# Nikon vs Tamron f/2.8 70-200mm



## Rosy (Apr 18, 2012)

I know the answer deep in my gut but my wallet wants no part of 'this' thought process

My next purchase is a 2.8 zoom lens, note I have the nikkor 70-300mm 4.5/5.6, but when it comes to capturing indoor volleyball it really does not help

I know the Nikon 2.8 is part of the dream team lens kit.  I've also heard great things about the Tamron, though the focusing is not as quick.

Can you give me your thoughts?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 18, 2012)

I'm problaby not much help since I havn't tried out the Nikon 70-200  but I picked up the Tamron 70-200 about a month a go and have been enjoying it. It is soft when set at 2.8 but once past that its pretty sharp. and when I took it to a supercross event a few weeks back it did pretty good focusing considering how high i was sitting (about 5 rows from the furtherst highest seat in lucas oil stadium.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Apr 18, 2012)

Is focusing speed critical to your shooting? If not, why not go for the Tamron VC or Sigma OS ?


----------



## Rosy (Apr 18, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Is focusing speed critical to your shooting? If not, why not go for the Tamron VC or Sigma OS ?



I would need the focusing speed for the indoor volleyball shots


----------



## Dao (Apr 18, 2012)

If you are talking about this one

Tamron -70-200mm F/2.8(Model A001)

then the AF speed is not that fast from what I read.   The Sigma version has HSM which is faster.


----------



## DorkSterr (Apr 18, 2012)

Than Nikon for sure! It focuses about 2-3 seconds faster than the competitors.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 18, 2012)

I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!


----------



## Rosy (Apr 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!



How much is a healthy kidney going for these days?


----------



## DorkSterr (Apr 18, 2012)

Rosy said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I do love my Nikon... but you have to get what you can afford!
> ...



I believe upward of  $20,000 USD. Nikon D4 14-24, 24-70 70-200 and 300mm f2.8. And your'll still have some left for flash, filters, extension tubes, tri/monopod...etc


----------



## Rosy (Apr 18, 2012)

DorkSterr said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


AWESOME - i will post it right away.


----------



## bhop (Apr 18, 2012)

The Tamron is fine as long as you never use the Nikon and get a taste of it because then you WILL end up buying it, although i'd choose the Sigma version if I were going 3rd party because the focus speed is wayyyyy faster and fo r me, that's a big deal.  

That said, if you can afford to stretch the budget, the Nikon 70-200 VR is seriously one of the finest lenses in Nikon's lineup (that i've used anyway).  Like I said, you _will_ end up buying it if you ever have the chance to use one, so might as well just spend your money once IMO, even if that means saving up for a little while longer.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2012)

I was on pBase last week, looking at some excellent family photography done by a guy who goes by the name JoeMama on a few forums. He's kind of a "lens nut", and shoots a lot with primes, as well as zooms. He had a gallery of shots done with the Tamron, and his introductory blurb was that it was one of the sharpest, best-imaging lenses he had owned (he's a Canon shooter), and that he never would have sold the lens had it not be for the "abysmal focusing" system it was saddled with. So, he just confirmed what every single user has said about that lens--good price, good optics, but crummy focusing.

The version one Nikkor 70-200 VR is one of the best-focusing lenses one could hope for in terms of both one-shot focus acquisition, as well as continuous focusing. I've not owned the newer Version II model. If you look around, you *might* be able to find a used 80-200 AF-S, the short-lived model that was introduced just prior to the 70-200; I saw an 80-200 AF-S for $950 a few months ago, in fantastic condition. It too has a fast, sure, reliable focusing system.


----------



## Rosy (Apr 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I was on pBase last week, looking at some excellent family photography done by a guy who goes by the name JoeMama on a few forums. He's kind of a "lens nut", and shoots a lot with primes, as well as zooms. He had a gallery of shots done with the Tamron, and his introductory blurb was that it was one of the sharpest, best-imaging lenses he had owned (he's a Canon shooter), and that he never would have sold the lens had it not be for the "abysmal focusing" system it was saddled with. So, he just confirmed what every single user has said about that lens--good price, good optics, but crummy focusing.
> 
> The version one Nikkor 70-200 VR is one of the best-focusing lenses one could hope for in terms of both one-shot focus acquisition, as well as continuous focusing. I've not owned the newer Version II model. If you look around, you *might* be able to find a used 80-200 AF-S, the short-lived model that was introduced just prior to the 70-200; I saw an 80-200 AF-S for $950 a few months ago, in fantastic condition. It too has a fast, sure, reliable focusing system.



Thank you All - think i'm going to save up and buy once _smart _rather than regret.  I'm also going to attempt to sell my f4.5/5.6 70-300 since it will be obsolete when i purchase the 2.8


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 18, 2012)

I agree, save up till you can afford it, and then get the best.  No regrets.


----------



## KmH (Apr 19, 2012)

You might want to also consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 
or a good used copy of the *AF-S* version of that lens Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras


----------



## nickzou (Apr 19, 2012)

Hey, just out of curiosity does the Tamron one have an aperture ring? I know the Nikon doesn't. Do any of the newere 70-200mm's have aperture rings?


----------



## MReid (Apr 19, 2012)

You can save a little money by getting the 70-200 2.8 vr1 version, and still more by finding a used one.
The vr2 is a little better but how much better do you need than great.


----------

