Tamron 70-200 vs Nikon 70-200

<p>I am thinking about purchasing one of the two lens and I am looking for any feedback I can get regarding the two lens. I am leaning toward the Tamron ($700) lens over the Nikon ($2,300)...<br>

Except for the name and price difference, will I really be able to tell or see the difference between the two lens......</p>

<p>W.C.</p>

<p>Without any further info regarding your regular subjects, your camera, etc. I would also advise you to look at the (older) Nikon 80-200/2.8 lenses. I have the (oldest?) push/pull version, and have never been happier with any lens. For the first time I really saw a difference (read: improvement) over all my other lenses regarding contrast and colour rendition. They don't have VR, so if that's a feature you want, just ignore this. Otherwise they may be real bargains...</p>

<p>(just so you may be able to compare; my other lenses are/were a Tokina 50-135/2.8, Tokina 12-24/4, Tamron17-50/2.8, Nikon 10.5/2.8 fisheye, Nikon 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 70-300/4.5~5.6 and several others that I borrowed or owned for a while).</p>

<p>Will you be using this daily, knocking it around in a professoinal capacity? Shooting sports while sometimes out in the mud and rain? On which camera body?<br /><br />Need some more to go on, here.</p>

<p>I've used both of them a number of times. To me both are just as sharp, I can't see a difference as far as that goes. When it comes to AF, Nikon is in a class by itself. The Tamaron is not even close to being as fast as the Nikon for AF. The Nikon locks on and stays locked. The Tamron is well built and tough. The Nikon is tougher, but you are paying for that to. I do a lot of birds in flight shooting, so I go with the Nikon for fast action shooting. For slower wildlife or weddings the Tamron works great. If the Nikon is sharper, it's not $1,500 sharper IMHO. So bottom line, it depends on what you are shooting.</p>

<p>Just to add a little bit more info.......</p>

<p>I typically take sport/action shot..... I take alot pics of my kids soccer games and usually do motorcycle racing pics......<br>

I currently have a D300 and a D40, and I have a 70-200 f4 Nikon lens... and I just picked up a 50mm 1.8 lens, <br>

Also have kids, so a well built strong/tough lens is definitely important to me.....</p>

<p>W.C.</p>

<p>I can't speak for this particular Tamron lens, but I do own both Nikon and Tamron lenses. I have been very happy with sharpness and contrast of my Tamron lenses but the AF is noisy and slow. Both of them will hunt in bright daylight. I will admit to <em>almost</em> chucking both of them across the room on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry that I bought them because I needed lenses in those ranges and could not afford their Nikon counterparts. That being said, I shoot at least 2X a week and lots of that is wildlife. I have lost more than one shot to the Tamron's AF. Which brand will work for you really depends on what kind of shooting you do. Tamron is a good value for the money. Both of mine are well built and deliver nice images. The AF just drives me nuts. FWIW I have a Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro, Tamron 200-500 f/5.6-6.3, Nikon 50 f/1.8 & Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. I also used to have a Nikon 28-80 G F/3.5-5.6 and a Nikon 80-200 D f/3.5-5.6. </p>

<p>If shooting action/sports, you will not like the Tamron. Save up for the Nikon. As Katherine said, as did I, Tamron AF is not for action shooting.</p>

<p>I agree with Mike about Tamron. The Tam 90 2.8 macro is the only non Nikon lens I own, and while it is superbly sharp, the AF hunting drives me crazy at times, to the point that when I use it I get the focus close manually before letting the AF do its thing. I also own one of the older Nikon 80-200 2.8s, and on my camera (D200) it focuses quickly, doesn't hunt much at all, and is nearly as sharp as the Tamron macro. I don't know much about the Tamron 70-200 but based on my experience with the 90, I'd prefer a used Nikon 80-200 to a new Tamron 70-200.</p>

<p>I have not used the Tamron lenses in question, but this only fair comparison in the context of this thread is the Tamron 70-200mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if you use slow Tamron lenses such as the 500mm/f6.3 zoom, of course AF is slow. Nikon's AF is not even designed for lenses slower than f5.6 and Nikon themselves does not make anything slower that is AF.</p>

<p>I am using Sigma 70-200 version II and I am very happy with it.<br>

I rearly use it as most of my shots are done with 17-55 but it's a great lens for the money.<br>

I had a previous version and it had focusing issues like front focusing and the focus would sometimes jam.<br>

I sent it back and got the newer version - couldn't be happier.</p>

<p>if you're trying to shoot sports/action on a budget, i would not look at the tamron 70-200... instead i'd look at the sigma 50-150 and 70-200. i have the 50-150 and the AF is super-quick on a d300, with very good IQ at f/4 and beyond. the 70-200 also has HSM and a bit more reach but may or may not have as good IQ. as far as the tamron 70-200, for landscape and still portraits, it's a great value. for anything where AF makes a difference, you don't want it.</p>

<p>According to Lens Rentals' repair data, the Tamron 70-200 has a very high faillure rate:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35</a><br>

Lens Rentals says here that on an annual basis, over 41% of the Tamron 70-200 lenses they have available for rent needed repair, the focusing and zoom mechanisms being the main culprits. The Sigma 70-200 didn't fare any better in their experience.<br>

Obviously Lens Rentals' lenses have it harder than optics which are only casually used by careful amateurs, yet their data says something about expected long-term reliability.<br>

I second the suggestion for a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.</p>