Nikon 70-300 vr vs Tamron 70-300 vc

FLIGHTO

Senior Member
This seems to be the age old questions yet you can't find a direct head to head shoot out review between the two online.

I am going to pick up a used copy of one of these lenses this weekend but after a week of researching I still can't make up my mind. B&H and Adorama both have used versions of the nikon and Cameta shows they have a used Tamron.

Does anyone have, had or have used both these lenses? I tend to lean towards the Nikon in principle. Any thoughts. I just can't make up my mind. Using on a D7100. If I go with the Nikon that means I gotta take a trip into the city to pick it up vs Cameta being 10 min from my house.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
This seems to be the age old questions yet you can't find a direct head to head shoot out review between the two online.

I am going to pick up a used copy of one of these lenses this weekend but after a week of researching I still can't make up my mind. B&H and Adorama both have used versions of the nikon and Cameta shows they have a used Tamron.

Does anyone have, had or have used both these lenses? I tend to lean towards the Nikon in principle. Any thoughts. I just can't make up my mind. Using on a D7100. If I go with the Nikon that means I gotta take a trip into the city to pick it up vs Cameta being 10 min from my house.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to DXO Mark, both lenses are pretty much equal. The Tamron displays a little less CA than the Nikon and the Nikon scores one point higher in sharpness than the Tamron. I'm sure that's immensely helpful for you with your decision making process.

....
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I can't be of any help regarding a direct comparison but I have the Tamron and would recommend it to anyone. All my research suggested they were fairly equal, some saying the Tamron was sharper, others the Nikon. The VC on the Tamron is excellent, in a youtube video I watched recently, Matt Grainger suggested the VC on the 70-300 was better that the VR II on the Nikon 70-200 F2.8! He was shooting handheld down to 1/20 I think.

To my eye it is a sharp lens and has thus far exceeded my expectations, albeit with fairly limited use.
Here's is a JPEG straight out of the camera shot at Fine and Large, again to me it looks plenty sharp enough but I'm no pixel peeper.

DSC_0122.jpg

Not a great picture but I was looking for one I've not tweaked at all.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I bought the Nikon 70-300mm VR after seeing this video by Moose Peterson. It is a little soft at 300mm, but many lenses aren't quite as sharp at the extreme ends. It is amazingly sharp everywhere else though. :)

 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
Looking for a cheap birding lens for D300 and soon to own D700. Wow that is a pretty strong statement, might have to get me one of these Nikon 70-300 VR!!

Thanks Hark, assume you like yours?
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
looking for a cheap birding lens for d300 and soon to own d700. Wow that is a pretty strong statement, might have to get me one of these nikon 70-300 vr!!

Thanks hark, assume you like yours?

Absolutely!!! :)
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member

Elliot87

Senior Member
There's still not been a direct comparison made here. I really can't see how the extra money for the Nikon is justified. The Tamron is a fantastic lens!
 

FLIGHTO

Senior Member
I just read some more reviews. Now I'm leaning back towards the Tamron for the 3 axis VC. These companies don't make it easy. It's going to come down to holding both I think. Outside of IQ, which I read over and over are pretty equal, it boils down to price and convenience. The Tamron is about $100 cheaper and I don't have to go to the city to get it. However the nikon is a nikon and I have a bunch of 67mm filters already. I know in gonna keep going back and forth till I pull the trigger on one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

clarnibass

Senior Member
I've tried both (more than one copy of the Nikon) and posted before with a more thorough comparison.
The short version...
The Tamron is sharper, especially at 300mm. It is sharp at 300mm f/5.6. It is sharper at smaller apertures.
The Nikon has a slightly faster AF. The Tamron AF isn't very slow. Neither lens has super fast AF.
The Tamron VC is better in terms of how slow you can get the shutter speed and it is more "sticky" i.e. will "freeze" the frame. It is also louder to engage (a bit mechanical sounding). The Nikon VR is more "flowy" in feel and quieter to engage. Though it doesn't allow as slow shutter speed as the VC, it is still good.
The Nikon has slightly more vivid colours in the RAW, especially around 200mm but also overall and is also a little more contrasty. This can be realtively easily improved in software, making the photos very close. The sharpness can't be improved to match.
The Nikon has a better front cap, the Tamron has a better rear cap
I chose the Tamron after actual comparisons (i.e. taking photos with each).
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I've tried both (more than one copy of the Nikon) and posted before with a more thorough comparison.
The short version...
The Tamron is sharper, especially at 300mm. It is sharp at 300mm f/5.6. It is sharper at smaller apertures.
The Nikon has a slightly faster AF. The Tamron AF isn't very slow. Neither lens has super fast AF.
The Tamron VC is better in terms of how slow you can get the shutter speed and it is more "sticky" i.e. will "freeze" the frame. It is also louder to engage (a bit mechanical sounding). The Nikon VR is more "flowy" in feel and quieter to engage. Though it doesn't allow as slow shutter speed as the VC, it is still good.
The Nikon has slightly more vivid colours in the RAW, especially around 200mm but also overall and is also a little more contrasty. This can be realtively easily improved in software, making the photos very close. The sharpness can't be improved to match.
The Nikon has a better front cap, the Tamron has a better rear cap
I chose the Tamron after actual comparisons (i.e. taking photos with each).


That's why I went for the Tamron, sharp at 300mm, amazing VC and a fair bit cheaper. I also like the build and feel of this lens!
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Find a Nikon used ~300 and if its in good shape, you might even be able to sell it later for a bit more when you're ready to upgrade. Tammy, not so much. Plus older models of tammy were pretty skiddish from what I read.
 

FLIGHTO

Senior Member
Just left the camera store with a very good condition used Tammy. And they gave me a 6 month warranty on it , all for less the adorama is charging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I would imagine you probably can't go wrong with either, but I believe the Tamron offers better value for money.

There were a couple of kittens in my garden this morning, presumably feral. Here is one picture I took of them, with a tight crop of the same image below. JPEG straight out of the camera.

300mm
F/8
1/200 sec
ISO 400

DSC_0025.jpg

DSC_0025 (2).jpg

I'd be interested to know what you guys think of the sharpness of these? I think they're pretty sharp. They could've come out better but I was a little shaky for some reason and I think the focus was on the back of the left hand kitten rather than directly on the eyes.
 
Top