mark_loader Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Hi,guys...thinking about the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for my Nikon D80- whaddya reckon? Here in Oz the Nikon equivalent is three times as much so unfortunately it's out of the question. The Tamron has garnered promising reviews so far, but have any of you folks tried/bought one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veeee Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I thought the same...so I bought the Tamron, In a photo shoot the sucker locked up on my upto 3 times different days...it also hunts in low light..quality is maybe near the Nikon..but build and performance 5 x less...I sold it a week later and picked up a used Nikon for around a $1000. After using the Tamron you can feel the speed of the Nikon scream to be pushed to the limit, even in low light she never blinks..and never calls in sick with a lock up .. Listen if you shooting flowers sure go for the Tamron I would too, but if timing is critical like for me at weddings and photoshoots I can't afford a locking up lens or hunting lens. Picture quality wise they are very close even the review say that, but performance is another thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veeee Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Forgot to mention I got it used thats why $1000 otherwise its around $1600..plus tax in Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arun_seetharam Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Are you serious maite!! Three times the cost here? Wohaao!! Take a look at this... http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23 Why not Sigma?? It seems comparable.....take a look at these... http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/325-sigma-af-70-200mm-f28-ex-hsm-apo-dg-macro-nikon-review-- test-report also http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/217/cat/31 In general.....Me thinks the the quality of materials these guys use cant match upto Nikon.....Works great for a few years.....before developing some shake or losing a seal gasket or something....you know.... How about Nikon 80-200 ED AF-D? Too expensive also? I am sure there are some big boys here who could chip in their valuable opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_poel Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Veej, where did you find a used 70-200 VR? If you don't mind me asking. I'm Canadian too and I'd love to find one used rather than pay $1680 at Henry's for a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veeee Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 You know what guys...I'm really sorry I thought Mark was talking about the 17-55 2.8 Tamron/Nikon....so my review is about that but I guess its still relevant. I did although get the 70-200 2.8 non VR used for around $500 which sells for around $1000 plus Tax. and thet 17-55 2.8 Nikkor for around $1000 on Craigs...(my favourite lens man this baby is a speed demon) In good light like the store light you may not find the difference between 3rd party lenses and Nikkor but once in low light...the F@#@ing Tamron will drive you nuts... All in all I stay away from 3rd Party lenses after my near death experiance with them...I'd rather wait and save or buy a used Nikkor glass which may cost even more than a new Sigma and Tamron...I find the quality in pics may come near to Nikkor but the performance can't be matched at all... and if you miss the shot..than there is no comparison...like I said if shooting Flowers your OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veeee Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Jay...Sorry man I have the non VR version got that for around 5 bills on Craigs List...I've heard that spending on VR is not much worth it cause the lens is fast enough and in people photography you don't need to hand hold it that long... If shooting for Zoo or Wild Life I had the 70-300 variable VR, since your shooting outside light is not a problem and it was an excellent lens I might buy it back used from some one one day, I sold it to make money to buy 17-55 2.8 Nikkor....I had to sell the Tamron and the 70-300 VR to make money for the beast...but I am happy that I got rid of the Tamron with-out loosing too much money...I only had it for 2 weeks, and could'nt return it to Henrys..so lost around 1 bill which I say is the learning experiance... When I started out I used alot of the 3rd party lenses, but realize now that if time is of the essence you can't rely on these boys...like I said shooting flowers or non-critical hobby stuff they are good, but if you trying to make money with your gear that noooo way... I've found some Pros walking on paid jobs with 3rd party lenses, right away that signals something to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 veej, i can't say i've had the same experience with the tamron. i use it in low-light situations all the time (concerts/live performance, mostly). i'm sure the nikon is faster but i can't say excessive hunting has been a problem. it's never locked up on me either. and i see plenty of pros with the 17-50 or 28-75 tamrons, both canonites and nikonians. sorry you had a bad experience, but i think you're laying it on a bit thick.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veeee Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Hi Eric, I don't say excessive hunting, but hunting..the nikon hardly hunts in low light it grabs on fast, believe me I was pro 3rd party lenses at one time until I had the lock up plus when shooting for clients I don't want to miss any shot I see becuase of a little hunting or the dreadfull Lock-Up, try a google I even read this online about some haveing the same problem with the Tamron. I believe when someone is paying you good money to record their event personaly I think you should be using top gear not something that may make you miss that moment, those clients may never know you missed that fleeting glimps or expression on their dear loved ones face cause your lens didn't focus as fast or locked up!! but to me if I'm charging I feel I need to give them all I can. And when your using this as business gear the price is not that substantial. As I said image quality wise they may both be very close, but speed the Nikon kills all the way in low light, try the Nikon out sometime, you can usually rent them for a low cost, believe me its a whole different beast. Sure Like I say if shooting Flowers go for the Tamron...save your money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 veej, i think it comes down to style somewhat. granted, the 17-55 is the wedding pro workhorse, but i dont shoot weddings, i do more street/doc/pj/events. a lot of times it's about shooting quick fast and dirty, lotsa manuevering in tight spaces. get in, get out, not a lot of time to set up shots. the 17-50 is actually perfect for that because of its light weight, high IQ, and general inobtrusiveness. AF speed has not been a problem so far, although as i said earlier, i am sure the nikon is faster. i wouldnt relegate the 17-50 just to shooting flowers (ouch!), although, getting back to the original topic the OP posted, if i was looking at 70-200s, i'd be wary of the tamron for anything other than portraits/landscapes. it doesnt appear to be able to keep up with sports/action very well from what i've seen/read. but IQ looks pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_smith23 Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Mark, I have the Tamron 70-200 and I think it's a good, but not quite great lens. First and foremost, I love the lens for its optical quality and handling. It really has minimal distortion, and very good contrast. Where it lacks is focusing. The focusing is very fast and very accurate...down to a certain lighting level. I haven't taken a lux measurement, but usually its when I'm pushing ISO 1600 and shutter speeds longer than 1/60 (which means we're already thinking about a tripod or monopod). I've also noticed that it performs significantly better on the center focal point (for both the D50 and D90), than on the non-cross-type sensors. I've compared it to few Nikkors, notably the 18-200 VR and the 70-300 VR. Focusing is not quite as fast as either Nikkor, which is expected given the more basic focusing motor. In daylight conditions, it's still pretty fast. IQ is solidly better than the 18-200 VR and, in my perspective, better than the 70-300 VR, although at f/8, its close. At f/2.8 optically its very good, moving toward excellent by f/4 (note this my own interpretation, I don't tend to bother with MTF or optical detail charts). The other missing component on this lens is VR. Obviously, you know what you're buying, but VR can definitely spoil a photographer (especially an amateur like me). With good handling technique and a good tripod, this can be overcome, but it's something to think about. I bought it for portraits and low light concerts where the f/5.6 just wasn't enough. For those purposes now, I'd probably buy it again. I dismissed the comparable sigma because of quality concerns and back-focus issues, and figured that if the Tamron wasn't good enough, I'd return it. I'd hesitate to recommend it for you fully without knowing what you want it for..., but I really enjoy it, especially with the D90. -- Kevin D90, D50, 18-200 VR, 70-300 VR, Tamron 70-200, 50 f/1.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now