4 max aperture range, and many are pretty compact. ame with 80-200 f/4 models....

I've owned f/2.8 models of 70-200 and 80-200 (three) and multiple 70-200 or 80-200 f/4.5 or f/4 models...

THESE DAYS, f/2.8 is NOT a big advantage,and many expert shooters (high-lvele shooters, people like Kirk Tuck,to name just one), who feel that in a day-long shooting situation, the f/4 lens is actually BETTER, in terms of the pictures it gets, over an f/2.8 lens.

For $500 less, an f/4 lens makes some sense; in name-brand lenses, the difference in price is even MORE...

I am not a fan of 70-200 f/2.8 lenses really, and sold both of mine a year ago....going with primes now, since I mostly shot at 200mm, and around 140mm--and at f/6.3 or f/7.1 MOST of the time! The big, fat f/2.8 tube was just a waste of space. For me,at least. And f/2.8 is not that fast when other lenses offer f/1.8.

 

[ac12]

Another consideration is bulk and weight.
The Nikon 70-200 f/4 is about half the weight of the f/2.8 lens.
This makes a difference to some of us who are not as strong as we used to be 20 or 30 years ago.
Also when traveling, I would rather haul a lighter less bulky kit, when I am carrying it every day for 2 or 3 weeks. It is no fun when you are so worn down that you don't want to shoot any more.

 

[Destin]

Your queation is not worded very well. I'm not sure what it means, exactly. But...I guess a 70-200 or 70-210, with an f/4 conctant maximum f/stop, is smaller,lighter, and less-noticeable/threatening, and is MUCH easier to carry than an f/2.8 lens....over the decades, there have been MANY 70-210 models in the f/3.5 to f/4 max aperture range, and many are pretty compact. ame with 80-200 f/4 models....

I've owned f/2.8 models of 70-200 and 80-200 (three) and multiple 70-200 or 80-200 f/4.5 or f/4 models...

THESE DAYS, f/2.8 is NOT a big advantage,and many expert shooters (high-lvele shooters, people like Kirk Tuck,to name just one), who feel that in a day-long shooting situation, the f/4 lens is actually BETTER, in terms of the pictures it gets, over an f/2.8 lens.

For $500 less, an f/4 lens makes some sense; in name-brand lenses, the difference in price is even MORE...

I am not a fan of 70-200 f/2.8 lenses really, and sold both of mine a year ago....going with primes now, since I mostly shot at 200mm, and around 140mm--and at f/6.3 or f/7.1 MOST of the time! The big, fat f/2.8 tube was just a waste of space. For me,at least. And f/2.8 is not that fast when other lenses offer f/1.8.

Agreed. Since I got the 135 1.8 I have not used my 70-200 even once. Considering selling it and getting another prime.

 

[Cortian]

Agreed. Since I got the 135 1.8 I have not used my 70-200 even once. Considering selling it and getting another prime.

I don't have a lot of experience yet. Not much at all, really. But what little experience I do have, so far, is leading me in much the same direction. I need more megapixels, first, I think, but I've observed two things:

• The images I'm capturing with my Tamron 100mm prime macro lens appear to my eyes to be much nicer than any I capture with either of my Canon zoom lenses, and the 70-300mm zoom isn't a "kit" lens, by any stretch.
• I always end-up running the 70-300mm out to 300mm, anyway, so a fixed tele would serve as well.

I'm beginning to suspect I'll end-up with only a single zoom lens, and I'm thinking it'll either be the 17-85mm I already have, or the newer 18-135mm. Those I'll have for knock-around/walk-about lenses.

 

[Derrel]

Your queation is not worded very well. I'm not sure what it means, exactly. But...I guess a 70-200 or 70-210, with an f/4 conctant maximum f/stop, is smaller,lighter, and less-noticeable/threatening, and is MUCH easier to carry than an f/2.8 lens....over the decades, there have been MANY 70-210 models in the f/3.5 to f/4 max aperture range, and many are pretty compact. ame with 80-200 f/4 models....

I've owned f/2.8 models of 70-200 and 80-200 (three) and multiple 70-200 or 80-200 f/4.5 or f/4 models...

THESE DAYS, f/2.8 is NOT a big advantage,and many expert shooters (high-lvele shooters, people like Kirk Tuck,to name just one), who feel that in a day-long shooting situation, the f/4 lens is actually BETTER, in terms of the pictures it gets, over an f/2.8 lens.

For $500 less, an f/4 lens makes some sense; in name-brand lenses, the difference in price is even MORE...

I am not a fan of 70-200 f/2.8 lenses really, and sold both of mine a year ago....going with primes now, since I mostly shot at 200mm, and around 140mm--and at f/6.3 or f/7.1 MOST of the time! The big, fat f/2.8 tube was just a waste of space. For me,at least. And f/2.8 is not that fast when other lenses offer f/1.8.

Agreed. Since I got the 135 1.8 I have not used my 70-200 even once. Considering selling it and getting another prime.

Yeah...I've been carrying a smaller,lighter tele lens, the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D ED~IF Nikkor...180mm, handier than a 200 prime in closer situations, and with 24-MP FX, it's sharper by a bit than the 70-300 VR-G for beach trips and summertime scenic shoots, and the 180 has prettier bokeh, IMO, than the zoom, plus it's wayyyy faster at 180mm than most variable-aperture zooms are. As to my tendency toward 140mm-145mm...weird, but browsing my EXIF data shows a strong tendency to that range, so the little 135mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor prime, a very small lens (3/4 the length of a 12-ounce soda can) that's very sharp has come out of retirement.

I sold the Canon 135/2 and the Nikkor 135/2 Defocus Control and the 135/2 Ai-S Nikkor last year; if things continue, I might rebuy a FAST 135 tele, but then again, maybe not...I dunno...

I recently bought a Tokina 70-210 f/4~5.6 pawnshop lens for $29; it's SMALL! About the size of the 135/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor; again, small, but slow in f/stop, but then again, I bought it for beachside trips where I want a _SMALL_ lens that looks inconspicuous and non-threatening. And that is an issue; the f/2.8 70-200 lenses look HUGE to non-photo type people...they look "pervy"...people sort of freeze up when they see a 3-pound, foot-long-lens-and-lens-hood aimed their way. I remember the days of manual focus, when the three Nikkor primes I used the most were ALL about the SAME size! The 85mm f/2 Ai-S was about the same size as a 50mm f/1.4 Ai-S and that was about the same length as the a 35mm f/2 Ai-S, and people were nonplussed; now though, the 50/mm f1.8 G is HUGE for a 50; the 85mm f/1.8-G is chubby, the wide-angle G-series primes are kind of big too.

SIZE of the lens is a factor, I think, in how people react in front of the camera, at the very start of an encounter or interaction. if the lens is _small_ and non-threatening, I personally have four decades' worth of experience that people are much more at-ease than they are with a massive, obnoxious camera lens that looks like it sees down to pore-level,etc.. Consequently, if you only shoot 1,2,3,4 frames of people, you want them to not feel threatened by the lens! In a photo shoot with a model, or some camera-seeking person, then a big lens might even be a benefit, make you look more "pro",or whatever. But at street fairs, festivals,public gatherings, I really,realllllly think that the smaller then lens, the less-conspicuous the lens is, the better, for most subjects. Anyway: that's why a 70-200mm f/4 VR-Nikkor is the next lens I want to buy, not another f/2.8 stovepipe section.