tamron 70-200mm v. tamron 70-300mm

kgirl16

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hello everyone, Can you help me decide which lens to get? I heard both of these lenses were great for sports; could you convince me?





Current body: D5100
Lenses I have: nikon 18-55mm & 55-200mm
 
Are we comparing Vi DC USD versions of both lenses?

What AF mode are you using on the D5100?

No matter which you use, the weak link for shooting sports is going to be your D5100 not the lens.

Have you read any reviews from reputable sources on both lenses using them with the D5100 in a sports setting?
 
Typically people use the 70-200 for sports photography however its a heavier lens than the 70-300. But i do have to agree with thefantasticg, my entry level and your mid level camera handle noise very badly when compared to higher end cameras. I was amazed how well the higher models handle noise at 64k even.
 
Typically people use the 70-200 for sports photography however its a heavier lens than the 70-300. But i do have to agree with thefantasticg, my entry level and your mid level camera handle noise very badly when compared to higher end cameras. I was amazed how well the higher models handle noise at 64k even.

I disagree a little here. Pro fullframe cameras handle noise better for sure, but a lot of sports shooters use crop sensor cameras. The weakness with the d5100 isn't in my opinion noise but the fact that it hasn't the most advanced focus system or biggest buffer. I would not however write it off either. Much has been done with less.

OP- you dont specify other than brand the specific model of lens. I owned the Tamron 70-300 vc and liked it but it is not a fast aperture lens. Probably any 70-200 f2.8 will be better. I recently had (on loan) the older Tamron 70-200. This lens is not known for fast focussing yet I found it very good. It also focussed in a church where 5000 iso gave me 1/20th of a second exposure, so it was dark. The newer version is supposedly streets ahead
 
Typically people use the 70-200 for sports photography however its a heavier lens than the 70-300. But i do have to agree with thefantasticg, my entry level and your mid level camera handle noise very badly when compared to higher end cameras. I was amazed how well the higher models handle noise at 64k even.

I disagree a little here. Pro fullframe cameras handle noise better for sure, but a lot of sports shooters use crop sensor cameras. The weakness with the d5100 isn't in my opinion noise but the fact that it hasn't the most advanced focus system or biggest buffer. I would not however write it off either. Much has been done with less.

OP- you dont specify other than brand the specific model of lens. I owned the Tamron 70-300 vc and liked it but it is not a fast aperture lens. Probably any 70-200 f2.8 will be better. I recently had (on loan) the older Tamron 70-200. This lens is not known for fast focussing yet I found it very good. It also focussed in a church where 5000 iso gave me 1/20th of a second exposure, so it was dark. The newer version is supposedly streets ahead

I actually never thought about the focus. That would be pretty important to moving targets.
 
For sure any 70-200mm f/2.8 would be better than a 70-300 5.6 type counterpart. I used a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM on a rebel body that maxed ISO1600 and 3fps for several years in high school to shoot sports for the yearbook... sounds pretty low level but I got some pretty great images from it. The ultrasonic type motors do help with sports in general as well, might want to go for that. Also, the pricing on these lenses is like $1000 apart, if you can afford the 2.8's go for it.
 
Typically people use the 70-200 for sports photography however its a heavier lens than the 70-300. But i do have to agree with thefantasticg, my entry level and your mid level camera handle noise very badly when compared to higher end cameras. I was amazed how well the higher models handle noise at 64k even.

Not sure why you thought I was referring to the noise levels as I never referenced why it was the weak link. As Jao pointed out, it was the focus system I was referring to. I've used the 11 pt ex system on the D90 and D5100. Even in AF-C 9 pt using the center AF it isn't very good. I used specifically with little league baseball with the Nikon 70-300 VR. I'm sure the 70-200 2.8 I or II would have improved the keepers but the weak link would have still remained the AF system in the entry level cameras. Honestly the 39 pt AF in the D7000 ain't great either, from my experience. My next body will have the 51 pt AF even if I have to go to a D700 or D3 or D300s or D3s (in 1-2 years when I "upgrade").... Unless I get a jam good deal on the D7100 as it ain't far behind the D4 in focusing capabilities according to all the reviews I have read from people have used both.
 
Typically people use the 70-200 for sports photography however its a heavier lens than the 70-300. But i do have to agree with thefantasticg, my entry level and your mid level camera handle noise very badly when compared to higher end cameras. I was amazed how well the higher models handle noise at 64k even.

Not sure why you thought I was referring to the noise levels as I never referenced why it was the weak link. As Jao pointed out, it was the focus system I was referring to. I've used the 11 pt ex system on the D90 and D5100. Even in AF-C 9 pt using the center AF it isn't very good. I used specifically with little league baseball with the Nikon 70-300 VR. I'm sure the 70-200 2.8 I or II would have improved the keepers but the weak link would have still remained the AF system in the entry level cameras. Honestly the 39 pt AF in the D7000 ain't great either, from my experience. My next body will have the 51 pt AF even if I have to go to a D700 or D3 or D300s or D3s (in 1-2 years when I "upgrade").... Unless I get a jam good deal on the D7100 as it ain't far behind the D4 in focusing capabilities according to all the reviews I have read from people have used both.

My badness, its just that when you have poor lighting then it is imperative to shoot at higher iso to freeze your everything in the frame because your targets move or move fast. Having a camera that lessens the digital grain helps a great deal, so you only have to meddle a little with lightroom to remove it. My images where i shoot at 128k look soft when i try to correct the noise, so i just correct it a little and deal with the noise instead of a soft image.
 
Last edited:
My badness, its just that when you have poor lighting then it is imperative to shoot at higher iso to freeze your everything in the frame because your targets move or move fast. Having a camera that lessens the digital grain helps a great deal, so you only have to meddle a little with lightroom to remove it. My images where i shoot at 128k look soft when i try to correct the noise, so i just correct it a little and deal with the noise instead of a soft image.

Or, use fast glass so you can keep the shutter speed high in order to "freeze your everything in the frame" and set the iso where the iso needs to be set and not worry about it.
 
My badness, its just that when you have poor lighting then it is imperative to shoot at higher iso to freeze your everything in the frame because your targets move or move fast. Having a camera that lessens the digital grain helps a great deal, so you only have to meddle a little with lightroom to remove it. My images where i shoot at 128k look soft when i try to correct the noise, so i just correct it a little and deal with the noise instead of a soft image.

I think you should refrain from answering these type of threads until you have more experience shooting and have a better understanding of the relationship of shutter speed/ISO/Aperture and their effects on the image output so you can answer them without putting false information out there.
 
My badness, its just that when you have poor lighting then it is imperative to shoot at higher iso to freeze your everything in the frame because your targets move or move fast. Having a camera that lessens the digital grain helps a great deal, so you only have to meddle a little with lightroom to remove it. My images where i shoot at 128k look soft when i try to correct the noise, so i just correct it a little and deal with the noise instead of a soft image.

I think you should refrain from answering these type of threads until you have more experience shooting and have a better understanding of the relationship of shutter speed/ISO/Aperture and their effects on the image output so you can answer them without putting false information out there.

I don't see how that is relevant to me? Point out your objections in detail, perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere?
 
My badness, its just that when you have poor lighting then it is imperative to shoot at higher iso to freeze your everything in the frame because your targets move or move fast. Having a camera that lessens the digital grain helps a great deal, so you only have to meddle a little with lightroom to remove it. My images where i shoot at 128k look soft when i try to correct the noise, so i just correct it a little and deal with the noise instead of a soft image.

Or, use fast glass so you can keep the shutter speed high in order to "freeze your everything in the frame" and set the iso where the iso needs to be set and not worry about it.

That too general of a solution and won't work in every situation. Sometimes you need a smaller aperture, sometimes even the bigger aperture won't be enough to compensate.
 
I'm still getting to know my camera, and I'm sorry that I'm camera is not up to 'your entry level'. All I wanted to know is which lens you would suggest.
 
I just wanted to know what lens would be good.... Now you're telling me that my d5100 is a problem.. awesome.
 
I just wanted to know what lens would be good.... Now you're telling me that my d5100 is a problem.. awesome.

On the contrary. Your mid-range camera is great. Its just that it won't cover every type of event if noise in your pictures is a problem to you.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top