# Nikon or Tamron



## Ted Evans (Dec 31, 2014)

I know this is very subjective but would you vote for a used Nikon f/2.8 70-200 VR in the $1500 price range or the new Tamron f/2.8 70-200 for about the same price? Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII? I cannot spend $2400 for a new VRII which is what I would like to have. Thanks for your comments.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 31, 2014)

The VR Mk I has pretty bad vignetting, if you use it on a DX body then you will be fine, if you use it on FX or planing to move FX then dont bother getting the VR Mk I
I had the chance to get a used VR Mk I for 1400$ or Tami 70-200mm VC for 1600$.
I went for the Tami and I am not sorry, I am now using an FX camera.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 31, 2014)

The vignette on an FX body is not very noticeable. The glass is amazing and sorry, nothing I've seen comes close optically. Haven't checked the Tamron but I know the VR1 is a really nice piece of glass. You can find one in the USA for under $1200


----------



## fotomonkey (Dec 31, 2014)

I didn't realize that Tamron had one. I've had mixed experiences. Years ago I had a Tamron zoom that was pure crap. Then I had another prime that was awesome. I presume they're like Sigma. If you get the lower-end line you can't expect much but the HSM lenses are really good (in my experience). I'm actually in withdrawals right now. I literally just got home from UPS. I'm shipping my Sigma back for a firmware update. If you haven't considered Sigma, I have nothing but great things to say about my 70-200. It's got thousands of images on it. The finish is flaking off but it's at least 9 years old (no VR) and I'm in no hurry to replace it.


----------



## greybeard (Dec 31, 2014)

I would go for the used Nikon every time.  You can turn around and sell it in a year or 2 for what you paid for it, if not more.  You can't do that with a new Tamron.


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 31, 2014)

Quality aside, and Nikon has that, an excellent point made above. I bought mine used and sold it later (for a vrII) at a small profit.


----------



## coastalconn (Dec 31, 2014)

My vote is Tamron.  I have one and it is fantastic.  You also get a 6 year warranty.  If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money.  If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 1, 2015)

Optically probably going to be close, all very good points above. As with most lens choices, a tough call. Personally, I might try for a vrII model if you can find a good deal on a used one. Do you need really fast AF? If not, the 80-200 is optically superb.

On a side note, a suggestion to the mods, the separate lens and accessories sections are unnecessary.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 1, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Optically probably going to be close, all very good points above. As with most lens choices, a tough call. Personally, I might try for a vrII model if you can find a good deal on a used one. Do you need really fast AF? If not, the 80-200 is optically superb.



The VRII was my first choice until, I read some reviews and comments about the focal length at minimum focusing distance. That, in addition to the cost, has dampened my desire for the lens. Kris made a good point about the 6 year warranty of the new Tamron vs a used VRI. I just ordered the Tamron 150-600 and if I am satisfied with it, I am leaning toward their 70-200 also. Thanks for you comments and suggestions.

BTW, how far south in MS? I was raised about 20 miles north of the coast.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 1, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> My vote is Tamron.  I have one and it is fantastic.  You also get a 6 year warranty.  If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money.  If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...



Makes good sense to me Kris. If I am satisfied with the Tamron 150-600 that I just ordered, then I will probably opt for their 70-200 also.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 1, 2015)

Thanks to all for your comments/suggestions, they are much appreciated.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 1, 2015)

Ted Evans said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Optically probably going to be close, all very good points above. As with most lens choices, a tough call. Personally, I might try for a vrII model if you can find a good deal on a used one. Do you need really fast AF? If not, the 80-200 is optically superb.
> ...



Yeah, I forgot about the min focus distance. I have the Tamron 150-600 and love it. Born and raised in Biloxi, now live about 20 miles north of as well, north of Pass Christian.


----------



## bigal1000 (Jan 22, 2015)

Nikon hands down !!!!!!!


----------



## bigal1000 (Jan 22, 2015)

greybeard said:


> I would go for the used Nikon every time.  You can turn around and sell it in a year or 2 for what you paid for it, if not more.  You can't do that with a new Tamron.


You got that right, Nikon every time for me also. You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 23, 2015)

Ted Evans said:


> Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII?


 Yes, most definitely. Thats why Nikon offered the VR2 so quickly.



Ted Evans said:


> I cannot spend $2400 for a new VRII which is what I would like to have. Thanks for your comments.


 You could go for the 70-200mm f4 VR, which gives you the same or better image quality, at half the price AND weight.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2015)

VC > VR


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2015)

bigal1000 said:


> You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.



While it's a completely valid point--
I bought my 24-70 ($1025) & 70-200 ($1200) for roughly the same price the one Nikon in the class.  I'd rather have two incredibly awesome lenses that I can still sell for ~80% of what I paid for them, than only 1 lenses that costs just as much and doesn't perform twice as well just so I can retain resale value.

Also if you bought new, the Tamrons seem to be holding value a tiny bit better than the Nikons:

A new 70-200 in Tamron is $1500; used they go for ~$1200 or 80%.
A new 70-200 in Nikon is $2400; used they go for ~$1850 or 77%.
A new 24-70 in Tamron is $1200; used they go for ~$920 or 76%.
A new 24-70 in Nikon is $1900; used they go for ~$1350 or 71%.

Had I bought Nikon I wouldn't have been able to get both, and in regards to the 24-70, I'd have a HUGE heavy lens that doesn't even have VC--that's an incredible value add from Tamron.

Unless Nikon comes out with a competing 24-70 VRII that sells for under $1000, there's no way the value of that lens will drop to 50% of the value.  Just no way.

the Tamrons are *sharper*, smaller, lighter, have longer warranties, have better stability control, and cost marginally less.  Seems no brainer.

I will conceede that the Nikons both probably have subjectively better bokeh.  But that alone, nor the resale value, wasn't worth sticking with Nikon over Tamron.

also: in before "build quality"


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 23, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a huge difference in the Nikon VR and the VRII?
> ...



After viewing many images made with the Tamron 150-600 and 70-200 f/2.8 and considering that I am a hobbyist, in addition to the price difference, I chose the Tamron. I got it new with a six year warranty for $1050 so for me that makes more sense than $2400 for the Nikon. After selling 5 or so Nikon lens from film days and my F4s, I still have a 20 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 micro, 200 f/4 micro and a 80-200 f/2.8, I do not feel the need to be Nikon pure as I once did. So far, I have been very pleased with the two Tamron lens and feel no remorse for their purchase.

I appreciate your comments.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2015)

Ted Evans said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Ted Evans said:
> ...


Congrats on the new lenses.
Wow, you do have a nice range of lenses there!
Enjoy the new toys with good health and all you need to do is go out and have fun


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 23, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...



Thanks goodguy....the weather has proven my timing for the purchases terrible. Very little sun and much precipitation.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 24, 2015)

Here my 100+ sample shots with the 'Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD'. Just love it.

Link:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

These are taken with a D810 and a D5200. It seats pretty well with these two bodies:


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 24, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> My vote is Tamron.  I have one and it is fantastic.  You also get a 6 year warranty.  If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money.  If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...



Don't they have a six year warranty because they expect it to break for six year then fall apart completely in year 7?

Nikon if you can afford it Tamron if you cant


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > My vote is Tamron.  I have one and it is fantastic.  You also get a 6 year warranty.  If anything goes wrong with your used Nikon it will cost you lots of money.  If you buy a used Nikon, try to check it first, Since it is a "Pro" lens, many out there have lots of use...
> ...



its an incentive; like Hyundai.  Now major manufacturers are emulating them.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Jan 24, 2015)

These Nikon/Canon vs Tamron/Sigma debates always bring out the die hard brand loyalists.  I currently own two Tamron lenses, and they have yet to let me down, or left me wanting for something better.  I love most all of Nikon's lenses as they are absolutely fantastic, but companies like Tamron and Sigma have excelled so much in the past 10 years that the gap has closed to almost nothing making the price gap between Nikon/Canon lenses more about the name than a dramatic leap in performance.

While I have no experience with the 70-200's from either Nikon or Tamron, I have done comparisons between the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR and my Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC.  When I was looking to buy my Tamron I tested it extensively against the Nikon at my local shop, and found that the VC in the Tamron was much better, and that the images were noticeably sharper when shooting wide open between 200-300mm.

Also I have dealt with Nikon's repair services and the customer service sucks.  Both times I had to send in my D3100 and D7000 for warranty work my cameras were gone for over a month.  Trying to contact someone to get an update was useless as you can't call the repair facility directly, and have to speak with someone on the other side of the globe who will tell you basically the same thing the Nikon repair website tells you.  I had to send my Tamron lens in recently for a small warranty repair, and aside from a small misunderstanding on Tamron's part which required me to have to send the lens back a second time (Tamron covered shipping cost), the customer service was fantastic.  I called Tamron repair on two separate occasions and both times I was speaking with someone at the repair facility.  When I sent the lens back to them they fixed it the day it arrived, and because of the mishap they overnighted the lens back to me.  Turn around time for the first attempted repair was about 1 week including shipping to them, repair time, and return shipping to me.  Second time was less than a week total.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> > You would be lucky to get half of what you pay for a 3 rd party lens in a year or 2.
> ...



I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

but money IS a factor.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 24, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > bigal1000 said:
> ...




I had this choice last year, and money wasn't a factor. I had to choose between the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. I did go with the Tamron, because it proved to be ahead of the Nikkor in all aspects I looked for. And with the price difference, I got myself a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, brand new. Great deal!!!

The Tamron trinity (15-30mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.8 + 70-200mm f/2.8) are really leting the Nikkors and the Canons behind. Just like the new Sigma prime lenses (the art series) is doing the same. I hope this will push Nikon and Canon to update their lenses even further.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> but money IS a factor.


But to play along, when shopping for my 24-70, I'd still go with the Tamron because the VC puts it WAY ahead of the Nikon.

I dont have enough experience with the Nikon 70-200 VRII to really say either way.  I believe it does have better bokeh, so if money wasn't a factor, I might have ended up with one of these instead. But like I mentioned before VC > VR.  If the 70-200 VRII works anything like the 70-300's VRII then I'd still probably pick the Tamron.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> but money IS a factor.


I own Nikon and Tamron good fast glasses, DXO mark shows that the differences between their top lenses is very small.
Yes if money wasn't an issue most likely Tamron and Sigma would be out of business but money does count and they give an awesome bang for the buck.
They simply make sense, buying the Tamron 70-200mm gave me an access to capabilities I needed for 1000$ less then Nikons pretty much identical lens in performance.
On the other hand I had the chance about a year ago to buy a used Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G for less then what a new Tamron equivalent lens cost from a very solid source so I got the Nikon.
Both lenses are awesome Tamron and Nikon.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 24, 2015)

ruifo said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Ok so you've shot both these Tamrons and the Nikons and compared both results then chose to go with Tamrons. I did the same thing and chose Nikons. Just like most of the things people can see thing differently.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 24, 2015)

Nikon and Tamron are filing patents for lenses together... Just like Nikon/Sony/Toshiba have their agreements for sensors, Nikon/Tamron have their agreements for lenses too.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-10&edit-text=

Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent application for a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens plus Nikon's patent for honeycomb sensor with subpixels in between | Nikon Rumors

While we don't see it so visible, these guys have been working together without too much noise about it.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

Only in passing using other people's equipment; not when I was really shopping/comparing, the Nikons priced me out of the market.

But I knew going in the Tamron 24-70 had onion bokeh but also VC.  I was already, off-the-bat, willing to trade bokeh for the VC feature, plus I liked that it was smaller and lighter.

When peepin' the 70-200 I found the Nikon has smoother transition to oof areas.  But there was no way I was going to afford one and the Tamron offered me incredible value for what Im getting out of it.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 24, 2015)

Some people are fortunate where money is no object for them and I am happy for them. When I was working and first began photography way back when the Dead Sea was just sick, I bought all Nikon lens, about a dozen of them and mostly because of the name. Not as a status or prestige but because like name brand tools, you can count on them being good quality without testing them. Although off brand can be as good, there is not always that dependability. I can remember when most would not think of buying a Japanese car if they could afford American but that is not the case today and their resale is better than most American cars. I had the money to buy the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vrII but I made a practical decision. I could buy the Nikon or, I could buy the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, the Tamron 150-600 and only needed a few more dollars to buy an Induro gimble head. It was a no brainier for me which I would get the most satisfaction from. If I was blessed, like some, I would have still gotten the Tamron 70-200 but would have bought the Nikon 200-400 and 600 in place of the 150-600 and hope that I would not do it in a way to make others aware that they only bought Tamron because that was all they could afford. Just my opinion and not approved by management.


----------



## DandL (Jan 26, 2015)

I'd be all over the Tamron 24-70 but the onion bokeh kills the deal for me. I'd buy the Nikon, but as soon as I do, they will announce a VR version.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 26, 2015)

how often are you shooting things with bokeh balls in the BG? 

I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all


----------



## goodguy (Jan 26, 2015)

DandL said:


> I'd buy the Nikon, but as soon as I do, they will announce a VR version.


VR is always nice but for this range is not a must, I use my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G at a speed as low as 1/30 (not often), also I doubt if Nikon will actually stick VR into its next generation lens when ever it will come out.



Braineack said:


> I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all



Totally agree!


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 26, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?


Tamron... Nikon doesn't make a 150-600


----------



## Seventen (Jan 27, 2015)

If you have not seen this 4 part video series, it is good to see how the Tamron compares to Nikon and Canon. I only linked the 4th part as gives the results but the other 3 parts are worth a look.
Also a few years ago there was a Sigma vs Tamron (Macro version) vs Nikon VRII which was also a good series.


----------



## bigal1000 (Jan 27, 2015)

Braineack said:


> how often are you shooting things with bokeh balls in the BG?
> 
> I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all


How about blue balls !!


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 27, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?
> ...



Ha ha. I'm still no sure about the Tamron 150-600. I like it for its cost and weight but not sure about its sharpness. I still find myself using the Nikon 70-200 vrii and the 500mm with and without 1.4 tc most of the time. Maybe when the weather gets better I'll get better results. I've been shooting late day in low light most of the time.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 27, 2015)

ruifo said:


> Nikon and Tamron are filing patents for lenses together... Just like Nikon/Sony/Toshiba have their agreements for sensors, Nikon/Tamron have their agreements for lenses too.
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-10&edit-text=
> 
> ...



I'm kind of happyish to hear Tamron and Nikon my be working together. Yesterday I bought a Tamron 90mm vc lens. I had kind of thought I'd only go Nikon but money talked.

I have had a little bad luck on my d7100 with third party lenses. I assume Nikon update things to make it awkward for third party to keep up. I searched for ages to get a Tokina 50-135f2.8 because I loved that lens on Canon. When I got it for Nikon no way would it focus, even with mfd set at its limit. I recently bought a sigma 50-150 only to find it needed a factory firmware update to operate in live view.

Some third party lenses are great, but I'd be concerned as to their lasting ability if one upgrades camera going fwd. Nikon lenses should not have that issue


----------



## ruifo (Jan 27, 2015)

^^
That's why we hear about Nikon incompatibilities with Sigma's and Tokina's lenses, but not with Tamron's...

Sigma, I must say, came up with a smart solution, the docking station for you to update the lens firmware without send them for service (here).


----------



## Braineack (Jan 27, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> Ha ha. I'm still no sure about the Tamron 150-600. I like it for its cost and weight but not sure about its sharpness. I still find myself using the Nikon 70-200 vrii and the 500mm with and without 1.4 tc most of the time. Maybe when the weather gets better I'll get better results. I've been shooting late day in low light most of the time.



you're talking about using $9300 worth of lenses vs. $1000.

the Tamron is sharp enough considering it's $8000 less than that combo.  Even if it was covered in vaseline.  

The Nikon seems to be to be optically, as expected, superior:











The tamron isn't quite as good wide open at 600mm, but that's still not shabby.  But you also lose that 1 1/3 stops of light at 500mm. [Tamron would be at f/6]


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

Tamron 150-600 – Nikon D7100

The only alteration of this image was to resize to 2400x1600 and from NEF to JPEG. Considering it was taken by a rank armature using a camera and lens that are less than two months old with a total cost of less than $2k, I am not sure that 8 to 12K would result in 4 to 6 times more quality, at least for this shooter. Without Tamron making this lens available at an affordable price, I would never have this image. For the real potential of this lens, I would suggest looking at the images by Costalconn with the Tamron lens.

ƒ/6.3
600.0 mm
1/400
ISO Speed - 200
Metering Mode - Spot
Exposure Mode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio - 1.33
Focal Length (35mm format) - 1200 mm
Scene Capture Type - Standard
Gain Control - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Soft
Approximate Focus Distance - 6.68


----------



## sm4him (Jan 27, 2015)

Very nice for an early effort!

And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
But yeah, that Tamron is an extremely nice piece of glass.

I suspect you'll be thrilled with your acquisition!


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Very nice for an early effort!
> 
> And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
> But yeah, that Tamron is an extremely nice piece of glass.
> ...



I agree, he is one talented individual when it comes to handling photo equipment. I think that just proves that the most expensive equipment is not required to capture outstanding images. And less expensive wins hands down.....when one cannot afford the expensive stuff.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Very nice for an early effort!
> 
> And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
> But yeah, that Tamron is an extremely nice piece of glass.
> ...



How far east in TN? I am in Crossville.


----------



## sm4him (Jan 27, 2015)

Ted Evans said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice for an early effort!
> ...



Knoxville, not too far from you.  I have a son who goes to school out in Murfreesboro, so I cross the plateau from time to time!


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> > sm4him said:
> ...



Great, if you ever have a few minutes to spare when you are coming through, give me a call and I will meet you at Cracker Barrel and buy you a cup of coffee.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 27, 2015)

Ted Evans said:


> Tamron 150-600 – Nikon D7100
> 
> The only alteration of this image was to resize to 2400x1600 and from NEF to JPEG. Considering it was taken by a rank armature using a camera and lens that are less than two months old with a total cost of less than $2k, I am not sure that 8 to 12K would result in 4 to 6 times more quality, at least for this shooter. Without Tamron making this lens available at an affordable price, I would never have this image. For the real potential of this lens, I would suggest looking at the images by Costalconn with the Tamron lens.
> 
> ...



Very nice!

Nikon D3s - 500mm w/1.4  (700)shot at f5.6 - 1/1000   SOC  100% crop


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron 150-600 – Nikon D7100
> ...



Great shot Michael, the Nikon 500 f/4 was a lens that I drooled over in the early nineties but could not convince myself to spend $3k or thereabouts to buy. No doubt the new ones are a joy to shoot.


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 27, 2015)

sm4him said:


> And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
> But yeah, that Tamron is an extremely nice piece of glass.





Ted Evans said:


> I agree, he is one talented individual when it comes to handling photo equipment. I think that just proves that the most expensive equipment is not required to capture outstanding images. And less expensive wins hands down.....when one cannot afford the expensive stuff.


You are too kind!  Like most of the normal world I just don't have gobs of money to throw at photography so I have learned how to maximize what I can afford.  


Nikon D3s - 500mm w/1.4  (700)shot at f5.6 - 1/1000   SOC  100% crop





[/QUOTE]

Hmm wonder what this would have looked like on the D7100 with the Tamron?  Could have shot it at F8 and 1/500th. Would have put more pixels on the snowy..  Do you know the approximate distance?


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
> ...



Hmm wonder what this would have looked like on the D7100 with the Tamron?  Could have shot it at F8 and 1/500th. Would have put more pixels on the snowy..  Do you know the approximate distance?[/QUOTE]

I did not mean to be kind Kris....just stating what I believe to be fact. After viewing thousands of images on Flickr, your bird photos excel no matter what equipment is used. BTW, what happened to your D800? I hope it is not a major problem. I have been watching the used ones....if, I can find something else to sell in order to finance. My lens are FF lens with the exception of the two DX so I would only need one additional lens if I migrate to FF. I am just not convinced that in my case I would gain that much over the D7100.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 27, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
> ...



Hmm wonder what this would have looked like on the D7100 with the Tamron?  Could have shot it at F8 and 1/500th. Would have put more pixels on the snowy..  Do you know the approximate distance?[/QUOTE]

Right around 150ft ft . Oh you could get the shot but not sure of sharpness


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 27, 2015)

Well I didn't have the Tamron last year when the Snowies were here.  Here is a kingfisher shot from the other day.  Exif shows 68.1 meteres, so about 200 feet..
This is the full shot



100% viewable




download... DSC_0122-small

I think it holds up pretty well..


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 27, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> Well I didn't have the Tamron last year when the Snowies were here.  Here is a kingfisher shot from the other day.  Exif shows 68.1 meteres, so about 200 feet..
> This is the full shot
> 
> 
> ...



Very nice, the ISO must have been reasonably low.


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 27, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> Well I didn't have the Tamron last year when the Snowies were here.  Here is a kingfisher shot from the other day.  Exif shows 68.1 meteres, so about 200 feet..
> This is the full shot
> 
> 
> ...


 
Going to have to take your word on these because they wont load for me


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 27, 2015)

MSnowy said:


> Going to have to take your word on these because they wont load for me



Probably would help if I put the right link there..  
DSC_0122-small
If you click it there should be a download button..


----------



## Seventen (Jan 28, 2015)

I'm kind of happyish to hear Tamron and Nikon my be working together. Yesterday I bought a Tamron 90mm vc lens. I had kind of thought I'd only go Nikon but money talked.

I got that Tamron lens a few months ago it really is amazing, not only for macro but it makes really nice portraits. I studied for months going back and forwards between the Tamron, Sigma and Tokina and got to try them all the Tamron just felt so nice in the hand and as I already owned the 70 - 300 VC USD it helped my choice. 

Hope you enjoy it as much as I have


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 28, 2015)

coastalconn said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > Going to have to take your word on these because they wont load for me
> ...



Those aren't to bad.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 29, 2015)

Well I just bit the bullet on a Tammy 70-300 vc. Was going Nikon until this thread


----------



## raventepes (Jan 29, 2015)

I know I'm a bit late in the game here, and it looks like a lens has already been bought...but I'm really surprised nobody offered the 70-200 f/4 as an alternative. Personally, I think it's a bit of a sharper lens than the Nikon f/2.8, and weighs a LOT less.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 29, 2015)

raventepes said:


> I know I'm a bit late in the game here, and it looks like a lens has already been bought...but I'm really surprised nobody offered the 70-200 f/4 as an alternative. Personally, I think it's a bit of a sharper lens than the Nikon f/2.8, and weighs a LOT less.


But very much pointless when you need every bit of light in situation where you have little light and fast moving subjects.


----------



## raventepes (Jan 29, 2015)

goodguy said:


> But very much pointless when you need every bit of light in situation where you have little light and fast moving subjects.



True, and I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything about needing a fast lens, which is why I had wondered why the f/4 Nikon variant hadn't been mentioned.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 29, 2015)

raventepes said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > But very much pointless when you need every bit of light in situation where you have little light and fast moving subjects.
> ...


Its always a toss between price, size, weight and flexibility.
70-200mm 2.8 is simply the most flexible lens but it is expensive and big.
If you shoot only in good lighting then the F4 is a viable option but like in most cases in life we shoot in different times of the day or in open and closed spaces and the f2.8 lens is a better all around choice but as I said it is bigger, heavier and more expensive.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 29, 2015)

yeah, but raven has a good point, at least it's actually sharp in the corners at 200mm...


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 29, 2015)

raventepes said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > But very much pointless when you need every bit of light in situation where you have little light and fast moving subjects.
> ...



There are a couple of reasons that I did not go with the Nikon f/4. I have been trying to shoot some feeder birds and oft times the light is not that good. I had a Nikon 300 f/4.5 and although it preformed very well in good light, it did not in low light and high ISO. After looking at a number of reviews and viewing many images on Flickr, I did not see where the Nikon would be $1k better than the Tamron for my level of photography. In addition, I got the Tamron new with a  six year warranty for less money than the Nikon f/4 so it made economical sense for me being on a fixed income....and a small one at that. I have a number of Nikon lens and like them, I also like the the two Tamron lens just as well as the Nikon. The only question is if they will hold up as well as the Nikons and only time will tell. However, at my age, that may not be an issue.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 29, 2015)

raventepes said:


> I know I'm a bit late in the game here, and it looks like a lens has already been bought...but I'm really surprised nobody offered the 70-200 f/4 as an alternative. Personally, I think it's a bit of a sharper lens than the Nikon f/2.8, and weighs a LOT less.


*http://www.thephotoforum.com/members/solarflare.124521/*
*Solarflare* did suggest the f/4, msg #15.


----------



## raventepes (Jan 29, 2015)

My apologies. missed it.


----------



## Ted Evans (Jan 29, 2015)

raventepes said:


> My apologies. missed it.



No apologizes needed, noted only for information.


----------



## Tailgunner (Feb 3, 2015)

Just got back from a whale watching trip in San Diego. My longest reach is a 70-200 VR II W/1.7 TC. All my local camera shop had for renting was an older 80-400mm VR. So I rented it. The old 80-400mm VR is slow as Christmas. I was able to get some decent shots but missed a lot of good shots as well. I called up a local camera shop in San Diego hoping to score a newer 80-400mm VR.  No such luck. It wasn't a complete wash though, they had a Tamron 150-600mm VC instead. I said what the heck, 600mm for $40 a day was a steal if worked. I must say, the old 80-400mm VR was like driving a school bus while the Tamron 150-600 was like driving a Ferrari! The Tamron 150-600mm VC @ 1,000.00 is hands down the best bang for the buck if you're looking for a good 600mm lens! It does get a little bulky hand held on a boat but it was worth it!


----------



## Bob Trester / T-Shots (Feb 10, 2015)

I have used both the Nikon 70-200 VR and I own the Tamron with VC.  Both are optically on par with each other.  It's your choice but if I were going on the "used" side, I'd see if a refurbished Nikon was available.  The Tamon takes clean sharp images and I use it on the D800.  I'll include an image I captured below of the Tamron/D800 pairing.

Sample


----------

