DxOmark site ratings of 70-200 2.8 lenses

I just got a D810 and I'm looking for a new lens. I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 with VC (VR) already. When I was looking for this lens I read opinions here and on other sites. I also checked the scores at DxO to see what was rated the best. The Tamron was the winner and I am happy with it. Now I am thinking of getting a 70-200 2.8 and Started at DxO. I compared the Sigma, Nikon, and Tamron lenses all with VR. The Tamron looks much better that the other 2. It is almost $1000 less than the Nikon and I was very surprised it did so well in comparison testing.

Is Tameron getting that much better? Is Nikon slipping in quality? Is DxO just wrong? The scores were 14 for Sigma, 24 for Nikon, and 31 for Tamron. I'll start digging into reviews and comments here and any other places I can find some info. If anyone has experience with the Nikon and Tamron let me know what you think.

Do you have a link to the ratings? Pure Nikkor glass is always going to be the more expensive option. I prefer the Nikon glass but it's personal preference.

Hiway said:

I just got a D810 and I'm looking for a new lens. I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 with VC (VR) already. When I was looking for this lens I read opinions here and on other sites. I also checked the scores at DxO to see what was rated the best. The Tamron was the winner and I am happy with it. Now I am thinking of getting a 70-200 2.8 and Started at DxO. I compared the Sigma, Nikon, and Tamron lenses all with VR. The Tamron looks much better that the other 2. It is almost $1000 less than the Nikon and I was very surprised it did so well in comparison testing.

Is Tameron getting that much better? Is Nikon slipping in quality? Is DxO just wrong? The scores were 14 for Sigma, 24 for Nikon, and 31 for Tamron. I'll start digging into reviews and comments here and any other places I can find some info. If anyone has experience with the Nikon and Tamron let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

There was a time when Nikon glass was the undisputed King; hands down, full stop.

Those days are gone now.

Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have all upped their game significantly in past years and yes, in short, the Tamron 70-200mm really is... Just. That. Good.

....

Jak said:

Do you have a link to the ratings? Pure Nikkor glass is always going to be the more expensive option. I prefer the Nikon glass but it's personal preference.

Click to expand...

Here is a direct link to the comparison I looked at. You can pick any lens with any camera they tested it on.

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM Nikon on Nikon D300 versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II on Nikon D3X versus Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D800 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

IF you want to put stock in DxOmark ratings then you should do apples to apples. Your ratings are for the Tamron with a D800 while the Nikon equivalent is being tested on a D3X. So make sure you make the change to have all the same camera. You'll see the ratings update according to which camera you select.

I use DxOmark as just one factor in a lens selection process. Mainly because the ratings they do simply don't apply to me since I'm just a schlub with a camera.

Hiway said:

I just got a D810 and I'm looking for a new lens. I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 with VC (VR) already. When I was looking for this lens I read opinions here and on other sites. I also checked the scores at DxO to see what was rated the best. The Tamron was the winner and I am happy with it. Now I am thinking of getting a 70-200 2.8 and Started at DxO.

Click to expand...

FYI There is a US$100 mail-in rebate on the Tamron lens if purchased by 10/31/2014. More info here.

Lab tests are only part of the ownership experience. Build quality, reliability, compatibility with future body firmware, resale value, snob appeal, etc. all go into my love for the Nikon 2.8 zooms.

I dont believe dxomark for a millisecond and I do believe money under the table shows the results. thats my opinion.

the 70-200VC is a great lens from pics I saw. tamron tokina and sigma have some excellent glass and a pro can easily build a complete kit including pro zooms and primes for MUCH less than all nikon glass equivalent.

im not worried about build quality as some lenses by the trio are more robust than nikons by a good margin. nikon have been skimping on build/durability and reliability for a good while now. you can clearly see it in the extremely pathetic plastic they use in primes. what a joke. slower af motor as well and cheap hoods and plastic filter threads.

the only thing I have a problem with, with lenses from the trio is af compatabilty and QC for accurate focus. sigma took the lazy excuse out by charging you money for their incompetence by selling you a usb dock. trying to profit from them not investing in QC.

the nikon has 2 huge flaws for me to consider upograding from my VR1. close focusing limiter switch is fail in my book and the bigger one is the HEAVY focus breathing. build quality is the same and AF speed is the same. it has better sharpness to the corners and bignetting is better controlled compared to the VR1 although ive not seen any issue with vignetting with my VR1 at all. so not sure what the commotion is about. vignetting is even nice in portraits and ill take vignetting and close focusing vs less vignetting and heavy breathing anyday. and since one cant get in tight, youll have to crop to get the same frame, negating the sharpness in the lens over the VR1. so imo the VR2 is a huge fail in my eyes. they give one good thing but take back something extremely huge. most definitely not worth the price jump from the $1650 VR1 to the $2400 price rape.

id have no issue going for the tamron if I didnt have the VR1 but the issue is the bad QC with focus know to plague 3rd party MFR. resale doesnt really matter. you buy cheap and sell cheap. the minor difference you MIGHT see with pixel peeping is irrelevant and for $1200 less, its a huge jump to benefit from it, IF youll even see it. like the difference between the 85 1.4g and the 1.8g. many say the 1.8 is marginally sharper than the 1.4 at the same aperture and true you get a nice shallower dof at 1.4 but at the same apertures it negligable. if this is for personal work I highly doubt youll notice the difference and if its for clients, im CERTAIn they wont even know what the hell theyre looking for. most people dont use proper technique to take advantage fof the lens anyway. if youre not shooting MLU and on a tripod you already lost most for the detail.

lets also not mention that tamrons VC is MUCH better than nikons. I dont use VR though as it makes me nauseous.

If you're going to look at DxOMark scores you must compare against the same sensor (I recommend the D800 given your camera) and you must drill down into the measurements to see where the differences really are and determine how applicable to your shooting they might be. Truth is, the Nikon and Tamron are pretty close across the board, with much of the Tamron's differences owing a lot to going to f32 as a minimum aperture.

One thing DxO does not measure is the effective focal length and focus breathing. Zooms will invariably focus breath, meaning that the effective focal length at minimum focus distance may actually be quite a bit less than at infinity. Why is this important? Because if you're using it as a portrait lens and shooting at the near end of your focus range, your 200mm may be closer to 135-150mm and you'll get the object compression associated with that length and not 200mm. Additionally, 200mm isn't always 200mm even at infinity. My understanding (and these numbers are harder to come by) is that while the Tamron breathes less, at 200mm it is actually much closer to 175mm than 200mm even at infinity.

My point? Never look just at the numbers. Get to a shop or a show and test them both out, and look for things like focus breathing. Bring your camera and take side by side shots at various, similar focus lengths and apertures and then compare the two. Maybe even rent them for a weekend and really give them a go.

And for sure resale is going to be a big consideration, and while Tamron may be everything the Nikon is and more, if you go to move it you're likely going to see less of a return on that investment.

If you have any thoughts of using the Tamron with a teleconverter, you should be aware that at the present time there are no compatible teleconverters for the Tamron that retain auto-focus.

LensWork said:

If you have any thoughts of using the Tamron with a teleconverter, you should be aware that at the present time there are no compatible teleconverters for the Tamrom that retain auto-focus.

Click to expand...

there are tons of TC available. which teleconverters have you tried with the lens?

I am going to the Photo Plus Expo this week in NYC. I hope to get a chance to try the Tamron and Nikon lenses out. I did go back and change the camera model on the DxO site and the two are much closer. They are about equal but the price difference is big. I like Nikon but I don't want to pay for just a name. That big of a cost difference has to provide some added quality. I'll look at them both this week and see what the result is.