Buying advice: Nikon 70-200 VRII vs Tamron 70-200 G2

StillLearning · Apr 7, 2018

gskolenda said:
It will only be forgotten if your rich. I believe your wrong about reviewers smoking crack, LOL. But I'm going to order both the VRIII and the G2 and compare them for my self, just to be sure.

I had the VRii and is was plenty sharp. Just didn't like the AF tune different at different focal lengths. Picked up the Tamton G2. Optically it was actually a little better because I could adjust focus at different focal lengths and distances. At 16 feet it was the same at all focal lengths but at 60 plus feet it was different for each focal length. Not much but different. I use for people usually between 30 and 60 feet. The difference in focus I am able to get better hair detail then I could with the VRii. Maybe later on I may rent the FL and see what the difference is. Until then the G2 will suffice.

Parry Johnson · Apr 7, 2018

A big thing to consider is the warranty. I've got the VRII, and I believe it's excellent, but any lens (especially one that has had considerable use) will develop problems over time. A basic CLA for that lens will cost you around $220 CDN (Nikon Canada). A new Nikon lens has the same warranty as Tamron (again, in Canada - 5 years), so it's worth consideration. Buy a new one if you can, but there's probably a good reason why the seller of the Nikon wants to get rid of it.

anotherMike · Apr 7, 2018

Yea, you're going to have to see for yourself. I don't get caught up in lens-of-the-month hype or brand names, I'm pretty well known for thorough, real world evaluation without a lot of built in bias, and AF wise, to me, it was a no brainer, and optically, again, in closer ranges, I preferred the Nikon. But if someone were strapped hard financially and had to stretch even just to get into a G2 or used VR2, and the G2 was absolutely the only way they could get into this class/grade of lens, sure, it's a decent lens. Most of the latest generation of Tamron glass has been pretty nice. So it's not like there is a real big "loser" here either...

-m

fishy wishy · Apr 8, 2018

I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

I wasn't especially fond of the build either. Common to that generation style of Tamrons It felt like a hollow eggshell when I tapped it, broad expanses of brittle plastic that felt like they could come off in big chunks if dropped. Not like the tigher 'engineering plastic' of other brands.

Was it Northrup who said he had a 70-200 VC that fell apart in half?

Now I read reports of the G2 being metal but the paint rubbing off quickly and people needing to tape over the buttons to prevent accidental operation.

My complaint with them is not with the theoretical MTF Tamron can achieve, but the way they build them, who knows if they will achieve it.

Leonard Shepherd · Apr 8, 2018

How do testers test focus speed?

It may be an impression of time from minimum focus to infinity.

This type of test has limited value if the minimum focus distances are not the same.

Most lens can "instantly" be made to focus significantly faster than from minimum focus to infinity

Just approximately pre focus and note the dramatic reduction in AF time to AF lock-on compared to minimum focus - infinity.

You have to be quick with a "fast focuser" like the Nikon 70-200 II.

Even my 200 f4 macro focuses fast used this way

Most pro sports photographers have their equipment pre-focussed on where they anticipate action happening: for the obvious reason this is the fastest way to focus lock on with any equipment.

For sports photography focus tracking ability is more important than minimum focus to infinity.

It is rare to see this tested, except with the bicycle rider camera body tests dpreview sometimes do. Even then the testers make the mistake (I presume it is a mistake they do not want to own up to) of using 3D focus tracking which Nikon clearly explain as being intended for side to side movement and not erratic travel toward the camera.

Some mention has been made of the more expensive news Nikon FL.

This comes with 4 AF on or AF-L buttons near the front of the lens which I much prefer to back button focus for sports action.

While there are no guarantees Nikon lens, new or second hand, usually depreciate more slowly than independent brands.

Put another way anybody who makes a purchase decision solely on a test site AF speed/MTF may end up buying second best for their photography.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than the equipment being used.

Logan33 · Apr 8, 2018

Leonard Shepherd said:
How do testers test focus speed?

It may be an impression of time from minimum focus to infinity.

This type of test has limited value if the minimum focus distances are not the same.

Most lens can "instantly" be made to focus significantly faster than from minimum focus to infinity

Just approximately pre focus and note the dramatic reduction in AF time to AF lock-on compared to minimum focus - infinity.

You have to be quick with a "fast focuser" like the Nikon 70-200 II.

Even my 200 f4 macro focuses fast used this way

Most pro sports photographers have their equipment pre-focussed on where they anticipate action happening: for the obvious reason this is the fastest way to focus lock on with any equipment.

For sports photography focus tracking ability is more important than minimum focus to infinity.

It is rare to see this tested, except with the bicycle rider camera body tests dpreview sometimes do. Even then the testers make the mistake (I presume it is a mistake they do not want to own up to) of using 3D focus tracking which Nikon clearly explain as being intended for side to side movement and not erratic travel toward the camera.

Some mention has been made of the more expensive news Nikon FL.

This comes with 4 AF on or AF-L buttons near the front of the lens which I much prefer to back button focus for sports action.

While there are no guarantees Nikon lens, new or second hand, usually depreciate more slowly than independent brands.

Put another way anybody who makes a purchase decision solely on a test site AF speed/MTF may end up buying second best for their photography.

Logan33 · Apr 8, 2018

fishy wishy said:
I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

A lot has changed in the last 6 years. Both Tamron and Sigma had bad QC during those times. I would have never bought a Tamron or Sigma, except that both of them have stepped up their games big time.

PerL · Apr 8, 2018

Logan33 said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

How do testers test focus speed?

It may be an impression of time from minimum focus to infinity.

This type of test has limited value if the minimum focus distances are not the same.

Most lens can "instantly" be made to focus significantly faster than from minimum focus to infinity

Just approximately pre focus and note the dramatic reduction in AF time to AF lock-on compared to minimum focus - infinity.

You have to be quick with a "fast focuser" like the Nikon 70-200 II.

Even my 200 f4 macro focuses fast used this way

Most pro sports photographers have their equipment pre-focussed on where they anticipate action happening: for the obvious reason this is the fastest way to focus lock on with any equipment.

For sports photography focus tracking ability is more important than minimum focus to infinity.

It is rare to see this tested, except with the bicycle rider camera body tests dpreview sometimes do. Even then the testers make the mistake (I presume it is a mistake they do not want to own up to) of using 3D focus tracking which Nikon clearly explain as being intended for side to side movement and not erratic travel toward the camera.

Some mention has been made of the more expensive news Nikon FL.

This comes with 4 AF on or AF-L buttons near the front of the lens which I much prefer to back button focus for sports action.

While there are no guarantees Nikon lens, new or second hand, usually depreciate more slowly than independent brands.

Put another way anybody who makes a purchase decision solely on a test site AF speed/MTF may end up buying second best for their photography.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than the equipment being used.

Click to expand...

Ummm, that VRII, FL, and G2 comparison that I linked a video to tests the AF tracking by having a very fast dog run straight at the shooter. The reviewer actually owns a VRII and says the G2 is better.

Just looked at it – fast forwarded it to the dog test and the conclusion.
The Nikon lenses had 75 (FL) + 81 (VRII) percent in focus, the Tamron lenses had 48 and 67 percent (G2).
What he did say in the conclusion was that the Nikons were faster in AF.
But the stabilisation was better in the Tamrons, which were important to him because he did a lot of video. So based on that and the price/performance he would pick the Tamron G2.

Logan33 said:
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138286972@N07/with/25347182443/

Logan33 · Apr 8, 2018

PerL said:
Just looked at it – fast forwarded it to the dog test and the conclusion.
The Nikon lenses had 75 (FL) + 81 (VRII) percent in focus, the Tamron lenses had 48 and 67 percent (G2).
What he did say in the conclusion was that the Nikons were faster in AF.
But the stabilisation was better in the Tamrons, which were important to him because he did a lot of video. So based on that and the price/performance he would pick the Tamron G2.

I'd expect the old Tamron to be a horrible 48. I expected the difference between the FL at 75% and the G2 at 67% to be larger. I'm surprised the FL was outdone by the VRII. The G2 was sharper than the VRII also but it was negligible until you zoomed in.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138286972@N07/with/25347182443/

fishy wishy · Apr 8, 2018

Logan33 said:
fishy wishy said:

I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

Click to expand...

A lot has changed in the last 6 years. Both Tamron and Sigma had bad QC during those times. I would have never bought a Tamron or Sigma, except that both of them have stepped up their games big time.

Tamron always had the most complaints for quality control issues. More than anyone else they make an economic bet against too many consumers being savvy enough to take them up on their warranty to adjust the lenses properly.

I tested both the 70-200 VC and 70-200 OS. The Sigma was made tighter and more consistently even though it made more extensive use of plastics than before. No matter what paper MTF says, I believe you had more chance of getting the Sigma performing up to that slightly lower MTF than the Tamron to its slightly higher MTF because Tamron are more willing to roll the dice in the way they make things.

Tamron must be laughing up their sleeves now they get away with charging more for the G2 giving users the privilege of calibrating their lenses for them, after buying another piece of equipment in the form of the tap-in console too.

So now it's supposed to be all changed just because they made the materials of their lenses nicer. I was keen to get their 35mm VC but amongst other things I read the following:

Logan33 said:
When we cleaned the contacts of both the camera and the lens, the focusing issues still occurred. But when using the center focusing point, we didn’t see any issues, which means that there is no need to micro-adjust the lens but instead there are just problems.

In a typical situation like this, I’d ask for a better copy of the lens, but pretty much every journalist I’ve talked to is having some sort of issues with it. Some are having more fringing issues than others, some are experiencing super slow AF, and others have other problems.

Logan33 · Apr 8, 2018

fishy wishy said:
Logan33 said:

fishy wishy said:

I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

Click to expand...

A lot has changed in the last 6 years. Both Tamron and Sigma had bad QC during those times. I would have never bought a Tamron or Sigma, except that both of them have stepped up their games big time.

Click to expand...

Tamron always had the most complaints for quality control issues. More than anyone else they make an economic bet against too many consumers being savvy enough to take them up on their warranty to adjust the lenses properly.

I tested both the 70-200 VC and 70-200 OS. The Sigma was made tighter and more consistently even though it made more extensive use of plastics than before. No matter what paper MTF says, I believe you had more chance of getting the Sigma performing up to that slightly lower MTF than the Tamron to its slightly higher MTF because Tamron are more willing to roll the dice in the way they make things.

Tamron must be laughing up their sleeves now they get away with charging more for the G2 giving users the privilege of calibrating their lenses for them, after buying another piece of equipment in the form of the tap-in console too.

So now it's supposed to be all changed just because they made the materials of their lenses nicer. I was keen to get their 35mm VC but amongst other things I read the following:

fishy wishy said:

When we cleaned the contacts of both the camera and the lens, the focusing issues still occurred. But when using the center focusing point, we didn’t see any issues, which means that there is no need to micro-adjust the lens but instead there are just problems.

In a typical situation like this, I’d ask for a better copy of the lens, but pretty much every journalist I’ve talked to is having some sort of issues with it. Some are having more fringing issues than others, some are experiencing super slow AF, and others have other problems.

Click to expand...

Again, you're talking about the old VC 70-200s. The G1 and G2 haven't had the QC issues that previous models had. Sigma was just as bad. When I was buying lens then, I never even considered Tamron or Sigma because of how many QC issues were brought up in forums and by lens rentals. Lensrentals.com even had an article on how bad the Sigma telephoto lens were with QC.

On that 35mm prime, I never looked that lens. If I was buying a third party prime, it would be the Sigma Art lens. I would bet you can't find a single review talking about QC issues with either the G1 or the G2 70-200.

J.J. Wagner | Flickr

www.flickr.com

hikerdoc · Apr 8, 2018

Like many of these reviews there were a lot of qualifiers on statements, "perhaps", "I probably would have (but didn't)", etc. The only absolutes I heard in conclusion were that the FL was "by far" the best of the bunch and that the G2 was "definitely sharper in the corners" than the VRII.

So as always, it comes down to budget and bias. My bias is that accurate focus trumps best VR for video or corner sharpness. Were I to replace my VRII the only one I would consider to be an upgrade would be the FL, and I would save until that was possible. Does anyone know of anyone who planned to purchase the G2, but settled for the VRII or FL?

D

Lihkin · Apr 8, 2018

Hi there,

I would definitely listen to anotherMike as he knows what he is talking about. I had the 70-200 VRII and enjoyed using it, but was never really happy with it. I couldn't really put my finger on what was lacking in the images. I sold it as I felt I wasn't using it enough. Last year I saw a few posts about the 70-200 E Fl and decided to get one for my trip to India (as I was missing that focal range). I can honestly say that this lens is in a league of its own. It gives stunning images - so much so that I was planning to get a Zeiss Milvus 135 ZF.2 and after chatting with Mike, decided not to as the differences were too small. Nikon has been pumping out some great lenses like the E Fl and the 105 E. If they redo the 85 1.4G and the 14-24 mm with similar optics, then I would be purchasing them in a heartbeat.

Here are some of my images with the 70-200 E Fl. I have been very happy and feel you can't go wrong with this lens - thus it's worth saving up for the E Fl. The way I think about it is that we tend to upgrade our cameras every 4 to 5 years and in the process, the camera loses half its value. The lens will last way longer than 5 years and you will still make a good amount of its value when you resell it.

Have fun shopping for your lens (regardless of the brand you end up with).

Barr Lake State Park, CO

Kerala Backwaters, Kerala, India

Denver, CO

Munroe Island, Kerala

Kerala Backwaters, Kerala, India

City Park, Denver, CO

Downtown Denver, CO

Cheers,

---------
Nikhil
http://www.nikhilshahi.com

Logan33 · Apr 8, 2018

hikerdoc said:
Does anyone know of anyone who planned to purchase the G2, but settled for the VRII or FL?

D

If I had found a used VRII for $1k or less then I would have bought it, but the prices were about the same price as a new G2, so that's why I went with the G2.

historianx · Apr 9, 2018

fishy wishy said:
I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

I wasn't especially fond of the build either. Common to that generation style of Tamrons It felt like a hollow eggshell when I tapped it, broad expanses of brittle plastic that felt like they could come off in big chunks if dropped. Not like the tigher 'engineering plastic' of other brands.

Was it Northrup who said he had a 70-200 VC that fell apart in half?

Now I read reports of the G2 being metal but the paint rubbing off quickly and people needing to tape over the buttons to prevent accidental operation.

My complaint with them is not with the theoretical MTF Tamron can achieve, but the way they build them, who knows if they will achieve it.

Yeah I recently handled one in my local mom and pop store, and was NOT impressed with the build quality. Besides, I avoid "dust pumper" zooms if all possible.

To top it off, the Tamron rep kept telling me that Tamron makes the glass for Nikon zooms, to which I chortled lightly and said "right, ok." :-|

anotherMike · Apr 9, 2018

Man, those reps...

Tamron *did* design (and probably make) the 10-24 DX of Nikons outright, and probably the 70-300 too, and for sure the old 14/2.8 prime, so there is some cross polination going on, but any of the serious Nikon lenses (any 70-200/2.8) is using Hikari glass for the most part (Nikon sub) although there's an Ohara element (canon) in the 14-24. Not that it makes that much difference though...

-m

Parry Johnson · Apr 9, 2018

Member said:
To top it off, the Tamron rep kept telling me that Tamron makes the glass for Nikon zooms, to which I chortled lightly and said "right, ok." :-|

anotherMike · Apr 9, 2018

The amount of cross polination is surprising.

The 24/1.8G Nikkor wasn't designed by Nikon; done by Konica/Minolta

The 10-24 Nikon was a Tamron design, and possibly Tamron build

The 14/2.8 Nikon is a Tamron design, possibly Tamron build

In other brands, one of (or more) of the fancy high end Olympus m4/3 lenses was designed by Sigma (much to the ire of the typical m4/3 fanboy who thinks the sun rises and sets on their brand and format alone of course)

Tamron has done more than we probably know, moreso probably than Sigma. I've heard that Tamron has a relationship with many vendors which gives them access to their AF algorithms that Sigma doesn't have (whether or not that's true, I don't know)

In short, the label on the barrel doesn't always mean that's who did the design, or even whether that company did the glass. In terms of glass, in Japan it's Ohara, Hoya and Hikari, with Schott in Germany. I've heard Cosina has some of their own glass as well, but I don't recall seeing a catalog, so I'm less sure on that one.

Not the kind of thing a brand fan boy likes to hear, but I'm getting the feeling it happens more often than we think.

-m

Logan33 · Apr 10, 2018

anotherMike said:
In other brands, one of (or more) of the fancy high end Olympus m4/3 lenses was designed by Sigma (much to the ire of the typical m4/3 fanboy who thinks the sun rises and sets on their brand and format alone of course)

I shoot Olympus too and migrate over to those forums often. I haven't seen that level of cognitive dissonance and fanboyism since I used to peruse the Pentax forums back in the day. I absolutely love my Olympus and understand it's limitations but prepare to be stoned and flogged if you bring up those limitations in those forums.

fishy wishy · Apr 10, 2018

Logan33 said:
fishy wishy said:

Logan33 said:

fishy wishy said:

I hope it is better than the 70-200 VC I tried.

It was a common 'bad copy' that Tamron was notorious for with their lax QC.

Click to expand...

A lot has changed in the last 6 years. Both Tamron and Sigma had bad QC during those times. I would have never bought a Tamron or Sigma, except that both of them have stepped up their games big time.

Click to expand...

Tamron always had the most complaints for quality control issues. More than anyone else they make an economic bet against too many consumers being savvy enough to take them up on their warranty to adjust the lenses properly.

I tested both the 70-200 VC and 70-200 OS. The Sigma was made tighter and more consistently even though it made more extensive use of plastics than before. No matter what paper MTF says, I believe you had more chance of getting the Sigma performing up to that slightly lower MTF than the Tamron to its slightly higher MTF because Tamron are more willing to roll the dice in the way they make things.

Tamron must be laughing up their sleeves now they get away with charging more for the G2 giving users the privilege of calibrating their lenses for them, after buying another piece of equipment in the form of the tap-in console too.

So now it's supposed to be all changed just because they made the materials of their lenses nicer. I was keen to get their 35mm VC but amongst other things I read the following:

Logan33 said:

When we cleaned the contacts of both the camera and the lens, the focusing issues still occurred. But when using the center focusing point, we didn’t see any issues, which means that there is no need to micro-adjust the lens but instead there are just problems.

In a typical situation like this, I’d ask for a better copy of the lens, but pretty much every journalist I’ve talked to is having some sort of issues with it. Some are having more fringing issues than others, some are experiencing super slow AF, and others have other problems.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again, you're talking about the old VC 70-200s. The G1 and G2 haven't had the QC issues that previous models had. Sigma was just as bad. When I was buying lens then, I never even considered Tamron or Sigma because of how many QC issues were brought up in forums and by lens rentals. Lensrentals.com even had an article on how bad the Sigma telephoto lens were with QC.

On that 35mm prime, I never looked that lens. If I was buying a third party prime, it would be the Sigma Art lens. I would bet you can't find a single review talking about QC issues with either the G1 or the G2 70-200.

I don't see evidence you know what you're writing about from experience rather than reading on the internet unfortunately. Maybe you had one Tamron lens, maybe two. There are enough user reports on problems with the 70-200 VC that it's odd you give no weight to.

Apart from anything else, there was no G1 Tamron lens. It was never called that. Please can we get away from you being precious about your own lens? The issue is bigger than that. It's about a company that forces the burden of basic testing and calibration on the end user.

I've bought lenses, I've sold lenses. Used and first hand. Whilst Sigma and Tamron both had a bad reputation, Sigma's was mainly for just being the poor man's lower quality optics, Tamron the one that had the most variability.

It's also been an open secret that Tamron both designed and built lenses for other manufacturers. I can see why manufacturers fall for it, Tamron can probably knock out a plastic lens cheaper than anybody else at this point and that means bigger profit margins for the other manufacturers in rebadging them, look at the price of the rebadged lenses for Pentax and Sony. That doesn't make what they Tamron do good though.

Buying advice: Nikon 70-200 VRII vs Tamron 70-200 G2

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

historianx

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts