70-300 VC/VR Tamron or Nikon?

my tamron worked in live-view with the d7k and d5100. But, live-view AF is not great w/ the d7k (not the lens' fault though).

IIRC, it also saved the correct AF fine-tune ajustment. i know sigma lenses have issues with AF fine tune, but my tammy's seem to be ok in this regard.

--
'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not'
-- master yoda

http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com

In this situation this is horrible advice! Adorama has an E+ for 375 but it is only 349 new after rebate with a 6 year warranty! possibly cheaper with an online coupon or cashback...

Glen78 said:

I highly recommend buying third party lenses used though as they do not retain their value as much as the Nikkors. I got mine used from Adorama for $299 in like new condition (it came in the original box with the protective film still on the lens body), although I just checked and they do not currently have any used ones available. The Nikon version is currently available used in E+ condition for $375 from Adorama.

Click to expand...

Anyways I also have the Tamron and like it. I did buy mine used from KEH in bargain grade but it was only 225 (It has cosmetic scratches, but optics are perfect). The VC is actually really amazing. I took these a couple weeks ago when I was trying out the lens.

Exif is there and real, fwiw....

Kris in CT said:

In this situation this is horrible advice! Adorama has an E+ for 375 but it is only 349 new after rebate with a 6 year warranty! possibly cheaper with an online coupon or cashback...

Glen78 said:

I highly recommend buying third party lenses used though as they do not retain their value as much as the Nikkors. I got mine used from Adorama for $299 in like new condition (it came in the original box with the protective film still on the lens body), although I just checked and they do not currently have any used ones available. The Nikon version is currently available used in E+ condition for $375 from Adorama.

Click to expand...

Anyways I also have the Tamron and like it. I did buy mine used from KEH in bargain grade but it was only 225 (It has cosmetic scratches, but optics are perfect). The VC is actually really amazing. I took these a couple weeks ago when I was trying out the lens.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, he mentioned that there was copy of the Nikon 70-300 available in E+ condition for $375.

Kris, the $375 is for a used Nikon, not the Tamron. The Nikon is $586.95 new.

Kris in CT said:

In this situation this is horrible advice! Adorama has an E+ for 375 but it is only 349 new after rebate with a 6 year warranty! possibly cheaper with an online coupon or cashback...

Glen78 said:

I highly recommend buying third party lenses used though as they do not retain their value as much as the Nikkors. I got mine used from Adorama for $299 in like new condition (it came in the original box with the protective film still on the lens body), although I just checked and they do not currently have any used ones available. The Nikon version is currently available used in E+ condition for $375 from Adorama.

Click to expand...

Anyways I also have the Tamron and like it. I did buy mine used from KEH in bargain grade but it was only 225 (It has cosmetic scratches, but optics are perfect). The VC is actually really amazing. I took these a couple weeks ago when I was trying out the lens.

Exif is there and real, fwiw....

Click to expand...

Phew, that sounds much better! Sorry I mis-read it!!!

NativeTxn said:

Just to be clear, he mentioned that there was copy of the Nikon 70-300 available in E+ condition for $375.

Click to expand...

Reading the comment that the 70-300 VC Tammy was rated better than the Nikkor 70-200 VR 2.8, I fell off my chair laughing. I returned the Tammy and got a TC for that range and I gaurantee I get sharper pictures with better saturation and barely ant CA using the 70-200 VR 2.8 with the TC. It's a pro lens. One of the best made.
--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.

Nikon D7000 w/ MB-D11, SB-600, Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II , Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon TC-20E III 2x

You might not have fully understood. ThatNikonGuy's comment was that the vc in the Tamron was surprisingly as good if not better than the vr in the 70-200. He was only referring to the stabilization from shooting at a predetermined target at progressively lower shutter speeds. He might not have taken into account the much greater weight of the Nikon 2.8 zoom and the difference that might make in his hand held shots.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

Maybe I misunderstood, but to even suggest the VC is better than the VR II is ridiculous. Then it sounds like he (or you) are talking about hand held versus...what? Tri? That's pretty funny too. I'm only pointing out that a pro lens like the 70-200 VR II 2.8 is not a good comparison. Compare the Tammy to other prosumer glass, not pro stuff. I think it confuses people.
--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.

Nikon D7000 w/ MB-D11, SB-600, Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II , Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon TC-20E III 2x

Maybe you should watch the video. He has shot a series of videos comparing the 2.8 zooms. He also did one comparing the Tamron 2.8 zoom vs. the 70-300vc. In that video, he drew on his experience from making the other videos to make the comment. All the stabilization shots were done hand held. His approach is more casual than an official lens testing website's would be but it is very transparent. No one would get the Tamron 70-300 vc over the Nikon 70-200 2.8 just because its stabilization might be comparable. You would really have to take his opinions way out of context to get that confused. It is just an interesting point particularly for someone who owns the Tamron--more confirmation of a good buy if that is what one needs. No worries.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

knightmelodic said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but to even suggest the VC is better than the VR II is ridiculous. Then it sounds like he (or you) are talking about hand held versus...what? Tri? That's pretty funny too. I'm only pointing out that a pro lens like the 70-200 VR II 2.8 is not a good comparison. Compare the Tammy to other prosumer glass, not pro stuff. I think it confuses people.

Click to expand...

I think he's comparing to the VR1 version of the 70-200 and not the VRII version (could be wrong). If that is the case, he is indeed correct. I have the VR1 version. It's good but way behind my VRII lens in terms of image stabilization.

the vc in the tamron is the most effective ive used on any lens, including my nikon 70-200, or any of the canon lenses ive rented to try out. i have both the tamron 70-300 and the nikon 70-200 2.8 at the moment, and i can tell you that the IQ is not comparable, but the stabilization is in fact superior on the tamron, whether you choose to believe it. the only downside is the slight noise and jump that it makes.

knightmelodic said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but to even suggest the VC is better than the VR II is ridiculous. Then it sounds like he (or you) are talking about hand held versus...what? Tri? That's pretty funny too. I'm only pointing out that a pro lens like the 70-200 VR II 2.8 is not a good comparison. Compare the Tammy to other prosumer glass, not pro stuff. I think it confuses people.
--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.

Nikon D7000 w/ MB-D11, SB-600, Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II , Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon TC-20E III 2x

Click to expand...

knightmelodic said:

Maybe I misunderstood, but to even suggest the VC is better than the VR II is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I own both the Tamron 70-300 VC and the Nikon 70-200 VRII. From my personal experience, the Tamron VC is better than the Nikon 70-200. Maybe I got a bad VR unit on my Nikon, but I feel I have to be much more careful in my handheld technique to use anywhere near the slow shutter speeds I can use on my Tamron for similar focal lengths.

The Two lenses are really complimentary for me. When absolute IQ or fast aperture is needed, and I don't care about weight/bulk, the Nikon gets used (and used a lot, btw). But when I'm travelling, need a bit more reach, don't need the aperture, or simply don't want to haul around a big heavy lens, the 70-300 VC works wonders. Some of my best bird shots are with that lens. With the 70-200, I'm often wishing I had just a bit more reach.

As an aside, I originally had a Nikon 70-300 VR. I had that lens for over a year. It was a great lens, except that I was never satisfied with it's performance at 300mm, even at F/8. When the Tamron came out, I compared the two. The Tamron is very similar, but yielded better images at 300mm (not sharper images, but better contrast and "look", the kind of "better" that the Zeiss guys rave about with their lenses). I ended up keeping the Tamron.

Don't get me wrong, the Tamron has its issues too. Chief amongst them (for my copy) is a miscalibrated aperture, requiring me to dial in a bit of negative exposure when stopping down (to avoid overexposure). Also, at 300mm and minimum focus, the Tamron yielded more CA than my Nikon, although I didn't fully explore that (I didn't get the 70-300 for 300mm point-blank shooting!). But ultimately, the better stabilization and better 300mm IQ won it for me, and made for a good complement to my Nikon 70-200 VRII.

i had the same mis-calibrated aperture on my tamron 70-300. i sent it to tamron and they calibrated it perfectly. this seemed to be an issue with the early batch (2010) of 70-300's. i haven't heard the aperture issue with the newer batches.

VC jumps when it starts up, but is just Rock-Steady.

--
'when 900 years you reach, look as good you will not'
-- master yoda

http://jordanpaw.zenfolio.com

FWIW, the Nikon seems to do OK. However, it isn't super sharp at 300mm, and, of course, the VR is useless for sports or BIF. It compensates for camera shake, not subject movement.

The eagle pictures were taken hand-held, on a clear evening, so the contrast ratio was pretty high. The skier was hand-held on a clear day in the early afternoon.

All were taken with burst at 6fps, 9pt AF-C. The eagles were shot raw and processed with ACR. The skier was JPEG normal.

All have had their resolution reduced or their JPEG compression increased (or both) for posting purposes.

Even the second eagle is pretty decent, considering the relatively slow shutter speed. The first one, to my eye, actually looks fake, but it isn't.













At 250mm or less, it seems to acquire focus quickly in good light (D7K). The target must be large enough. I've had some success with things that are too far away and only occupy a bit more than the center focus point shown in the viewfinder, but as you might expect, the keeper rate is not as high with such subjects.

Anyway, I think these are pretty good for a relatively inexpensive lens.

I like my tamron

Well, to each his own. No problems. I switched from a Sony a700 when they stopped supporting their dslrs (IMO), so I had zeiss glass; and I'll tell you Nikkor is right there in quality. The VR? Remember there are 4 ways of using it on the 70-200 VR II. Don't remember about the Tammy I returned. At the end of the day, if you're happy with your lens you will take pictures; and that's what it's all about. I take lots. Just too lazy to post them.
--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.

Nikon D7000 w/ MB-D11, SB-600, Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II , Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon TC-20E III 2x

knightmelodic said:

Well, to each his own. No problems. I switched from a Sony a700 when they stopped supporting their dslrs (IMO), so I had zeiss glass; and I'll tell you Nikkor is right there in quality. The VR? Remember there are 4 ways of using it on the 70-200 VR II. Don't remember about the Tammy I returned. At the end of the day, if you're happy with your lens you will take pictures; and that's what it's all about. I take lots. Just too lazy to post them.

Click to expand...

i like my nikon 70-200 2.8 as well, the shot below was taken with it right before the tamron shot i posted. unsurprisingly a $2000 lens is optically superior to a $350 lens. the thread though was about the nikon 70-300 vs the tamron 70-300, and i was stating that im happy with my tamron as well.

I agree. I just jumped in when someone compared the pro lens to the prosumer. Camry to Porsche. That was my point. In my view it muddied the comparison which should have been the two 300mm lenses. Cheers.
--
Just keep clicking, something will turn out fantastic.

Nikon D7000 w/ MB-D11, SB-600, Nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 35mm f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II , Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Nikon TC-20E III 2x

I broke my 70-300 VR and borrowed an older Nikon 70-300 ED. It's lighter and the photos seem just as sharp. If you don't need stabilization and don't mind spending a lot less, get the ED version from Ebay. I just "won" an auction for an ED for only $81. The lens appears to be in good shape from the pics. It'll arrive early next week.

DW