Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF

[SnappingShark]

Any thoughts on this lens by the folks in the know? Anybody have this lens?

Am I right in thinking with Tamron, that Di is equal to Nikon FX?

How does this compare to the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII at 3x the price?

Thanks!

 

[Derrel]

It is a full-frame capable lens, yes. Matt Granger AKA "That Nikon Guy" on YouTube, has a comparison of the new Nikon, the new Canon, and the newest Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. Ya know, about a decade ago, when the actual street price price a third-party 70-200 f/2.8 was $700-$750, the offerings from Sigma, for example, were decidedly inferior when shot at f/2.8...but now that Canon and Nikon have added $1,000 to $1,200 to the prices of their lenses in this category, and the third party lenses are nearly double the old $700 price range, the quality that's possible has, I think gone way up, simply due to the price point that the third-party manufacturers have to work with. Look at the DxO Mark scores on this newest Tamron...seems like a pretty good lens, based on the numbers.

 

[SnappingShark]

Looks like it's just not as sharp as the Nikon version. But only marginally.

I think for a $1620 saving over the Nikkor, I'll add it to my kit bag in the next month or two!!

Comparing prices on Amazon, for other people's info:
Tamron: 769
Nikkor: 2396

 

[Braineack]

I've been toying with teh idea of a 70-200 2.8 with 1.7TC. Seems like you get a lot of bang for the buck with the Tamron...

 

[pixmedic]

I have the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 non VR and love it. ($900 new) I went to our semi local camera store and compared it to nikons 80-200 f/2.8. ($1200 new)
comparing non VR lenses.

The tamron has a built in focus motor, so the AF was noticeably faster than the nikkor 80-200 screw drive. The nikon is a tank though, and the optics are wonderful. I simply opted for the faster AF and a little cheaper pricetag. They also had the tamron and sigma VR versions as well as nikons VRII.

I tried all three VR lenses as well.
The nikkor VRII is amazing, but.... So is the price tag. The tamron and sigma versions both performed well, but between the two i liked the tamron better. The AF was a little faster, and i think the VR worked a little better.

For the money, the tamron is a great lens.
i would certainly recommend it...
To be completely honest, i am not sure I would be able to tell the difference shooting with any of those lenses. They all perform very well. Im sure there are things that make the nikkor lenses "better", but i really haven't seen much evidence that they are twice as good as third party lenses to justify twice the price.

I found the same thing was true with flashes. I have picked up a few yongnuo 568ex's recently ($180 new) and i find them to be a better flash than my nikon sb700s ($330 new)

The best advice i can offer is to go to a local store and try different lenses. The store in my area even has cameras available for you to test lenses and flashes with.

 

[Braineack]

I have the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 non VR and love it. ($900 new) I went to our semi local camera store and compared it to nikons 80-200 f/2.8. ($1200 new)
comparing non VR lenses.

The tamron has a built in focus motor, so the AF was noticeably faster than the nikkor 80-200 screw drive. The nikon is a tank though, and the optics are wonderful. I simply opted for the faster AF and a little cheaper pricetag. They also had the tamron and sigma VR versions as well as nikons VRII.

I tried all three VR lenses as well.
The nikkor VRII is amazing, but.... So is the price tag. The tamron and sigma versions both performed well, but between the two i liked the tamron better. The AF was a little faster, and i think the VR worked a little better.

For the money, the tamron is a great lens.
i would certainly recommend it...
To be completely honest, i am not sure I would be able to tell the difference shooting with any of those lenses. They all perform very well. Im sure there are things that make the nikkor lenses "better", but i really haven't seen much evidence that they are twice as good as third party lenses to justify twice the price.

I found the same thing was true with flashes. I have picked up a few yongnuo 568ex's recently ($180 new) and i find them to be a better flash than my nikon sb700s ($330 new)

The best advice i can offer is to go to a local store and try different lenses. The store in my area even has cameras available for you to test lenses and flashes with.

Great post. Especially since I'm in the market.

I found the same thing with my sb700 and the YN560ii. Honestly I think the YN560ii is built better and even easier to control the functions, I just don't have TTL with it.

 

[shadowlands]

I opted for the older Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8d and couldn't be more happy. $600.00 mint/shipped.

sharp as nails....

 

[D-B-J]

Looks like it's just not as sharp as the Nikon version. But only marginally.

I think for a $1620 saving over the Nikkor, I'll add it to my kit bag in the next month or two!!

Comparing prices on Amazon, for other people's info:
Tamron: 769
Nikkor: 2396

Why not meet in the middle and grab the vrI version? I've seen many sell for 1300-1500 in good condition. That way, you get nikon sharpness for a somewhat reasonable price, and don't have to worry about non OEM.

Jake

 

[JTPhotography]

The 80-200 is the best bang for the buck when you do the comparisons on all similar lenses.

 

[Braineack]

I wish it had VR, I'm very shaky.