Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Robert,

Here are a few photos from a college football game. In some of them, I was on the opposite side of the field from the action. There are some at 70mm and some at 200mm. All of these are SOOC, except for Lightroom changing them from RAW files to JPGs and then posted here. No other processing was done.



Pretty much head-on taken from the end zone.
Pretty much head-on taken from the end zone.



Another one, close to head on, but off at a slight angle.
Another one, close to head on, but off at a slight angle.



Coming right at me, zoomed out to 70mm, and still tracking quick and accurate.
Coming right at me, zoomed out to 70mm, and still tracking quick and accurate.



Included just to show how it did all the way across the field, I believe at 200mm.
Included just to show how it did all the way across the field, I believe at 200mm.

I have other samples from bike racing that are on the site, but I couldn't tell you offhand which ones were with the 70-200 and which with one of two other lenses without spending some time to look at that. Feel free to look at that site, though.

Hope this helps,

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com
 
Qwntm said:
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.
Click to expand...
DXo Mark and Photozone disagree. The VC is particularly pointed out as better than Nikon.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in several review sites, not only DxO. You have to see how a lens performs when shooting targets at different distances.

Also, VC is terrific, but so does VR II, at least in my experience with 70-200 VR II and Tamron 70-300 VC. Both gave equal performance (4 stops). The difference is that VR is way smoother than VC - VC freezes the image instantly and VR needs a couple seconds to stabilize.
Qwntm said:
Speed and handling are as good or better.
Qwntm 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.
Click to expand...
You can doubt all you want but the tests and many user reviews particularly mention the Tamron is as fast or faster...
Click to expand...
I can say the same thing but to Nikkor's advantage. You can place links here to reviews where you red that.
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
Qwntm 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.
Click to expand...
The Tamron does 3 axis, the Nikon only 2. Fact.
Click to expand...
That's a fact. But doesn't mean that VC is more effective. Might be, in a future release.
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
Qwntm 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.
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.
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).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have used the Tamron, owned Sigma versions and now own the Nikon. This is my opinion. You should not invest in any 2.8 lens if you don't plan to shoot it at 2.8. The Nikon is just flat out better at 2.8. You can debate how much better, but it's better. You can say buy the Nikon f4 version...it's not good at 2.8 because it can't shoot at 2.8. If you shoot 200mm at minimum focus distance and that's important to you then focus breathing is an issue...move on to another lens or live with it.

For me, there was always a thought in the back of my head that I should have went with the Nikon and ultimately did. If money is an object then do what you can afford. The Tamron is great value for the money.

Here is 100% crop at 2.8

 
scokill said:
I have used the Tamron, owned Sigma versions and now own the Nikon. This is my opinion. You should not invest in any 2.8 lens if you don't plan to shoot it at 2.8. The Nikon is just flat out better at 2.8. You can debate how much better, but it's better. You can say buy the Nikon f4 version...it's not good at 2.8 because it can't shoot at 2.8. If you shoot 200mm at minimum focus distance and that's important to you then focus breathing is an issue...move on to another lens or live with it.

For me, there was always a thought in the back of my head that I should have went with the Nikon and ultimately did. If money is an object then do what you can afford. The Tamron is great value for the money.

Here is 100% crop at 2.8

Click to expand...
scokill,

There's another reason to buy an f2.8 lens and shoot at an aperture OTHER than f2.8: most lenses perform BETTER stopped down a bit than wide open. If you're starting at f4, then you don't get there until f5.6 or greater. If you're starting at f2.8, then you're there at f4. Better isolation, but DOF (depending on the subject, use, distance, etc.), and faster shutter speed at a lower ISO.

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com
 
greenmanphoto said:
scokill said:
I have used the Tamron, owned Sigma versions and now own the Nikon. This is my opinion. You should not invest in any 2.8 lens if you don't plan to shoot it at 2.8. The Nikon is just flat out better at 2.8. You can debate how much better, but it's better. You can say buy the Nikon f4 version...it's not good at 2.8 because it can't shoot at 2.8. If you shoot 200mm at minimum focus distance and that's important to you then focus breathing is an issue...move on to another lens or live with it.

For me, there was always a thought in the back of my head that I should have went with the Nikon and ultimately did. If money is an object then do what you can afford. The Tamron is great value for the money.

Here is 100% crop at 2.8

Click to expand...
scokill,

There's another reason to buy an f2.8 lens and shoot at an aperture OTHER than f2.8: most lenses perform BETTER stopped down a bit than wide open. If you're starting at f4, then you don't get there until f5.6 or greater. If you're starting at f2.8, then you're there at f4. Better isolation, but DOF (depending on the subject, use, distance, etc.), and faster shutter speed at a lower ISO.

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com
Click to expand...
Point still remains. That is aways the argument from folks with 3rd party lenses in this range. I was one of them. When I'm shooting at ISO 3200 @ 2.8 vs another guy shooting with 6400 @ f4, or motion blur with reduced shutter speed , or softness @2.8 it's worth an additional $1,000. If thats OK with some on the value end that's great. I agree there probably isn't that much difference stopped down.
 
jonmcguffinphoto said:
. Of course there is always another option you could take which is to get the Nikon 70-200 F4 :)
Click to expand...
I have to give another strong vote for the Nikon F4. Everything about it is stellar, and pin sharp. The VR works, even for shaky hands like mine.
 
I have owned both and shot them on a D800E and now D810. With extreme pixel peeping, the Nikon seems ever so slightly better wide-open at the longer focal lengths. Under normal circumstances, you will not see a big difference.

I kept the Nikon because it is built like a tank and i just like the tactile feel of the lens. One annoying thing about the Nikon version is the extreme focus breathing. At shorter distances, it is actually a 135mm lens; whereas, the Tamron is closer to 180mm.

You cannot go wrong with either lens.
 
scokill said:
scokill said:
scokill said:
I have used the Tamron, owned Sigma versions and now own the Nikon. This is my opinion. You should not invest in any 2.8 lens if you don't plan to shoot it at 2.8. The Nikon is just flat out better at 2.8. You can debate how much better, but it's better. You can say buy the Nikon f4 version...it's not good at 2.8 because it can't shoot at 2.8. If you shoot 200mm at minimum focus distance and that's important to you then focus breathing is an issue...move on to another lens or live with it.

For me, there was always a thought in the back of my head that I should have went with the Nikon and ultimately did. If money is an object then do what you can afford. The Tamron is great value for the money.

Here is 100% crop at 2.8

Click to expand...
scokill,

There's another reason to buy an f2.8 lens and shoot at an aperture OTHER than f2.8: most lenses perform BETTER stopped down a bit than wide open. If you're starting at f4, then you don't get there until f5.6 or greater. If you're starting at f2.8, then you're there at f4. Better isolation, but DOF (depending on the subject, use, distance, etc.), and faster shutter speed at a lower ISO.

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com
Click to expand...
Point still remains. That is aways the argument from folks with 3rd party lenses in this range. I was one of them. When I'm shooting at ISO 3200 @ 2.8 vs another guy shooting with 6400 @ f4, or motion blur with reduced shutter speed , or softness @2.8 it's worth an additional $1,000. If thats OK with some on the value end that's great. I agree there probably isn't that much difference stopped down.
Click to expand...
Assuming your right, and DXO Mark got a different result than you did, the Tamron is still commercially great at f2.8. You wouldn't see a difference shooting a job with either lens, so at that point who cares.

And having shot the 70-200mm MII Nikon and and now the Tamron VC, I don't miss the Nikon AT ALL. The Tamron would have gone back to the store if it wasn't providing 100% satisfactory results as compared to the Nikon 70-200 MII I used to own.

The things you are saying are usually said by people who spent $1000 they didn't need to spend. (Anyone can play that game. LOL)

--
Edward
www.youtube.com/photouniverse
www.edwardthomasart.com
www.pbase.com/edwardthomas
 
I examined each and every one of the sample shots you folks provided and the results were outstanding. I'm confident that the lens will work fine and the extra $1,000 will be put to good use elsewhere. As of today, I am moving forward to FF and my options are D610, D750 or D810.

Thank you for helping me come to a decision, I will post back when I get the lens (which should be in around one more week!)

-Robert
 
Robert9499 said:
I examined each and every one of the sample shots you folks provided and the results were outstanding. I'm confident that the lens will work fine and the extra $1,000 will be put to good use elsewhere. As of today, I am moving forward to FF and my options are D610, D750 or D810.
Click to expand...
That $1000 will certainly go a LONG way towards these cameras, particularly the D610! As for which of these is best, CAREFULLY consider what you're shooting and your computer situation. The D810 requires EXACTING shooting standards and skills (handholding isn't always a good idea, and tripod with mirror lockup is better for those shots where you can do so, which isn't always the case), and also requires a LOT of computer storage space, as well as a relatively new system to handle the file sizes. Others can speak more to this than I as I don't have the camera and am only going by what I've read of it.
Robert9499 said:
Thank you for helping me come to a decision, I will post back when I get the lens (which should be in around one more week!)
-Robert
Click to expand...
Let us know what you think of the lens, as well as which camera you opt for when that time comes.

Good luck and enjoy!

Sam
 
greenmanphoto said:
Robert9499 said:
I examined each and every one of the sample shots you folks provided and the results were outstanding. I'm confident that the lens will work fine and the extra $1,000 will be put to good use elsewhere. As of today, I am moving forward to FF and my options are D610, D750 or D810.
Click to expand...
That $1000 will certainly go a LONG way towards these cameras, particularly the D610! As for which of these is best, CAREFULLY consider what you're shooting and your computer situation. The D810 requires EXACTING shooting standards and skills (handholding isn't always a good idea, and tripod with mirror lockup is better for those shots where you can do so, which isn't always the case), and also requires a LOT of computer storage space, as well as a relatively new system to handle the file sizes. Others can speak more to this than I as I don't have the camera and am only going by what I've read of it.
greenmanphoto said:
Thank you for helping me come to a decision, I will post back when I get the lens (which should be in around one more week!)
-Robert
Click to expand...
Let us know what you think of the lens, as well as which camera you opt for when that time comes.

Good luck and enjoy!

Sam
Click to expand...
You can handhold a D810 all day long... you just can't enlarge the photos as much. The point being that if you are going to pixel peep at 200% then you need to use a tripod, mirror up and use great lenses like the Tamron 70-200 VC.

If you just want to take snapshots also, just do it. They are still sharp, but not at 200% view. Maybe only 75% view or a 11x14 print, and not a 30x40 inch print. Make sense? To put it another way, it's not like the handheld quick grab shots are a blurry mess, they are just not 100% of what a D810 can give you.

Loading…

www.pbase.com
 
Last edited:
Qwntm said:
scokill said:
Qwntm said:
scokill said:
I have used the Tamron, owned Sigma versions and now own the Nikon. This is my opinion. You should not invest in any 2.8 lens if you don't plan to shoot it at 2.8. The Nikon is just flat out better at 2.8. You can debate how much better, but it's better. You can say buy the Nikon f4 version...it's not good at 2.8 because it can't shoot at 2.8. If you shoot 200mm at minimum focus distance and that's important to you then focus breathing is an issue...move on to another lens or live with it.

For me, there was always a thought in the back of my head that I should have went with the Nikon and ultimately did. If money is an object then do what you can afford. The Tamron is great value for the money.

Here is 100% crop at 2.8

Click to expand...
scokill,

There's another reason to buy an f2.8 lens and shoot at an aperture OTHER than f2.8: most lenses perform BETTER stopped down a bit than wide open. If you're starting at f4, then you don't get there until f5.6 or greater. If you're starting at f2.8, then you're there at f4. Better isolation, but DOF (depending on the subject, use, distance, etc.), and faster shutter speed at a lower ISO.

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com
Click to expand...
Point still remains. That is aways the argument from folks with 3rd party lenses in this range. I was one of them. When I'm shooting at ISO 3200 @ 2.8 vs another guy shooting with 6400 @ f4, or motion blur with reduced shutter speed , or softness @2.8 it's worth an additional $1,000. If thats OK with some on the value end that's great. I agree there probably isn't that much difference stopped down.
Click to expand...
Assuming your right, and DXO Mark got a different result than you did, the Tamron is still commercially great at f2.8. You wouldn't see a difference shooting a job with either lens, so at that point who cares.

And having shot the 70-200mm MII Nikon and and now the Tamron VC, I don't miss the Nikon AT ALL. The Tamron would have gone back to the store if it wasn't providing 100% satisfactory results as compared to the Nikon 70-200 MII I used to own.

The things you are saying are usually said by people who spent $1000 they didn't need to spend. (Anyone can play that game. LOL)

--
Edward
www.youtube.com/photouniverse
www.edwardthomasart.com
www.pbase.com/edwardthomas
Click to expand...
Agreed that Tamron is a great lens and is a great value. Dxomark is an outlier with its test results with others noting that performance suffers at 2.8 starting at 135mm and is worse at 200mm. All lenses have their weaknesses. The Nikon suffers from focus breathing but if you don't shoot at those focus distances it's not an issue, and the Tamron is short of 200mm too. The other issue with both Sigma and Tamron is quality assurance. This is pointed out by many. Problems with VC and focus have been an issue..perhaps they have tightened this up. I'll have to rent the Tamron and give it a shot.
 
Last edited:
scokill said:
Agreed that Tamron is a great lens and is a great value. Dxomark is an outlier with it's test results with others noting that performance suffers at 2.8 starting at 135mm and is worse at 200mm. All lenses have their weaknesses. The Nikon suffers from focus breathing but if you don't shoot at those focus distances it's not an issue, and the Tamron is short of 200mm too. The other issue with both Sigma and Tamron is quality assurance. This is pointed out by many. Problems with VC and focus have been an issue..perhaps they have tightened this up. I'll have to rent the Tamron and give it a shot.
Click to expand...
Only the older version suffers at f/2.8 from 135mm onwards. The newer one does NOT face these issues. The old version reads "Tamron SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro", while the new version reads "Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD". The new version is considered by DxO the best zoom lens for the D800/D800E/D810 family, and that means something.

Here's the DxO link comparing the old and the new version together, at the D810:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...Nikon-on-Nikon-D810___1028_963_623_963#tabs-2

Here are some sample shots of mine with the D810 and the Tamron (newer version):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/sets/72157641188279093/

--

________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
 
greenmanphoto said:
Robert9499 said:
I examined each and every one of the sample shots you folks provided and the results were outstanding. I'm confident that the lens will work fine and the extra $1,000 will be put to good use elsewhere. As of today, I am moving forward to FF and my options are D610, D750 or D810.
Click to expand...
That $1000 will certainly go a LONG way towards these cameras, particularly the D610! As for which of these is best, CAREFULLY consider what you're shooting and your computer situation. The D810 requires EXACTING shooting standards and skills (handholding isn't always a good idea, and tripod with mirror lockup is better for those shots where you can do so, which isn't always the case), and also requires a LOT of computer storage space, as well as a relatively new system to handle the file sizes. Others can speak more to this than I as I don't have the camera and am only going by what I've read of it.
greenmanphoto said:
Thank you for helping me come to a decision, I will post back when I get the lens (which should be in around one more week!)
-Robert
Click to expand...
Let us know what you think of the lens, as well as which camera you opt for when that time comes.

Good luck and enjoy!

Sam
Click to expand...
 
helltormentor said:
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.

--
________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/
Click to expand...
Did you notice any lens mount "play"? Some people say that there is a play when the lens is mounted on the body but I never saw a video showing this problem. Have you ever used the Nikon 70-200f4? If yes, how did you find it compared to the Tamron 70-200f2.8 apart from the maximum aperture difference?
Click to expand...
Not really. I use the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC with both a D810 and a D5200, and I never saw any lens/body mount "play" with these two bodies. And no, I have not used the Nikon 70-200 f/4 yet. I am very happy with the Tamron, so I will stick with it for a long time, for sure.

--
________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/
 
Last edited:
helltormentor said:
Did you notice any lens mount "play"? Some people say that there is a play when the lens is mounted on the body but I never saw a video showing this problem. Have you ever used the Nikon 70-200f4? If yes, how did you find it compared to the Tamron 70-200f2.8 apart from the maximum aperture difference?
Click to expand...
When I was in the local store, I tried both the Nikkor f4 and the Tamron f2.8. I tried them inside the store, zooming and moving around, focusing on different things. Then, I went outside and tried them, as well. I stood on the side of the street, shooting at oncoming traffic. I found the Tamron focused quicker and more accurately, with less hunting, than the Nikkor. Considering there was a $100 rebate at that time on the Tamron (as there is currently), and it came with a tripod foot, which the Nikkor lacked, it was an easy decision, FOR ME. It may not be for someone else. And I've been VERY happy with it, as well!

Sam
 
scokill said:
Agreed that Tamron is a great lens and is a great value. Dxomark is an outlier with its test results with others noting that performance suffers at 2.8 starting at 135mm and is worse at 200mm. All lenses have their weaknesses. The Nikon suffers from focus breathing but if you don't shoot at those focus distances it's not an issue, and the Tamron is short of 200mm too. The other issue with both Sigma and Tamron is quality assurance. This is pointed out by many. Problems with VC and focus have been an issue..perhaps they have tightened this up. I'll have to rent the Tamron and give it a shot.
Click to expand...
Quality control IS a concern with the Tamron. (Nikon too, though to be fair these days.) I would and have tested my lens and it's sharp. But I would not be surprised by variations in samples. More so with Tamron than Nikon. But I don't really trust anyone anymore. Back in the 1980's you could buy a Nikon lens and just go use it. Those days are long gone!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top