Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II

Robert9499 · Oct 6, 2014

I apologize in advance if this is something that gets posted often, but I am being troubled by the decision here.

I'm an amateur photographer and I mostly do outdoor shooting like wildlife and landscape. When I'm doing indoor shooting, I do portraits and sometimes sports. I'm also a student so the decision-making here is crucial for me as I'm limited as to what I can afford, so I have to choose wisely.
I currently own the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and the body I'm using it on is the D7100. This lens is outstanding for outdoor shooting but for some reason on fast moving subjects (like monkeys jumping and running which is what I mostly shoot) it doesn't focus well enough and as for indoor activities during low-light the lens simply has a hard time focusing on subjects and I'd say 5/10 times the shots are out of focus. I thought it was me but I tested it on a tripod and got the same results.

That being said I'm looking to move onto a more reliable lens with sharper image quality, fast focus and one that's well built. I have a budget of $2,400 and what troubles me is:

-Do I want a lens that can last me a lot of years, can take a beating, it's properly weather sealed and the resale value is high or should I save nearly $1,000 and go for a third-party lens which is almost up there with the Nikon flagship model but it's durability and resale value isn't as strong?

I'm looking here to invest once and not have to end up investing later on a later or better model. If I were to go with the Tamron and save almost $1,000, I can sell my 70-300mm and also buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 because I lack that range of focal length or I can use that extra money and save up for a full frame body like a D610 or if possible a D800E which I plan on moving to within the next years.

What do you folks recommend? - thanks in advance.

overniteman · Oct 6, 2014

I can't answer for the Tamron, but my 70-200VR II is without question the best lens I've ever used. I paid $1900 for mine and it has gone up, but after using it and being addicted to it's results, I'd still buy it without hesitation.

Yes, it's heavy, but the images it produces are well worth it. The color, sharpness and speed which it produces are almost magical. It's one of those lenses that if the shot is missed, it's user error.

One can only imagine what the next version of this lens will be like.

Robert9499 · Oct 6, 2014

overniteman said:
I can't answer for the Tamron, but my 70-200VR II is without question the best lens I've ever used. I paid $1900 for mine and it has gone up, but after using it and being addicted to it's results, I'd still buy it without hesitation.

Yes, it's heavy, but the images it produces are well worth it. The color, sharpness and speed which it produces are almost magical. It's one of those lenses that if the shot is missed, it's user error.

One can only imagine what the next version of this lens will be like

I believe you! - it looks like it brings quality to the table, is "tough" and can be sold without worrying about losing too much money. I'm looking for all of that that I just mentioned and since you can't answer for the Tamron, I ask you, have you heard about the newest iteration of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8?

ruifonikon · Oct 6, 2014

I never used the Nikkor VRII, but I use the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC with the D5200 and the D810, and it is my best lens, by far. Mosty metal built, very solid, weather resistant, sharp corner to corner, especially at f/4 (sweet spot). Optically, DxO ranks the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC as having the best results for larger sensors, like the 24MPix and the 36Mpix.

For enthusiasts, like me, the Tamron is ideal, a great cost-benefit. For professionals, maybe the Nikkor is justified. One way or the other, you cannot go wrong with any of them.

Here are my Tamron sample shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/sets/72157641188279093/

You probably have already seen these video reviews?

Good luck. Again, you cannot go wrong with any of them.

--
________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/

jonmcguffinphoto · Oct 6, 2014

Rent the Tamron at lens rentals and if you like it, they'll let you buy it and deduct your rental cost. A win-win scenario.

Robert9499 · Oct 6, 2014

ruifonikon said:
I never used the Nikkor VRII, but I use the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC with the D5200 and the D810, and it is my best lens, by far. Mosty metal built, very solid, weather resistant, sharp corner to corner, especially at f/4 (sweet spot). Optically, DxO ranks the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC as having the best results for larger sensors, like the 24MPix and the 36Mpix.

For enthusiasts, like me, the Tamron is ideal, a great cost-benefit. For professionals, maybe the Nikkor is justified. One way or the other, you cannot go wrong with any of them.

Here are my Tamron sample shots:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/sets/72157641188279093/

You probably have already seen these video reviews?

Good luck. Again, you cannot go wrong with any of them.

steras · Oct 6, 2014

I am a well seasoned enthusiast and in the quest for an update to my 80-200/2.8D I chose the Tamron over the Nikkor due to a much better performance/cost ratio. IQ with the Tamron is really good.
I should mention I've used the VR II a loy too so I know what to compare to

Tevad · Oct 8, 2014

I used the Nikon VRII for a weekend on my D700, and got some fantastic shots, but after testing and comparing it to the Tamron I decided it wasn't worth the extra $$. The Tamron seems to focus as fast and accurate as the Nikon, especially on my new D750, and doesn't suffer from as much focus breathing. The Nikon is a wonderfully-built lens, but I don't shoot in the desert or in insufferable conditions like war zones so the Tamron was a perfect fit. I don't feel any sense that my images are compromised at all, either.

ruifonikon · Oct 8, 2014

Robert9499 said:
Robert9499 said:

Wow those sample shots are outstanding... I think I can see the Tamron on my hands. How'd you say it feels in the hand? - is it heavy?. Also, are the focusing and zoom rings soft to turn around or do you have to apply quite a bit of force? - saying this because on my current 70-300mm I have to use quite a bit of force on the zoom ring and it always gives me a lot of sudden camera shake (terribly bad when doing video) and I'd like zoom rings that could be rotated fairly easy.

Click to expand...

It feels very good for me. It weights around 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs), so it's not so bad for the category. It is heavier than any 70-300 out there, but it is the lightest 70-200 2.8 out there as well.

The focus ring is softer (and smaller, in the center of the lens) and the zoom ring is tougher (and very large, in the end of the lens, with manual override), but all zoom movement is internal, so no external parts moving at all. I guess that the weight of the internal glass movement makes the zoom ring naturally tougher.

The VC (Vibration Control system) is superb. Possibly the best out there, as it compasates movements in three directions (vertical, horizontal and diagonal), while the Nikkor VR II only compasates in two directions (vertical and horizontal only).

You should be better by going to a photo store to feel it yourself. Maybe rent it for a few days?

D810 paired with the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

D5200 paired with the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

--
________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/

jonmcguffinphoto · Oct 8, 2014

Yeah, I've said it before but it's worth saying again. Rent it with the option to buy. OR, go to a camera store and throw it on the body and take a few shots. I'm sure you'll be happy with this. Of course there is always another option you could take which is to get the Nikon 70-200 F4

Qwntm · Oct 8, 2014

Robert9499 said:
I apologize in advance if this is something that gets posted often, but I am being troubled by the decision here.

I'm an amateur photographer and I mostly do outdoor shooting like wildlife and landscape. When I'm doing indoor shooting, I do portraits and sometimes sports. I'm also a student so the decision-making here is crucial for me as I'm limited as to what I can afford, so I have to choose wisely.
I currently own the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and the body I'm using it on is the D7100. This lens is outstanding for outdoor shooting but for some reason on fast moving subjects (like monkeys jumping and running which is what I mostly shoot) it doesn't focus well enough and as for indoor activities during low-light the lens simply has a hard time focusing on subjects and I'd say 5/10 times the shots are out of focus. I thought it was me but I tested it on a tripod and got the same results.
That being said I'm looking to move onto a more reliable lens with sharper image quality, fast focus and one that's well built. I have a budget of $2,400 and what troubles me is:

-Do I want a lens that can last me a lot of years, can take a beating, it's properly weather sealed and the resale value is high or should I save nearly $1,000 and go for a third-party lens which is almost up there with the Nikon flagship model but it's durability and resale value isn't as strong?
I'm looking here to invest once and not have to end up investing later on a later or better model. If I were to go with the Tamron and save almost $1,000, I can sell my 70-300mm and also buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 because I lack that range of focal length or I can use that extra money and save up for a full frame body like a D610 or if possible a D800E which I plan on moving to within the next years.
What do you folks recommend? - thanks in advance.

Not sure the re-sale value is all that much worse. You pay less for it going in, you should get the same % back as you would on the Nikon should you have to sell. The Tamron's got a good enough reputation to warrant a demand and a good re-sale.

Image quality is as good or better than the Nikon.

Speed and handling are as good or better.

VC is better according to reports than the Nikon.

The Tamron has less "focus breathing." (Not a big deal, but less is better.)

Quality control seems to be good for a tamron, no reports of bad samples all over the place.

Weather sealing may not be as good, or it might be as good or it might be better, no one really has any data to suggest a conclusion. The FACT is that the Tamron IS weather sealed so that's a positive.

There is a $100 rebate right now on the Tamron so it's $1400. The Nikon seems to be $2400 these days. That's a $1000 savings.

IF the Tamron build is not as robust, you still have a 6 year warranty from Tamron and reports are that they're service department is good. There are reports out there that Nikon's service department can be "difficult."

Unless you have to prove something with your gear and it has to say Nikon (or Canon or whatever on it) the Tamron is PROFESSIONALLY usable, and $1000 cheaper = no brainer.

Let your images do the talking, and know that the Tamron lens is not limiting you in any way compared to the original Nikon in this specific category.

As another aside, next time I'm going with the Tamron 24-70 VC because my 24-70 Nikon just seems to be a fragile design. I have broken it a few times with VERY little effort. ie. IMHO the Nikon 24-70 should be a much more robust lens than what my experience with it has been considering it's supposed to be a pro workhorse. I don't know if the Tamron 24-70 is a stronger more robust design, I do know that the Nikon just doesn't seem to be "up for it." Just my experience.

greenmanphoto · Oct 8, 2014

Robert,

First, let me ask you something. If you're wanting to make an "investment" in good glass, and are planning on sticking with this whole photography thing for a while, even moving up to a D8X0 camera at some point, WHY are you worried about resale value of a lens? Buy a lens you need, use it for as long as you need it, which sounds like it will be a LONG time. Resale value is the LAST thing I look at for a lens, but other's opinions will probably vary on that point.

Now, as for the lens question. If you take care of the lens, it will take care of you, pretty much no matter which lens you get, with a few exceptions (cheaper lenses like something perhaps from Vivitar or other similar brands, for example). I have the Tamron 70-200 and I've been VERY happy with it. I researched, went to a local store and tried the lens side-by-side with the Nikkor 70-200 f4, and found the Tamron to be a better performer. It focused quicker and more accurately, had a tripod foot included, and there was a rebate at the time, as there is now.

You're talking about the f2.8 version instead of the f4 version, but I believe a lot of what I wrote above will still apply, as they two Nikkor lenses are fairly similar, in many respects. Are you going to be shooting where the bit of weather sealing on the Nikkor will REALLY make a difference? More so than if you bought something like a Think Tank Photo rain sleeve for the camera and lens? Is the CAMERA you're going to be using as weather sealed as the lens? If not, and if you're not going to be purchasing one that is in the future, why bother with that aspect?

You said that you're working on a budget, and you also mentioned needing something along the lines of the 24-70 range. Personally, I would get the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 AND the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. Both lenses get pretty good reviews, you would probably spend about the same amount of money as the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II, AND you'll have the two lenses you seem to want and need instead of one. Take care of those lenses and you shouldn't really have to worry about it much.

Good luck!

Sam

Jose Rocha · Oct 9, 2014

Qwntm said:
Image quality is as good or better than the Nikon.

Not quite. The Nikkor is sharper wide-open and that's mostly noticeable in landscape shots. From f/4 they seem to be equal.

According to Cameralabs, the cons of the Tamron are:

High price;
Unreliable image stabilization;
Weak performance at 200mm @ f/2.8

I can assure everyone that performance at 200mm @ f/2.8 is clearly one great advantage of the Nikkor over the third-party alternatives. The weakest spot of the Nikkor is 70mm @ f/2.8.

Qwntm said:
Speed and handling are as good or better.

I seriously doubt if the Tamron focuses as fast as the Nikkor... The Nikkor is tremendously fast and accurate even in the dark, much faster than any Tamron I have used including the 24-70 VC. But I give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Qwntm said:
VC is better according to reports than the Nikon.

Not sure about that. VC works up to 4 stops, so does VR II. I can shoot at 200mm and 1/13 s easily with the Nikkor, and even down to 1/6 s with a battery grip with 50% of keepers. But I do know that VC is outstanding as I had the Tamron 70-300 VC before.

Qwntm said:
The Tamron has less "focus breathing." (Not a big deal, but less is better.)

Yes, and that may be useful for many photographers.

Qwntm said:
As another aside, next time I'm going with the Tamron 24-70 VC because my 24-70 Nikon just seems to be a fragile design. I have broken it a few times with VERY little effort. ie. IMHO the Nikon 24-70 should be a much more robust lens than what my experience with it has been considering it's supposed to be a pro workhorse. I don't know if the Tamron 24-70 is a stronger more robust design, I do know that the Nikon just doesn't seem to be "up for it." Just my experience.

You have broken a Nikon 24-70 with VERY little effort? Wow... are you superman?

Then you'll break the Tamron too if you're not careful. I had the Tamron and it's more of a prosumer lens than a professional lens (build-wise).

PSCL1 · Oct 9, 2014

To the OP: There are dozens of threads on your choice. I believe human beings still have free will, or at least the illusion of free will; wew can't make you choice for you or talk you into anything.

If you don't buy the Nikon, however, you'll worry about the Tamron or Sigma or whatever for as long as you keep it. So save yourself the grief, spend the grand, and get with the Nikon program. There is always someone touting cheaper alternatives.

Qwntm · Oct 9, 2014

Jose Rocha said:
Qwntm said:

Image quality is as good or better than the Nikon.

Click to expand...

Not quite. The Nikkor is sharper wide-open and that's mostly noticeable in landscape shots. From f/4 they seem to be equal.

According to Cameralabs, the cons of the Tamron are:

High price;

Unreliable image stabilization;

Weak performance at 200mm @ f/2.8

I can assure everyone that performance at 200mm @ f/2.8 is clearly one great advantage of the Nikkor over the third-party alternatives. The weakest spot of the Nikkor is 70mm @ f/2.8.

DXo Mark and Photozone disagree. The VC is particularly pointed out as better than Nikon.

Speed and handling are as good or better.

Jose Rocha said:
I seriously doubt if the Tamron focuses as fast as the Nikkor... The Nikkor is tremendously fast and accurate even in the dark, much faster than any Tamron I have used including the 24-70 VC. But I give you the benefit of the doubt here.

You can doubt all you want but the tests and many user reviews particularly mention the Tamron is as fast or faster...

Jose Rocha said:
Jose Rocha said:

VC is better according to reports than the Nikon.

Click to expand...

Not sure about that. VC works up to 4 stops, so does VR II. I can shoot at 200mm and 1/13 s easily with the Nikkor, and even down to 1/6 s with a battery grip with 50% of keepers. But I do know that VC is outstanding as I had the Tamron 70-300 VC before.

The Tamron does 3 axis, the Nikon only 2. Fact.

Jose Rocha said:
Jose Rocha said:

The Tamron has less "focus breathing." (Not a big deal, but less is better.)

Click to expand...

Yes, and that may be useful for many photographers.

Jose Rocha said:

As another aside, next time I'm going with the Tamron 24-70 VC because my 24-70 Nikon just seems to be a fragile design. I have broken it a few times with VERY little effort. ie. IMHO the Nikon 24-70 should be a much more robust lens than what my experience with it has been considering it's supposed to be a pro workhorse. I don't know if the Tamron 24-70 is a stronger more robust design, I do know that the Nikon just doesn't seem to be "up for it." Just my experience.

Click to expand...

You have broken a Nikon 24-70 with VERY little effort? Wow... are you superman? Then you'll break the Tamron too if you're not careful. I had the Tamron and it's more of a prosumer lens than a professional lens (build-wise).

Qwntm · Oct 9, 2014

PSCL1 said:
To the OP: There are dozens of threads on your choice. I believe human beings still have free will, or at least the illusion of free will; wew can't make you choice for you or talk you into anything.

If you don't buy the Nikon, however, you'll worry about the Tamron or Sigma or whatever for as long as you keep it. So save yourself the grief, spend the grand, and get with the Nikon program. There is always someone touting cheaper alternatives.

Or, try the Tamron, and if it doesn't work out sell it for 95% of what you paid and add a $1000 and buy the Nikon.

Are you a Photographer or a Nikon lens collector fanboy? Anyone can spend money on gear, very few can use that gear to make images that move people. Choose wisely.

Qwntm · Oct 9, 2014

Robert9499 said:
I apologize in advance if this is something that gets posted often, but I am being troubled by the decision here.

I'm an amateur photographer and I mostly do outdoor shooting like wildlife and landscape. When I'm doing indoor shooting, I do portraits and sometimes sports. I'm also a student so the decision-making here is crucial for me as I'm limited as to what I can afford, so I have to choose wisely.
I currently own the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and the body I'm using it on is the D7100. This lens is outstanding for outdoor shooting but for some reason on fast moving subjects (like monkeys jumping and running which is what I mostly shoot) it doesn't focus well enough and as for indoor activities during low-light the lens simply has a hard time focusing on subjects and I'd say 5/10 times the shots are out of focus. I thought it was me but I tested it on a tripod and got the same results.
That being said I'm looking to move onto a more reliable lens with sharper image quality, fast focus and one that's well built. I have a budget of $2,400 and what troubles me is:

-Do I want a lens that can last me a lot of years, can take a beating, it's properly weather sealed and the resale value is high or should I save nearly $1,000 and go for a third-party lens which is almost up there with the Nikon flagship model but it's durability and resale value isn't as strong?
I'm looking here to invest once and not have to end up investing later on a later or better model. If I were to go with the Tamron and save almost $1,000, I can sell my 70-300mm and also buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 because I lack that range of focal length or I can use that extra money and save up for a full frame body like a D610 or if possible a D800E which I plan on moving to within the next years.
What do you folks recommend? - thanks in advance.

Just wanted to add one more thing...

I've have personally owned and shot with professionally the Nikon 70-200 VR Mark I, the Nikon 70-200 VR Mark II, and the Tamron 70-200 VC. Some of the people giving advice may not have had the experience of using all three professionally. Just something to keep in mind.

From my perspective, other than the name on the lens, the user and ownership experience of both the Nikon Mark II and the Tamron are equal. The Nikon Mark I was OK on DX but was not as good on FX as either the Mark II or Tamron. In my experience. You can't go wrong either way is the real answer, all the name calling and blustering notwithstanding.

Robert9499 · Oct 9, 2014

The reason why I wasn't certain as to which lens I should get is because this is the first time that I will be making such a big investment in glass. I've just recently started in photography (around a year and a half now) and I’m slowly stepping up my game because I do plan on growing more and more in photography. I have a limited budget ($2,400) as I previously stated so I wanted to be cautious and precise as to which lens I am going to get so that at the end of the road I wouldn't have to look back and say “I should have gotten that one instead”.

I was faced with two questions:

-Should I spend $2,400 on a Nikon lens that, according to many reviews, is the “best” there is in terms of focusing speed, image quality and low-light performance and build quality?

-Would I be better off saving $1,000 and getting a third-party lens that has all the Nikon lens has to offer with just lesser performance in some aspects?

It pretty much got down to that, what would be the best bang for the buck. I wanted to make a good investment that I could grow and expand with as the years come and not regret the decision later for whatever reason. After reading all of your answers, I decided that my best choice is the Tamron. I will save $1,000 which I can put into a 24-70mm f/2.8 (Tamron, of course) or simply save the money altogether and someday, when I truly need it, upgrade to a full-frame body.

Again, thank you folks for kindly replying in a fast manner and with insightful information.

-Robert

p.s: if any of you have a gallery somewhere with samples photos taken with the Tamron 70-200mm, I’d like to see it if possible!

Tevad · Oct 9, 2014

The last two photos on my website below (of the rapper performing) were taken with the Tamron 70-200 on a D700. It was VERY dimly lit and the lens had no trouble at all.

Posting this reminds me that I need to seriously add to and update the page!

Thanks,

ruifonikon · Oct 9, 2014

Robert9499 said:
The reason why I wasn't certain as to which lens I should get is because this is the first time that I will be making such a big investment in glass. I've just recently started in photography (around a year and a half now) and I’m slowly stepping up my game because I do plan on growing more and more in photography. I have a limited budget ($2,400) as I previously stated so I wanted to be cautious and precise as to which lens I am going to get so that at the end of the road I wouldn't have to look back and say “I should have gotten that one instead”.

I was faced with two questions:

-Should I spend $2,400 on a Nikon lens that, according to many reviews, is the “best” there is in terms of focusing speed, image quality and low-light performance and build quality?

-Would I be better off saving $1,000 and getting a third-party lens that has all the Nikon lens has to offer with just lesser performance in some aspects?

It pretty much got down to that, what would be the best bang for the buck. I wanted to make a good investment that I could grow and expand with as the years come and not regret the decision later for whatever reason. After reading all of your answers, I decided that my best choice is the Tamron. I will save $1,000 which I can put into a 24-70mm f/2.8 (Tamron, of course) or simply save the money altogether and someday, when I truly need it, upgrade to a full-frame body.

Again, thank you folks for kindly replying in a fast manner and with insightful information.

-Robert

p.s: if any of you have a gallery somewhere with samples photos taken with the Tamron 70-200mm, I’d like to see it if possible!

Good choice. You will love it!

My Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC shots:

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

Photos taken with the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

www.flickr.com

Other galleries:

Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USD

This group is only for any photos/videos taken with the Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USD. It's also for discussing however you are happy or not with your lens or if you haven't bought it yet you can join the discussion and ask whatever you need asking before buying.

www.flickr.com

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC

I just bought my Tamron 70-200 2.8 vc after much debate. My reason in making this page is to upload some of my photos taken with this lens as well as having others post their shots with this lens so that it might help someone else when deciding to get a lens of this range. Any type of photo is...

www.flickr.com

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Users

Persons who own or use a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 Lens

www.flickr.com

Tamron 70-200 f2.8

The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!

www.flickr.com

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II

New member

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Active member

New member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New member

Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts