My Next Lens debate and a few questions.

F

frtorres87

Senior Member
Hello everyone. Soon I will be in he market for a zoom lens, and after reading a few reviews on some potential options I've narrowed it down to two options. I basically want a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lens. Option 1 is the Sigma version. I believe it retails for about 1399.99. I've seen it on sale for 1249.99 recently but that's still a lot of money. I'd have to concoct a nice reason for having that so my wife doesn't complain lol. Does anyone here have this lens? Or have any experience with it? Options 2 is the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. The plus about this lens is it has a macro feature and I love macro photography, plus it retails for 769.99. Price wise the Tamron is almost half the price. The negative though is that it doesn't have optical stabilization. Is that important on a lens like this? Does anyone have any experience with this lens or another Tamron? Does anyone own this lens and can give me feedback? Any feedback from anyone will be appreciated. Thanks in advanced.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
Macro on the Tamron lens is not really Macro. If you are going to get a lens like this, get it with image stabilisation.
 
M

MrF

Senior Member
Not to complicate your dilemma any more, but have you considered the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D? They're going used in good condition on Adorama for $750-800. Like the Tamron, no VR, but Nikkor glass and a solid build.
 
§

§am

Senior Member
If you're going to use it on a tripod then image stabilisation might not be needed, but if your hand shakes like jelly then you probably need it :)
 
F

frtorres87

Senior Member
Thanks for the feedback. I just found out that the Tamron does come with "VC" which is there version of the image stabilization but its 1499.99. For that price I can get the Sigma. At that price range would it be better to go with the Sigma or the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G? I only wanted the 2.8 for better lower light performance.
 
F

frtorres87

Senior Member
MrF said:
Not to complicate your dilemma any more, but have you considered the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D? They're going used in good condition on Adorama for $750-800. Like the Tamron, no VR, but Nikkor glass and a solid build.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bring that to my attention, I have to give it a look. I always prefer Nikkor glass.
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
frtorres87 said:
Thanks for the feedback. I just found out that the Tamron does come with "VC" which is there version of the image stabilization but its 1499.99. For that price I can get the Sigma. At that price range would it be better to go with the Sigma or the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G? I only wanted the 2.8 for better lower light performance.
Click to expand...

The new Tamron with VC has received excellent reviews, much better than the Sigma. I'd take it over the Sigma easily. And I have some Sigma glass so I'm not anti-Sigma. Since this has come up before I'll give my rankings from previous discussions:

Nikon 70-200 VRII
Tamron 70-200 VC
Nikon 70-200 VR1 or Nikon 80-200 if VR isn't a big deal.
​Sigma 70-200
 
C

crashton

Senior Member
Any lens you want to auto focus on your D5100 has to have a built in focus motor. In Nikon speak that is any lens with AFS in the name. AFS denotes a built in focus motor. The nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR AFS will focus on your camera.
 
Last edited:
J

johnzawad

New member
I have the Tamron 70-200 without VC which I picked up second-hand in Japan for $450. Incredible bargain! If you are taking portraits or landscapes with this lens you will not be disappointed. It is optically up there with the Nikkor. However, if you want this lens to shoot sports or fast moving objects then you should not buy it and opt for the Sigma/Nikkor 80-200 or save up for the Nikkor 70-200. I hope this helps.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I went through the same process about a month ago. I narrowed it down to between the Tamron 2.8VC and the new Nikon f4. I went with the Nikon after comparing them side by side. I liked the size of the nikon and excellent sharpness across the entire range. The Tamron would be a tad faster and have slightly better bokeh. The nikon is sharper and focuses faster/more accurately also (from my in-store comparison).
 
F

frtorres87

Senior Member
Rick M said:
I went through the same process about a month ago. I narrowed it down to between the Tamron 2.8VC and the new Nikon f4. I went with the Nikon after comparing them side by side. I liked the size of the nikon and excellent sharpness across the entire range. The Tamron would be a tad faster and have slightly better bokeh. The nikon is sharper and focuses faster/more accurately also (from my in-store comparison).
Click to expand...

So the Tamron you tried out had the vibration control? Im very intrigued by the Tamron. I did look into the 70-200 F4. What I dont get is what are the major difference between the lens besides aperture? The f4 doesnt have VR if im not mistaken, and at 200mm i would like some kind of vibration control.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
The new Nikon 70-200 has VR and probably the best VR nikon has produced to date. Yes the new Tamrom has VC. The major difference is the aperture, size, weight, sharpness, bokeh, speed, autofocus speed, autofocus accuracy and build quality. I would compare their pros as follows:

Tamron:
F2.8
slightly better bokeh
faster
70-186mm

Nikon:
Sharper
Much smaller and lighter
Faster and more accurate autofocus
Better build quality
70-200mm
focus range control
 
Last edited:
J

jwstl

Senior Member
I went with the f/4 as well. I decided IQ and weight were the 2 most important factors for me. Sure, the VRII may give slightly better results and the 2.8s are faster, but the Nikon f/4 is getting rave reviews for IQ, is much lighter, and may have the best VR of any lens made. If 2.8 isn't a must, give the f/4 a look.
 
P

pedroj

Senior Member
crashton said:
​The Nikon 80-200 f2.4 afs will focus on the D5100. It is a nice piece of glass, but somewhat rare. If you can find a used one in good nick buy it.
Click to expand...

You wont get one for the $800 that was quoted.....80-200mm F2.4....I'll have to get one of these....
 
F

frtorres87

Senior Member
jwstl said:
I went with the f/4 as well. I decided IQ and weight were the 2 most important factors for me. Sure, the VRII may give slightly better results and the 2.8s are faster, but the Nikon f/4 is getting rave reviews for IQ, is much lighter, and may have the best VR of any lens made. If 2.8 isn't a must, give the f/4 a look.
Click to expand...

​I leaning towards the f/4. How is the Bokeh on this lens?
 
Top