Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions
mgblack74
Senior MemberPosts: 1,550Gear list
Like?
Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
Nov 7, 2012

Which do you get? If the Tamron is as sharp or sharper at f/4, but has a "bonus" of opening to f/2.8? Initial price is $1400 in North America for either. I suppose it comes down to weight/AF speed/accuracy/VR or VC effectiveness.  Thoughts?

-- hide signature --

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
_______________________________

 mgblack74's gear list:mgblack74's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D4s Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +4 more
The Big One
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,360Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 7, 2012

The Tamron is actually cheaper, if you need / want a tripod foot...

As to which one I would get... hard to say.  Do you want f/2.8 or a lighter lens?  I want both!  

 The Big One's gear list:The Big One's gear list
Nikon D60 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mudakas
Regular MemberPosts: 109
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 7, 2012

I was waiting for Tamron, Nikon f/4 and Tokina f/4 versions... and got Nikon 80-200 af-s instead for 930. Absolutely amazing lens on D800. With proper holding techniques no need for VR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
J Craig H
Regular MemberPosts: 147
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mudakas, Nov 8, 2012

I'll be paying a lot of attention to the reviews of this Tamron. The Nikon f4 is appealing but if I stick to my guns and go for the D400 (or whatever it's going to be called) I'll very probably want the isolation and speed of the Tamron at 2.8. It looks like you'd be giving up some durability with the Tamron but for almost $1000 compared to Nikon's 2.8 it's looking tempting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian M.
Regular MemberPosts: 114
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 8, 2012

To answer your exact question...

IF... The auto focus speed on the Tamron has improved over the old model... and
IF... It quality is on par or better then the old model..

I would get the Tamron.

The Nikon will be lighter and have a better resell value but there is a large difference between f/4 and f/2.8.

To answer your question truthfully...

I wouldn't buy either one... I'd pick up a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for the same price. Better build quality then both (haven't read that the f/4 is weather sealed.. but i assume its not) and better image quality then both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,331Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 8, 2012

Have we had sample images from the Nikon? I must have missed them. Do you have a link?

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,073
Like?
Uhmm.. no.
In reply to Brian M., Nov 8, 2012

Brian M. wrote:

To answer your exact question...

IF... The auto focus speed on the Tamron has improved over the old model... and
IF... It quality is on par or better then the old model..

I would get the Tamron.

The Nikon will be lighter and have a better resell value but there is a large difference between f/4 and f/2.8.

Only 1 stop, difference is not that big. Difference in weight is huge though.

To answer your question truthfully...

I wouldn't buy either one... I'd pick up a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for the same price. Better build quality then both (haven't read that the f/4 is weather sealed.. but i assume its not) and better image quality then both.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR will not have better build quality than the 70-200mm f4 VR. The f4 VR is just as weather sealed as the f2.8 versions.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR does NOT have better IQ than the Tamron. The old Tamron has great optics already, and this new one will also certainly surpass the Nikon f2.8 VR. The new Nikon f4 VR will certainly also haver better IQ than the f2.8 VR. Its very sharp, already wide open. And very much superior VR. It is the better lens without doubt.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,073
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to slimandy, Nov 8, 2012

slimandy wrote:

Have we had sample images from the Nikon? I must have missed them. Do you have a link?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1160567/0

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian M.
Regular MemberPosts: 114
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to brightcolours, Nov 8, 2012

brightcolours wrote:

Only 1 stop, difference is not that big. Difference in weight is huge though.

It's a huge difference depending on what your shooting.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR will not have better build quality than the 70-200mm f4 VR. The f4 VR is just as weather sealed as the f2.8 versions.

Im not sure where you see that the f/4 will be weather sealed, but I've read nothing that says it will.  The f2.8 vr(1 and 2) are pro level lenses and built to take abuse.  The f/4 is aimed at consumers.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR does NOT have better IQ than the Tamron. The old Tamron has great optics already, and this new one will also certainly surpass the Nikon f2.8 VR. The new Nikon f4 VR will certainly also haver better IQ than the f2.8 VR. Its very sharp, already wide open. And very much superior VR. It is the better lens without doubt.

I will reserve judgment on the new Tamron until i can play with it... however...

I've used the old Tamron quite a often and i own the Nikon.  While the Tamron is sharper then other 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses it is not as sharp as the Nikon @ f/2.8 (old or new).  I've got 100's of images that prove this...  and i have yet to see a paid photog (field reporter, sports shooter or anybody who's bread-n-butter lens is a 70-200 f/2.8) walking around with a Tamron.

If VR is important to you, then the f/4 will definitely have the best image stabilization.  However, I could care less about VR (its turned off on mine 99.9% of the time).  Shooting indoor events or under stadium lights VR isn't much help.  VR is no replacement for a body with good ISO and fast glass.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,073
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to Brian M., Nov 8, 2012

Brian M. wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Only 1 stop, difference is not that big. Difference in weight is huge though.

It's a huge difference depending on what your shooting.

A small difference, depending on what you are shooting.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR will not have better build quality than the 70-200mm f4 VR. The f4 VR is just as weather sealed as the f2.8 versions.

Im not sure where you see that the f/4 will be weather sealed, but I've read nothing that says it will. The f2.8 vr(1 and 2) are pro level lenses and built to take abuse. The f/4 is aimed at consumers.

I am not sure where you read that the f2.8 VR and VR II are weather sealed, as Nikon never talkes about that. The f4 is a pro build, pro targeted lens with exactly the same kind of weather sealing as the f2.8 lenses (which its weight and price also show). Besides that, it totally follows the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM lens in design, specs and price, which also has a pro build and is weather sealed.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR does NOT have better IQ than the Tamron. The old Tamron has great optics already, and this new one will also certainly surpass the Nikon f2.8 VR. The new Nikon f4 VR will certainly also haver better IQ than the f2.8 VR. Its very sharp, already wide open. And very much superior VR. It is the better lens without doubt.

I will reserve judgment on the new Tamron until i can play with it... however...

I've used the old Tamron quite a often and i own the Nikon. While the Tamron is sharper then other 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses it is not as sharp as the Nikon @ f/2.8 (old or new). I've got 100's of images that prove this... and i have yet to see a paid photog (field reporter, sports shooter or anybody who's bread-n-butter lens is a 70-200 f/2.8) walking around with a Tamron.

You must have something wrong with your eyes, or with teh Tamron you have used. That anyway was the old Tamron, the new Tamron has even better optics.

NO idea what your "paid photog" remark is meant to prove.

If VR is important to you, then the f/4 will definitely have the best image stabilization. However, I could care less about VR (its turned off on mine 99.9% of the time). Shooting indoor events or under stadium lights VR isn't much help. VR is no replacement for a body with good ISO and fast glass.

Weird reply, I never wrote about any of that (except that the VR is much better). I wrote that the f4's optics are way superior over those of the f2.8 VR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brian M.
Regular MemberPosts: 114
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to brightcolours, Nov 8, 2012

You must have something wrong with your eyes, or with teh Tamron you have used. That anyway was the old Tamron, the new Tamron has even better optics.

I'm going from my own personal experience.  Can you point me to some review/source that backs up your claim that the old Tamron is sharper then the Nikons?

This forum always cracks me up...  The OP wanted an an opinion on two lenses.  I gave mine (remember.. i picked the Tamron?) but i also said if it was my money i'd buy something else... and the flamethrowers come out 

@brightcolours... enjoy your Tamron.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,073
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to Brian M., Nov 8, 2012

Brian M. wrote:

You must have something wrong with your eyes, or with teh Tamron you have used. That anyway was the old Tamron, the new Tamron has even better optics.

I'm going from my own personal experience. Can you point me to some review/source that backs up your claim that the old Tamron is sharper then the Nikons?

nikonS? Which are you referring to exactly? I thought we were talking about 1, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Not more than 1 Nikon.

Only one source? How about this very website then?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/5

"Central sharpness tends to be high across the frame even wide open, however the corners are problematic, most notably towards the telephoto end. At 200mm, extreme corners never sharpen up fully, even at F16 - not really an acceptable performance for a professional level telezoom."

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/5

"Sharpness is overall extremely high, even wide open. The optimum apertures are generally around F5.6-8, but with generally excellent performance from F4 to F16 this lens has an exceptionally broad 'sweet spot'. F22 is also highly usable, but F32 should probably be reserved for emergency use only."

This forum always cracks me up... The OP wanted an an opinion on two lenses. I gave mine (remember.. i picked the Tamron?) but i also said if it was my money i'd buy something else... and the flamethrowers come out

@brightcolours... enjoy your Tamron.

Enjoy my Tamron? Which Tamron?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Riccardo Polini
Senior MemberPosts: 1,353Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 8, 2012

I'd prefer the f/4 Nikkor: less weight to carry on and - most likely - better AF. Anyway, I'd prefer the Nikkor f/4 even if the AF of the Tamron were spot on.

P.S.: I already own the AF ED 180/2.8D, which I love; therefore, I'm a little biased against heavy 70/80-200mm f/2.8 lenses ...

mgblack74 wrote:

Which do you get? If the Tamron is as sharp or sharper at f/4, but has a "bonus" of opening to f/2.8? Initial price is $1400 in North America for either. I suppose it comes down to weight/AF speed/accuracy/VR or VC effectiveness. Thoughts?

 Riccardo Polini's gear list:Riccardo Polini's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nikkorwatcher
Contributing MemberPosts: 684
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to Brian M., Nov 8, 2012

Brian M. wrote:

It's a huge difference depending on what your shooting.

[...] Shooting indoor events or under stadium lights VR isn't much help. VR is no replacement for a body with good ISO and fast glass.

Yep, Brian is right. That difference between salt & pepper very high ISO and one a stop down can be a big deal. The extra light helps focusing too. Allegedly many bodies have AF detectors in f2.8 and f5.6 zones. With f4 glass, you can only use the f5.6 detector. Those interested will have to look it up for themselves. Not to mention that with f4 the other spectators and photographers can be a distraction in the pictures!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brev00
Senior MemberPosts: 5,506Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to mgblack74, Nov 8, 2012

There is more to it than weight, speed, and accuracy.  I am thinking about getting the old Tamron.  I like its close focusing ability--best in class by far.  While the new model gains vc and usd, it loses its quasi-macro magnification.  As my children near college, my need for a lens for sports declines.  The new price does not help.  But, to answer your question, with $1400 I would get the Tamron.  My 70-300vc is great.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,331Gear list
Like?
thx (n/t)
In reply to brightcolours, Nov 9, 2012

n t

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,073
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to Brev00, Nov 9, 2012

Brev00 wrote:

There is more to it than weight, speed, and accuracy. I am thinking about getting the old Tamron. I like its close focusing ability--best in class by far. While the new model gains vc and usd, it loses its quasi-macro magnification. As my children near college, my need for a lens for sports declines. The new price does not help. But, to answer your question, with $1400 I would get the Tamron. My 70-300vc is great.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Best in class "by far"? By a small margin. The old Tamron does 0.32x at 0.95m MFD, the The new Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR does 0.275x at 1m MFD (a small difference). The VR is a BIG help for close ups at 200mm handheld, and if you add a simple 12mm extension tube the Nikon goes past  0.32x too.

The old Tamron is frustrating at its slow AF, and weight is a big factor anyway. Choose whatever you want , obviously, but keep things into perspective MFD/magnification wise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brev00
Senior MemberPosts: 5,506Gear list
Like?
Re: Nikon vs Tamron 70-200. f/4 vs f/2.8. Both same price.
In reply to brightcolours, Nov 9, 2012

I did not know the f4 had such a good closeup capacity.  With the light weight and vr, it will be excellent for hand held closeups.  I was, however, referring to the 2.8 zooms and see myself using the Tammy on a tripod for closeups making vr and weight less important.  Interesting specs!  Thanks for the info.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alnitak
Contributing MemberPosts: 635
Like?
Re: Uhmm.. no.
In reply to brightcolours, Nov 9, 2012

brightcolours wrote:

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR does NOT have better IQ than the Tamron. The old Tamron has great optics already, and this new one will also certainly surpass the Nikon f2.8 VR. The new Nikon f4 VR will certainly also haver better IQ than the f2.8 VR. Its very sharp, already wide open. And very much superior VR. It is the better lens without doubt.

On DX (and the OP mentioned D400), I doubt the Tamron has better quality. I have had the 70-200 VR1 since it came out and used it on D100, D200 and D300s. Even wide open it is extremely sharp and has none of the corner issues mention in the link you provided. I use it extensively on wildlife with TC's (both 1.4x and 2x) and indoor sports, and am constantly amazed at the IQ, including bokeh, and focusing is fast! The new Tamron may match it, but I doubt it will beat it...at least on DX.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
opiecat
Senior MemberPosts: 1,790Gear list
Like?
choices are good, but which one?
In reply to Alnitak, Nov 12, 2012

i'm looking forward to one of these 70-200's. either nikon's f4 or the tamron f2.8.

price wise, they're similar.

the nikon has better magnification ratio and closer focus + a focus limiter.

the tamron is heavier and has worse magnification ratio. focus breathing might be worse but is 1 stop faster.

IQ wise, the nikon looks very good while i have not seen any sample images from the tamron.

I guess it'll have to come down to which lens' IQ is better.  Tamron's VC is pretty good (on my 70-300 the VC is excellent) while NIkon touts a new VR technology.

Ah, choices.  Hmmm... I wonder when the tokina 70-200 f4 version will be released.

-- hide signature --

http://opienc.wordpress.com
'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not'
-- master yoda
http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads