Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8?

[Copey]

So I'm on a budget but I ran into about $1800 that I'm going to put towards my gear. Currently I have a 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which is far too slow for me considering I shoot nighttime sports. I want to either get a versatile and fast telephoto f/2.8. I've been looking into the Tamron 70-200 2.8 ($750 approx) or the version with USD and VR that costs about $1500. I then came across the 80-200 2.8 nikkor which sounds quite appealing for the cheap price I can get it for. I will mainly use this for sports and portraits. I will be upgrading to a D7100 or maybe 610 depending on how this works out. So my question here is which out of those lenses do you think is the best choice?

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I guess my question would be if your mostly shooting sports why would you need the VR/VC version? You'll be using it at shutter speeds high enough to stop the action and therefore I don't think the VR/VC would be all that useful, and depending on conditions a good tripod or monopod would supersede the need for VR anyway. So if it were me (and it kind of is because I've been looking at getting a 200 mm 2.8 myself) you might want to consider a version without the VR/VC/OS - they generally run about half what the versions with that feature runs.

 

[KmH]

Reviews say the Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens deliver less than sharp focus through the middle focal lengths when used wide open, and is noisy and slow to focus. Noisy isn't that big an issue for shooting sports. Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro review: Digital Photography Review

Nikon's 2-ring Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens would use the D7100 and D610 in the camera screw-drive auto focus. 80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Having used it as a workhorse shooting an adult soccer league I can recommend the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.

 

[JTPhotography]

I just picked up a used mint cond copy of the 80-200 push pull and love the thing, super sharp. AF might not be the best but it is perfect for me. 400 bucks, can't beat that.

 

[JerryVenz]

Reviews say the Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens deliver less than sharp focus through the middle focal lengths when used wide open, and is noisy and slow to focus. Noisy isn't that big an issue for shooting sports. Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro review: Digital Photography Review

Nikon's 2-ring Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens would use the D7100 and D610 in the camera screw-drive auto focus. 80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Having used it as a workhorse shooting an adult soccer league I can recommend the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.

Agree, ALL of the images I just uploaded to my Gallery were done with my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ( TWO-ring ) a Great lens. I went through TWO of them doing weddings and portraits over a TEN YEAR period! I still have it--for my Fuji Pro S5, two body system, even though I've moved on to a CANON 5D MKII system and their marvelous 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

 

[Stevepwns]

Which Tamron are you looking at? I have the older version and would not recommend it for anything other than than portraits. The picture quality is good but the focus is slow and can hunt in less than perfect conditions.

 

[robbins.photo]

I just picked up a used mint cond copy of the 80-200 push pull and love the thing, super sharp. AF might not be the best but it is perfect for me. 400 bucks, can't beat that.

That is a tough price to beat to be sure - I'm holding off on getting something in the 200 mm 2.8 just yet, I've found a couple of Sigma 2.8 150 mm D lenses I was going to research - and I'm waiting for the new D7000 to arrive first, well that and payday.. lol

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, real quick update - did some reading on the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8, looks like they had some quality control issues with the AF feature so I'll be passing on that one.. lol.

 

[manicmike]

I'd take the 80-200 over the Tamron, hands down. It's the older version Tamron correct?

 

[D-B-J]

The 80-200 2.8D is a solid lens, and definitely a good stepping stone into the "telephoto 2.8" land. With that being said, I've found it limiting for a few reasons--no VR, and slow AF. The AF speed has been an issue when shooting sports (most soccer), and the lack of VR really limits my use of it in low-light situations. Also, I've found that it struggles with Chromatic Abberation (CA)--when shooting our soccer team in their white jerseys, I tend to get a fair amount of CA from this lens, no matter what I do.

Jake

 

[TheFantasticG]

Why not a used Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR I ??

 

[SEMiller]

I have the new Tamron 80-200 f2.8 di vc lens and a d7100 and absolutely love the lens. It focuses fast, has great bokeh and with the stabilization I'm getting pictures I would not otherwise be able to get hand held. I would highly recommend the lens.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have the new Tamron 80-200 f2.8 di vc lens and a d7100 and absolutely love the lens. It focuses fast, has great bokeh and with the stabilization I'm getting pictures I would not otherwise be able to get hand held. I would highly recommend the lens.

I'll put that one on the research list. Other one I was looking at was the older Nikkor 185 mm 2.8 prime - not so sure about that one though, the lack of the zoom might be a bit of an issue at times.

 

[KmH]

Why not a used Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR I ??

Cost. There is only a small difference in the image quality between the AF 80-200 mm f/2,8D and the AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR.
The 70-200 mm f/2.8 will AF a bit faster, but again one needs to decide if the gain is worth the extra cost.

VR should be turned off most of the time, particularly if shutter speed is 1/500 or faster, which is about the minimum shutter speed one can use to shoot action sports.
The VR for that lens has to be turned off if it's mounted on a tripod.
If a sports shooter does need to drop down to 1/250, good hand holding skills or a monopod also negate the need for VR.

In other words most image stabilization systems aren't the be all to end all camera/lens maker marketing departments like people to think they are.

 

[Copey]

Thats a good consideration on terms with the price of the tamron 70-200 usd. Thanks!