Tamron or Nikon 70-300mm VR

[kenny]

Looking to add a little more reach to my bag. Would be using it everywhere from Disney to DD cheer competition, to everything in between.


The 70-200 f2.8 is out of my budget although looks like a great lens.

Was looking at the tamron or Nikon 70-300mm. Anyone have either or prefer one over the other? Read some good things about the tamron. Have the 10-24 and really like it. Plus with rebate is about $250 cheaper than Nikon

Any other suggestions?

 

[patzor]

I don't know if you are looking for an all in one lens, but I got the tamron 18-270. I bought it mainly to replace my two kit lens (18-55 and 55-200) so I didn't have to keep switching out my lens (like on the Kilimanjaro Safari).

I've used it to take pics outside, and I really like the results. Also its nice not to have to switch every time I'm chasing my nieces around.

But to answer your question in regards to Nikon or Tamron, Tamron is just as good. The cheaper price tag helps in the decision.

 

[traylorc]

Any chance you could try out each lens at a local brick & mortar? If not you may want to consider renting both lenses for a weekend. At least that way you could make an informed decision based on first hand knowledge of how both lenses perform given your shooting style.

 

[mom2rtk]

Are the cheer competitions indoors or out?

 

[My2Girls66]

I have the Nikon 70-300mmVR, its a nice lens but it probably wouldn't be a good lens for indoor cheer competitions. (I have a noisy at high ISO D80 so maybe on a newer camera it would be better).
When my DD was doing cheer I used my Nikon 35mm 1.8 mostly and sometimes the 50mm 1.8. I would sit down closer to the floor and the 35 was perfect. I feel a lens in the 70-200 or 70-300mm range would be too much reach in situations I was faced with in high school gym competitions unless you were to sit very high in the stands.

35mm from the floor in a high school gym

from high in the stands at a college gym

no cropping on either

 

[kenny]

Are the cheer competitions indoors or out?

Both. Football games are outside. Competitions are inside

Would love the 70-200mm f2.8 as it would be ideal inside but at $2k that is out of my price range. Cost more than my d7000. Lol

 

[mom2rtk]

Both. Football games are outside. Competitions are inside

Would love the 70-200mm f2.8 as it would be ideal inside but at $2k that is out of my price range. Cost more than my d7000. Lol

I understand. That is the case for many of us. But that still doesn't mean the 70-300 is the best choice. I don't shoot Nikon, but am assuming that is a variable aperture lens.

The combination of low light indoors with high action is one of the toughest to shoot. (There's a reason some people spend the big bucks on those lenses). You are going to want faster glass for cheer indoors, and you might also find yourself wanting it for any football games that are at night under the lights.

Have you considered a prime of some sort? You can usually get a wider aperture for less money that way. Yes, you will miss the zoom, but it might be worth it to get faster glass at a more reasonable price.

 

[kenny]

Yes it is variable. Tamron was f4-5.6. Nikon was f4.5-5.6

Thanks for suggestion on prime. Will have to look in to that as well. Was thinking the zoom would be better overall as I can use it in more situations but it will be an issue indoors

 

[mom2rtk]

Yes it is variable. Tamron was f4-5.6. Nikon was f4.5-5.6

Thanks for suggestion on prime. Will have to look in to that as well. Was thinking the zoom would be better overall as I can use it in more situations but it will be an issue indoors

It really is just a matter of what you are more willing to compromise on. If cheer photos are a big piece of what you are shooting, I just have a feeling you will be disappointed with a variable aperture lens. Maybe you'll luck into a setting with big skylights or something, but in general, it was indoor action that made me scurry off in search of better glass.

 

[scuba]

all of us encounter this decision every day, popular brand vs the other brand but usually what drives our family is the fact that tamron actually has to make quality products to drive consumers decisions. For example I have always felt that Nike could design a wooden shoe and put their swoosh on them and folks would buy them because of the Nike swoosh but on the other hand maufactures like New Balance and Asics actually have to make quality products to stay in business.

We had the same decisions, we have a Nikon D600 and wanted a 24-70mm full framed f/2.8 lens. The Tamron by reviews has the better vibration control than the Nikon so we bought the Tamron and have not looked back. If i'm not mistaken Tameron ONLY makes Lenses.

 

[traylorc]

We had the same decisions, we have a Nikon D600 and wanted a 24-70mm full framed f/2.8 lens. The Tamron by reviews has the better vibration control than the Nikon so we bought the Tamron and have not looked back. If i'm not mistaken Tameron ONLY makes Lenses.

Actually the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have vibration reduction. That is the big attraction of the Tamron lens...the fact it has vibration reduction. Even Canon's recently updated 24-70mm f/2.8 lens does not have vibration reduction. I had the Nikon 24-70mm....and let it go. It was a wonderful piece of glass...IMHO it's sharper from corner to corner than the Tamron....particularly wide open. But admittedly it's a big and bulky lens...and there were times were vibration reduction would have been nice. I purchased the Tamron last week, and I have been very pleased. I will put this lens through its paces in November when my wife and I return to WDW in November.

 

[scuba]

Actually the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have vibration reduction. That is the big attraction of the Tamron lens...the fact it has vibration reduction. Even Canon's recently updated 24-70mm f/2.8 lens does not have vibration reduction. I had the Nikon 24-70mm....and let it go. It was a wonderful piece of glass...IMHO it's sharper from corner to corner than the Tamron....particularly wide open. But admittedly it's a big and bulky lens...and there were times were vibration reduction would have been nice. I purchased the Tamron last week, and I have been very pleased. I will put this lens through its paces in November when my wife and I return to WDW in November.

I kinda knew that but didn't compose it right obviously, in head to head reviews that is why Tamron did better because the Nikon didn't have VR. Now if I could only get thoses voices out of my head.......sorry

 

[Pixel Dust]

I purchased the Tamron last week, and I have been very pleased. I will put this lens through its paces in November when my wife and I return to WDW in November.

I would definitely love to hear a review, especially since you had the Nikon 24-70 to begin with. I have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR. It's great, just wish it was faster.

Also, rumors of Sigma making a 24-70 f/2 OS (optical stabilization). It'll probably be insanely expensive. I'll probably just pick up the Tamron anyway.
http://petapixel.com/2013/07/30/sigma-may-be-building-a-groundbreaking-24-70mm-f2-lens-for-full-frame-cameras/

 

[kenny]

What are everyone's feelings on not having VR for a mid range lens?

Tamron makes a 28-75 f2.8. Was thinking if I went with a 70-300 VR lens that wasn't 2.8 due to cost issues I could later down the line supplement mid range Nikon 18-105 for this tamron. Then I would have a little faster mid range but lose VR I don't have VR on my f1.8 35mm or 10-24mm. For the UWA I don't find it an issue. Wish the Nikon 35mm had it though.

My feeling was on a 2.8 lens the VR would be needed more on a tele lens then mid range Any thoughts?

Bag would be: Nikon 35mm 1.8
Tamron 10-24mm
Nikon 18-105mm VR
Tamron 70-300 mm 4/5.6 (or Nikon version) Down the line add the tamron 28-75 2.8?

 

[kenny]

What are everyone's feelings on not having VR for a mid range lens?

Tamron makes a 28-75 f2.8. Was thinking if I went with a 70-300 VR lens that wasn't 2.8 due to cost issues I could later down the line supplement mid range Nikon 18-105 for this tamron. Then I would have a little faster mid range but lose VR I don't have VR on my f1.8 35mm or 10-24mm. For the UWA I don't find it an issue. Wish the Nikon 35mm had it though.

My feeling was on a 2.8 lens the VR would be needed more on a tele lens then mid range Any thoughts?

Bag would be:
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Tamron 10-24mm
Nikon 18-105mm VR
Tamron 70-300 mm 4/5.6 (or Nikon version) Down the line add the tamron 28-75 2.8?

 

[mom2rtk]

What are everyone's feelings on not having VR for a mid range lens?

Tamron makes a 28-75 f2.8. Was thinking if I went with a 70-300 VR lens that wasn't 2.8 due to cost issues I could later down the line supplement mid range Nikon 18-105 for this tamron. Then I would have a little faster mid range but lose VR I don't have VR on my f1.8 35mm or 10-24mm. For the UWA I don't find it an issue. Wish the Nikon 35mm had it though.

My feeling was on a 2.8 lens the VR would be needed more on a tele lens then mid range Any thoughts?

Bag would be:
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Tamron 10-24mm
Nikon 18-105mm VR
Tamron 70-300 mm 4/5.6 (or Nikon version) Down the line add the tamron 28-75 2.8?

I think it will likely vary from person to person. I have unsteady hands and my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS is worth its weight in gold to me. That IS is truly amazing. I can handhold shots down to shutter speeds that should be impossible for someone with rock steady hands. Yet I can't for the life of me take a photo on a cell phone. My hands just can't do it.

If your current lens has IS, try taking some shots with it off and on, and compare.

 

[traylorc]

I kinda knew that but didn't compose it right obviously, in head to head reviews that is why Tamron did better because the Nikon didn't have VR. Now if I could only get thoses voices out of my head.......sorry

No big deal...I just wanted to make sure anyone who was considering the Tamron over the Nikon and Canon understood that Tamron's prmary advantage is that the fact they offer a mid range zoom with vibration reduction.

 

[traylorc]

I would definitely love to hear a review, especially since you had the Nikon 24-70 to begin with. I have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR. It's great, just wish it was faster.

Also, rumors of Sigma making a 24-70 f/2 OS (optical stabilization). It'll probably be insanely expensive. I'll probably just pick up the Tamron anyway.
http://petapixel.com/2013/07/30/sigma-may-be-building-a-groundbreaking-24-70mm-f2-lens-for-full-frame-cameras/

To be honest I just picked up the Tamron, and have not really had an opportunity to really take a high number of shots. I live in Phoenix, so this time of year getting outside to take pictures can be challenging

Based on initial observations the vibration reduction feature is excellent. I am not a person with rock steady hands, so this feature alone is almost worth the price of admission. The vibration reduction gives you 2-3 stop difference. Like I mentioned earlier, I think wide open the Nikon is sharper from corner to corner, but IMHO when you stop down f/5.6 or even f/8 the image quality of the Tamron using the center focus point is very comparable if not equal to the Nikon. At 24mm and 35mm, the Tamron more than holds it's own with the Nikon. But at 50mm and 70mm I would probably give the edge to Nikon. In regards to AF speeds, the Nikon is slightly faster in my opinion, but the difference is not enough to be a deal breaker in my mind. Nikon wins on build quality, but the Tamron is not far behind. Overall in when it comes to value for your buck, the Tamron wins hands down in my mind.

I am not a professional, so these are just my personal opinions and observations.

In regards to the potential release of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8...if that lens is half as sharp as there 35mm f/1.4 I may have to sell the Tamron and pick it up.