What two would you choose?

[jadelm31]

Just wondering how much the VC matters or helps in the Tamrons

 

[astroNikon]

I also vote for the Nikon glass. But then I have no experience with the Tamron lenses.

Also, a lower cost option than the nikon 24-70 is the Nikon 28-70 /2.8 - which is older and only available used.

FYI, I love my 80-200/2.8.

 

[jadelm31]

I had the Tamron AF 70-200 2.8 (if) MACRO LD DI SP and loved it and did fine with it

 

[jadelm31]

astro....your 80-200 is without VR right? Do you have problems with that? Do you think the 28 will give me enough width to get large group photos perhaps without always having some great distance between me and the subject? Does that one have VR? I'm not necessarily sold on VR only if necessary; opinions seem to vary on that. I believe my Tamron, mentioned above did not have VC and I seemed to do fine with it. I do have tiny hands though...

 

[Braineack]

Just wondering how much the VC matters or helps in the Tamrons

Amazing when you need it.

 

[jadelm31]

hmmmm......??

 

[Derrel]

ALL of that stuff is good gear!!! You would be okay buying any of it, but to "me" The Nikon 24-70 holds the resale edge big-time over the Tamron. But if that's not an issue, why worry about it. ALL of those lenses would be nice to have for various reasons. I bet in a blind test most people could not tell one lens's photos from any other lens's shots done at similar length--on NORMAL subjects. I have seen some onion bokeh from the Tamron 24-70 VC on point light sources shot at wider f/stops, but that's like, not usually an issue, unless you're one of those people who likes to shoot right into backlighting or Christmas lights or whatnot. The Nikkor 24-70 is so flippin looooong....haver you had the chance to check out any of these on a small,light body like D7100???

 

[astroNikon]

astro....your 80-200 is without VR right? Do you have problems with that? Do you think the 28 will give me enough width to get large group photos perhaps without always having some great distance between me and the subject? Does that one have VR? I'm not necessarily sold on VR only if necessary; opinions seem to vary on that. I believe my Tamron, mentioned above did not have VC and I seemed to do fine with it. I do have tiny hands though...

My only lens with VR is my d7000 kit 18-105 VR lens.
Instead of VR, I went with pushing up the ISO to keep the shutter speeds faster. I haven't had a problem with that.
I practiced alot with the 18-105 turning on then off VR and practicing the same shot until I was pretty good.

At first I was worried about the non-VR issue when I first started buying AF-D lenses. But that was quickly dispelled.
I also learned how to better hold the camera just in case I need a slower shutter speed. I've taken shots at 1.3 seconds without blur (except for water blur) hand held.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-making-yourself-tripod-versus-using-one.html

Now I don't worry about the problem. I also shoot with a d600 Full Frame camera now too - I still have the d7000.
I figured they used to do it in the older non-VR days, so I can figure out how to do it. ISO performance is so much better than the "old" days too.

The only issue I have is sometimes I need to jump to a manual focus on the 80-200 AFD lens while shooting soccer. You have to push a button and rotate a sleeve an inch to go into Manual Focus mode. So .. you have to practice that to become pseudo-fast at it. The newer 70-200s you just grab the focus ring and focus it.


As to the 28 .. it all depends how much room you have. I reallly like the 18-105 on my d7000 now as the 18 lets you get groups in if you are inside. My biggest complaint I had about DX crop camera was inside I wanted to use an 85mm lens for perspective and I couldn't (my home studio room is too small to control the background, object, and camera distance). The d600 Full Frame fixed all that

So the 24-70 is wider than the 28-70 by 4mm. But compared to the kit's 18mm you're not even close when you need it, well 6 or 10mm close.
But for the price difference between the 24-70 and 28-70 you can get yourself a nice wide angle lens to cover that focal length and more if you really need it.

Also keep in mind the AF-S lenses are normally faster focusing than the AF-D (screw driven) lenses.

If I had my choise of lenses, which I'm budget limited.
I'd have my 80-200/2.8 AFD
28-70/2.8 AFS
17-35/2.8 AFS

I'm getting closer to that .. I have the 35-70/2.8 (I don't really like it) which I'm trying to move to the 28-70/2.8 AFS
and a 18-35 but I use these on FF

I mostly only use my kit 18-105 on my d7000 for general use now.

I couldn't afford the newer AF-S lenses, so I went with AF-D. Which paid for itself on the first AF-D vs AF-S lens that I bought for the d7000.
If all that makes any sense.

 

[Manna69247]

Nikkor 80-200
Tamron 24-70 must be the Di VC USD (Model A007)

Almost simular to astroNikon but not with FX yet. Hopefully soon with my trusty D7000 as 2nd & backup. I use a Nikon 17-55 F2.8 DX and Nikon 80-200 f2.8D and currently switch around with ThinkTank Lens Changers on a ThinkTank belt. My 80-200 is almost always on the camera because it create the most beautiful bokeh if you stand back and zoom in. I tend to stand far back and have to shout to my subjects I'm going to FX soon and will need a 24-70 range again. Currently after alot of investigation I tend to prefer the Tamron 24-70 (must be the new one). The onion bokeh is an issue in extreme specific conditions but if you know about it you'll work with it. In my main use it wont be an issue.

If you think of going to main frame soon, don't bother with 17-55 unless you going to use your DX 17-55 on second DX camera.

With thats said, I would love a Nikkor 135 f2 DC but that is another discussion...



•• Manna ••
Sent from my 👀☎️ using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vince.1551]

ALL of that stuff is good gear!!! You would be okay buying any of it, but to "me" The Nikon 24-70 holds the resale edge big-time over the Tamron. But if that's not an issue, why worry about it. ALL of those lenses would be nice to have for various reasons. I bet in a blind test most people could not tell one lens's photos from any other lens's shots done at similar length--on NORMAL subjects. I have seen some onion bokeh from the Tamron 24-70 VC on point light sources shot at wider f/stops, but that's like, not usually an issue, unless you're one of those people who likes to shoot right into backlighting or Christmas lights or whatnot. The Nikkor 24-70 is so flippin looooong....haver you had the chance to check out any of these on a small,light body like D7100???

Tamron 24-70 VC has good resale value. In fact you barely see it. I saw tons of used Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on sale but barely the Tamron version.

 

[jaomul]

For events on a d7000 I think a 17-50 and 50-150 fast zooms would be more suitable

 

[Braineack]

ALL of that stuff is good gear!!! You would be okay buying any of it, but to "me" The Nikon 24-70 holds the resale edge big-time over the Tamron. But if that's not an issue, why worry about it. ALL of those lenses would be nice to have for various reasons. I bet in a blind test most people could not tell one lens's photos from any other lens's shots done at similar length--on NORMAL subjects. I have seen some onion bokeh from the Tamron 24-70 VC on point light sources shot at wider f/stops, but that's like, not usually an issue, unless you're one of those people who likes to shoot right into backlighting or Christmas lights or whatnot. The Nikkor 24-70 is so flippin looooong....haver you had the chance to check out any of these on a small,light body like D7100???

Yeah the asymmetrical design leads to bokeh balls that aren't as pleasing at the Nikon.

One thing I have noticed with the Tamron 24-70 is that when shot wide there is a bit of vignetting (typically the top left corner) and I find it distorts the perspective oddly--I just feel like I'm always correcting shots to plumb up walls after I get the horizon level. I felt like that old 24-105 D lens handled wide shots much better for distortion. I have not tried the Nikon 24-70 to compare.

It renders images very sharp, even at 2.8, and the VC is pretty impressive. I'm able to get shots down to 1/30sec that are still very sharp.

I absolutely prefer the 70-200 2.8 whenever possible over the 24-70.

I chose the Tamrons because they rate very well on/off paper. Are both smaller/lighter. The VC is very impressive. And they are much less expensive.

If you look through my flickr, all the more recent shots were taken with the Tamrons.

 

[greybeard37 10]

Nikon Glass

 

[shadowlands]

All Nikon!!!