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

Copey · Dec 8, 2013

When you say slow, are you talking to the point of consistently losing the shot or just a step down from the VRII? Currently I have a 55-300 4.5-5.6 that MUST be upgraded due to its extremely slow autofocus and obviously the slow slow slow aperture.

astroNikon · Dec 8, 2013

I have the 80-200/2.8 AFD and it is a great lens.

I (think this is the set) that I shot these shots during the evening as it got darker and darker, and darker. I think I ended up at 1600 ISO on my d7000.
20131026_Oct 26 - a set on Flickr

AF is a little slow. But what I was doing was I was pushing the release half down to maintain focus every little bit as the action moved along. This kept the lens within a short throw of in-focus when it was needed most.

I love it.

I've found out with the above technique, that my 75-300 /4.5-5.6 push-pull is pretty good too at the AF for action, though a bit slower AF than the 80-200/2.8.

shadowlands · Dec 9, 2013

Nikon AF 80-200mm f2.8D all the way!!! It's a tank!!! It's good for life!!! Buy it once, and never look back!!!

SnappingShark · Dec 9, 2013

I received last week the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

Not had much of a chance to use it, but what I am expecting is that it is fairly soft, and the manual / auto switch isn't as robust as some would like it to be.

Other than that - it's a nice lens, weighty and feels good.

TheLost · Dec 9, 2013

I've used them all for the past 6-ish years... and IMHO its worth spending a few extra bucks and getting a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for ~$1200.

Here is what i would buy for sports in order (stop when you get to the one you can afford and find):

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 (OMG so nice) ~$2100 New
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 (Awesome on DX.. sharp and fast AF) ~$1200 Used
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II NON-OS (cheap.. super fast AF) ~$600 Used
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC USD (pricey.. but much better then the old one!) ~$1400 New
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II OS (pricey.. better options) ~$1300 New
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S (Sharp.. AF speed isn't bad) ~$900
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D (Sharp) ~$500
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 NON-VC (wouldn't even consider for sports)

Again... this list is targeted at SPORTS/ACTION and is my own opinion after owning/using them.

djacobox372 · Dec 11, 2013

I'd stay away from old afs lenses, the afs motor on them wear out and need costly replacement.

The two ring af 80-200 is your best option. Got mine for less than $500.

RichieT · Dec 12, 2013

I used a 70-300 VR for most soccer day games and switched to a Sigma 70-200 2.8 non OS for twilight, evening or indoor sports. I always used a Velbon CF monopod so the VR was shut off anyway. The Sigma was tack sharp (after they fixed the front focus problem) and I didn't miss the OS. With the monopod, the camera was always at the ready position and you could watch the action develop and just drop your eye to the VF to grab the shot as opposed to swinging the camera up for the shot. As the game wears on, fatigue will be an issue with holding steady.

Mach0 · Dec 12, 2013

djacobox372 said:
I'd stay away from old afs lenses, the afs motor on them wear out and need costly replacement. The two ring af 80-200 is your best option. Got mine for less than $500.

That's a steal!

shadowlands · Dec 12, 2013

Like I mentioned, I love my Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8d Two Ring... it's my favorite lens!!!

Hosanna · Dec 18, 2013

I just bought myself the 70-200 F2.8 IS last friday. Man... awesome piece of glass. Did some indoor shooting and the need for F2.8 was a must. I used it beside a Canon 300mm F2.8IS indoor! Shots even to 1/30s perfect sharp!.

Braineack · Dec 18, 2013

you mention IS, so the Sigma verison?

I plan to pick up Tamron's 70-200 2.8 VC soon, to match my 24-70, and then probably the 90mm Macro to top it all off.