Nikon 70-300 ED vs Tamron 70-300 LD

[sarkar]

I was looking at the Nikon AF-D 70-300/4-5.6 ED lens when I came to

know from a friend that Tamron makes a similar lens

(http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70300mm_lg.asp) which not only

costs $100 less, but also has a 1:2 macro. He also told me that it is

whispered that the Nikon lens is actually made by Tamron and has

virtually similar construction/design. While I'm not inclined to

believe the whisper, I don't really care for brandname much and would

buy the Tamron if it a lens of similar quality as the Nikon. Does

anybody have experience with the lenses? How does the Tamron hold up

against the Nikon lens is terms of picture quality at the extreme &

inbetween apertures, sharpness, color rendition, and bokeh?

[eric friedemann]

My understanding from two different Tamron reps is that Tamron makes all of Nikon's 70-300mm lenses and that the two lenses you reference are optically identical. See Ken Rockwell's blurb:

 

 

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm

 

 

Both lenses are good. But, yes, the Nikon lens is $250, as opposed to the identical Tamron lens at $150. If you aren't a slave to the nameplate, I'd buy the Tamron:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149607&is=USA

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=213161&is=REG

[arnabdas]

Identical, different filter sizes, Nikon has added glamour factor and the added price that comes with it.

 

Nikon does have slightly better finish (not build)

[ebogaerts]

I tend to think that it would be an *amazing* coincidence if Tamron was *not* manufacturing Nikon's 70-300 ED, or if Nikon and Tamron did not have a partnership of sorts over this particular optic.

 

There was some website that supposedly had a lens testing between these two optics. While I believe that the technical setup between those two lenses was less than critical (looked like some of the pictures suffered from camera shake more than from being from a lens that was "unsharp") I also firmly believe that the sample variation on *both* the lenses is going to be fairly steep. So unless if someone is willing to go through the trouble of testing multiple samples against one another, I won't really believe that there is a significant difference between the two.

 

If you're interested in getting the Tamron, do whatever you can to find a nice one used, as you'll get more back if/when you go to resell.

[eric friedemann]

Aranab, I believe both lenses have a 62mm thread size, no?

[ilkka_nissila]

Tamron reps says? Huh?

 

1. The weight of the Nikkor is 515 g vs. 435 g of the Tamron.

 

2. Max magnification for Nikkor is 1:3.9 vs. 1:2 for the Tamron.

 

Seems like two similar but different lenses. Also, since Nikon claims they make the glass which is used for their lenses, I guess the glass is different too, not just specs and weight.

 

Seems very much like one persistent Internet legend which has little base in real life.

 

In the comparison by Practical Photography (latest issue), they gave the Nikkor a higher score on image quality than tht Tamron, but they did think it was expensive.

[arnabdas]

Eric, you are right -- I messed up there. Both have 62mm filter threads

[eric friedemann]

Ilkka, go handle and shoot both lenses, you'll buy the Tamron. Both lenses have 13 elements in 9 groups, are identical in size and have the controls in the same place. Tamron has added a close-focus feature on its lens making it a better value. Tamron uses "LD" glass, while the Nikon lens has "ED" glass.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'm not suggesting that the Tamron isn't better value, I'm only sceptical about the alleged manufacturer of the Nikon lens.

 

Besides, if I were to buy a tele in that price class, it would most likely consist of a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8 second hand. If I could only afford the 105, so I'd make do with that.

[ebogaerts]

Ilkka: Where is the proof that Nikon makes all of its own glass? I thought that they made their own ED glass, for sure. But as far as their glass for their "standard" elements, I believe that Nikon gets that from major manufacturer sources just like everyone else does.

 

Also, I think that an *identical* (aside from the exact formula for the single ed or ld element) optical forumla (even if the max magnification ratio is different, which is just a matter of providing more extension) is enough proof that this isn't just a "persistent internet legend".

[sarkar]

It doesn't matter if the designs look the same. Does the Nikon make better pictures? Otherwise what's the point of paying the extra $100?

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>Where is the proof that Nikon makes all of its own glass?</i><P>

 

From the 1995 Full Line Product Guide:<P>

 

"Nikon standards for glass purity are so exacting, we had to build our own glassworks to produce high quality glass for Nikkor lenses. Nikon lens designers can choose from 200 types of glass ..."<P>

 

Nikon (Nippon Kaguku, K.K.) has been producing their own optical glass for over half a century, well before ED glass came about. That "fact" has been published countless time in numerous publications.

[Michael R Freeman]

From "Eyes of Nikon":

 

<P>

<i><B>Optical Glass.</b><br>

Nikon is one of the few camera manufacturer's that makes its own optical glass. With more than 200 types ... on occasion, the lens designer can specify the particular type of glass he needs; then the technicians in the glassworks set about to create a glass to meet those specifications.</i>

[alistair o]

If you wish to sell the lens at some stage in the future, the Nikon will sell a lot easier.

[sarkar]

Are both of these lenses better performers than the lower priced Nikon 70-300 G lens?

[shoshana]

I have the Nikkor, one of my friends has the Tamron. She is using it with a Minolta, but as far as I know it would work the same

 

The macro function on the Tamron has been useful.

 

The photos we've taken look similar, but not identical. The Nikkor photos have more contrast and 'pop'. I like that. She likes her photos. Could be other factors rather than just the lenses - but we've seen it with same location shooting, same film and developing. Different cameras though - different metering. And she always uses a UV filter, I rarely do.

 

The only only drawback I have really seen is that she's had quite a few photos that are out of focus - the lens focuses ok but shifts focus as she's taking the photo. But... it could be a problem with her camera or settings.

 

Overall, I am happy with my lens, she is happy with hers.

 

Since I have not tried them both on my camera, or my husband's N80, I can't tell you about focusing speed. You will want to check that out. Without knowing what camera you have, I know that lenses on my N90s focus faster than on my husband's N80 ... to the exyent that he's always wanting to use my Nikkor 28-105 instead of his always hunting Tamron 28-105...

 

I don't know anything about the G version of the 70-300 because my camera is not G friendly. (Rather, the lens is not N90s friendly!)

[psul_aul]

I handled both of these lenses, on an N80 body, at a camera shop, and the Nikon focuses noticably faster and with less hunting. I haven't seen images made with both lenses so I can't compare on image quality, but the sales rep. at the Ritz Camera I went to said that it was just an 'internet rumor" that Tamron made the Nikon lens. Who knows.

 

I haven't handled the 70-300 G Nikon, but if you have a camera that doesn't need the aperture ring, I would consider that as an option.