Thinking of trading Nikon 80-200 for Tamron 70-200- am I nuts?

[bgorum]

<p>O.k., so I've read all of the reviews and am hoping to get some input based on first hand experience on this decision. I've been using a Nikon 80-200 f2.8(two ring, non-afs) along with Nikon 5t and 6t close-up lenses for macro work and am very pleased with the results from that combo. However, the lens has a minimum focus of 5 feet by itself and a maximum focus of about 30 inches when the 5t is added. This leaves me unable to focus between 30 inches and 5 feet and you would be surprised at how often I encounter situations where that is precisely where I need to focus. The new Tamron lens has a minimum focus of just under a meter and would appear to eliminate the "blind" spot in my current setup, as well as alleviating the need to use a diopter at all for many larger subjects. Most reviews of the Tamron lens rate it quite highly in terms of optical quality, but only two reviews that I have read mention its quality at minimum focus. Of those two one said it was good, the other said it was not so good. Neither review went into detail about what good or not good meant. Anyone out there using the Tamron lens that can comment about its performance when used up close? I would always be using this on a tripod and well stopped down for adequate depth of field, so I don't really care how it performs wide open. I'm also not bothered by the reported slow auto-focus of the lens since I would be focusing manually most of the time. How is the tripod collar? Does it have any play, or is it rock solid? I wish I could try out the lens myself, but unfortunately I don't know anyone who owns it and the local camera shops charge more than I am willing to pay for the lens, so I really can't try it out there. I appreciate any relevant experience you can share on this. Thanks.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Yes. Zooms were never designed to do everything properly including Sigma which is questionable brand at best.</p>

<p>Get a proper Nikkor lens for the problem. Tamron makes a 90mm macro that has decent optics, not such good mechanics. 55,60,105 micro Nikkors are all decent mechanically and optically. </p>

[michaelging]

<p>I agree with Ron. The 80-200 is such a great lens for what it was designed to do, let it just do that , and get a Macro lens for your close up photography. You can buy a micro-nikkor cheap these days and they will give you much better photos than the 80-200 with the closeup lenses.</p>

[brian_schall]

<p>You might want to look at the 70-180mm Micro Nikkor. Might fit what you want the lens to do. It is unfortunately a slower lens, F4.5-5.6. Here's a link to a review I found on-line: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm</a></p>

[rick_helmke1]

Yes, you are nuts. Seriously though, the one modern Tamron I own is a great lens after an additional $130 in repairs for a replacement diaghram. Keep the Nikkor and get an mf micro nikkor. MF lenses are way cheap these days but still have excellent build and sharpness. Rick H.

[bgorum]

<p>Thanks for the replies so far. As far as fixed focal length macro lenses go I've been there and done that. At one time I owned all three of Nikon's macros, (55, 105, and 200). The problem with them is that they are inconvenient to use on a tripod. Moving the tripod forward or back to get the precise framing I want will often scare away my subjects or totally change my perspective when I am working at ground level. I know fast zooms were not meant to be used for close-ups, but you would be amazed at the quality possible with the Nikon 80-200 with the two element diopters. Brian, I've been lusting after the Nikon 70-180 micro for a long time now. Unfortunately since Nikon discontinued that lens prices on used ones have skyrocketed. They consistently go for over $1500 on ebay now, which is more than I've got to invest now.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Bill, just out of curiosity - how do you manage the 5T/6T on the 80-200? I am under the impression they have 62mm diameter (at least the ones I own do) and the 80-200's filter thread is 77mm.<br>

I have the 70-180 and it is a fantastic lens - but minimum working distance even at 180mm is about that of a 105 Macro - the only real drawback of the lens. The fact that it is "only 4.5-5.6" doesn't really matter - it stays that way up to the maximum magnification unlike the IF designs (like the Sigma 150/2.8 that I also own) that change from 2.8 at infinity to 5.6 at 1:1.<br>

The other possible solution if you shoot from a tripod are macro rails - but they aren't cheap either.</p>

 

[josheudowe]

<p>Yup - crazy. Get a separate lens for macro work. The Nikon 80-200 (which I have) is outstanding. Couldn't imagine replacing it with anything else.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there I use the Nikon 70-180 and although it is a slower lens I find it superb - one of the best Nikkors ever. If I'm stuck for speed I use the R1C1 close-up flash with it.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Unfortunately this excellent dedicated 70-180 macro-zoom lens is discontinued and hard to find used. Sorry I will not sell mine.</p>

[paul_garland]

<p>You are looney.</p>

[bgorum]

<p>Dieter, I use a 77 to 62mm step-down ring to mount the 5t and 6t to the 80-200. On a dx camera there is no vignetting at any focal length. In fact I leave the step-down ring permanently attached to the 80-200 and there is no vignetting at normal shooting distances either.<br>

The short working distance of the 70-180 micro is what kept me from buying the lens back in the days when I was shooting film and the 70-180 micro was available new. Now that I'm using digital the 1.5x magnification factor makes the 70-180 much more appealing to me, but it now commands much more money used than it cost brand new. If I ever find one in bargain condition with a reasonable price tag I will definitely snatch it up. In the mean time though I'm still hoping somebody can comment on the close-up performance of the Tamron 70-200.</p>

[howard_owen]

<p>The argument can be made that the Tamron is the better lens overall. It focuses much closer and, moreover, isn't plagued by the annoying backfocus anomaly that the Nikkor exhibits on dSLRs. Reports of optical quality say it's on a par with the Nikon throughout most of its range. Build quality won't be as good, but the tripod collar can't be much worse than the Nikkor's, which is marginal at best. There is bound to be some sample variation; Nikon has it so you can be sure Tamron does. If you need to, test more than one copy.<br>

So, on that note, go get one from a dealer with a 14 day return policy and evaluate it yourself.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Yes, you are crazy. A good macro lens will outperform those close up lenses any day. (I have them and I have tried them. ) I have all three of the Nikon fixed focal length macro lenses and use them on a tripod and a tripod base is the only way to ensure a stable enough platform for excellent macro images. Any lens not properly used will scare off a crittter. IMO the tripod use is a red herring. Get yourself a good macro lens. I recommend the 200mm one as it comes with a tripod collar mount and gives you the greatest working distance from the subject. Joe Smith</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>With my Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 and F4 (4 cell config), the Nikon PG-2 rack & pinion makes a good tripod mounting setup. Very convenient for close ups of small subjects.</p>

[marco_p1]

<p>Bill, I understand your point of view and actually thought about the same switch myself. At this point I only went half way: sold the Nikkor but did not buy the Tamron yet. At present the range is covered by the 75-150 and 180. Both MF with the consequent shortcomings, but both with wonderful quality even for closeups: the 75-150 with 3T and 4T diopters, the 180 with PK13 and PN11 tubes. I never tried the 80-200 with diopters but on its own it was really not at its best at 200mm and close focus, contrast and resolution dropped significantly, and I suspect this behaviour could be the source of the frequent focus problems of that lens. My lens did not focus properly at 200m and close focus on my D200, was sent to Nikon, checked and confirmed to be OK. Good luck and if you end up buying the Tamron please come back and share your findings! Bye, Marco</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>The lens you're thinking of giving up is my favorite. I've got the one ring version, but the two ring version is so well built. It's just a masterful piece of glass.</p>