Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR VS Tamron AF 70-300mm?

I am going on a trip to Australia, and I want to upgrade newer 300mm lens. At some point I'll upgrade to a 500mm lens, but money is tight right now, so I'll go with a 300mm lens. My two options are the Nikon AF-S 300mm, or the Tamron AF USD 300mm. I've read review after review, and I'd like to know what y'all think would be the better choice.

Thank you.


Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR: Amazon.ca: Electronics

Tamron AFA005NII-700 AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Amazon.ca: Electronics

I have used both lenses. I ended up buying the Tamron. I can tell you that, despite some verrrry minute differences technically, they are really the same lenses performance wise. It may take a while getting used to the VC - it does act differently then the VR on the Nikon. But, once you get used to the VC, it is awesome.

Curious AC016, what was the driving factor in picking up the Tamron. I have the Nikon and haven't heard anything negative about it. Not wanting to debate which is better, but why did you decide on it. I have been thinking about looking at some of the non-Nikon brands and was curious and I am sure it would help the original post owner here as well.

I have the 70-300 VR, its a great lens and has served me for a long time. I did decide to cut my long range a bit and get a better lens and now use a 70-200 f/4 which is great.

I shoot primarily youth sports and just not getting into portrait type shooting so I really dont need the extra length all the time. I did use the 70-300 more in football but not baseball and wrestling, just dont need that long of a lens.

​I dont think you can go wrong with either lens, but I would see if you can get your hands on both and see how they feel.

Hey Kevin, Before buying the Tamron, i read many reviews, written and video and looked at the DXO numbers. The general consensus was that both lenses are excellent, but neither wins a knock out punch over the other. After my research was done, i also noticed that Tamron had a $100 rebate on the lens - which i just cashed in last week - and they also have a 6 year warranty. Therefore, along with the $100 rebate and the $125 i got for my 55-200, i was only paying about $230 for the Tamron. It was an easy decision for me. Besides, i am not married to Nikkor and as i continually read reviews of Tamron SP lenses and some of the Sigmas, Nikkor has some stiff competition. And the technical differences i was talking about are so minute, that they are not even worth while to talk about. Hope this helps

Gotcha, been hearing better and better things about Sigma and Tamron both. Great Thanks.

I feel like I just said something about this lens in another post. I have the 70-300, and love it. It's a great lens, and covers a really wide range, so that's nice. It's pretty clear at almost all focal lengths. Just a little bit heavy and big, but that's what you get for a FF camera. Not sure what camera you are using, but it's a great lens for the price.

Mfrankfort said:

I feel like I just said something about this lens in another post. I have the 70-300, and love it. It's a great lens, and covers a really wide range, so that's nice. It's pretty clear at almost all focal lengths. Just a little bit heavy and big, but that's what you get for a FF camera. Not sure what camera you are using, but it's a great lens for the price.

Click to expand...

I am using the Nikon D7000.

I'm not personally familiar with the Tammy but I am an owner and fan of the Nikon 70-300VR. Great bokeh and image quality.

Doesn't sound like you can go too wrong either way.

I think both are pretty good and have advantages and disadvantages. I tried both (two of the Nikon and one Tamron) and chose the Tamron. I shot charts and also walked in some streets and shot stuff to compare them. Here is what I found (at least with those I tried).

• Both are very sharp until 200mm, with maybe the slightest advantage to the Tamron.
• From 200mm the Tamron is gradually getting sharper than the Nikon and especailly at 300mm.
• RAW straight from camera, the Nikon is slightly more contrasty and vivid, mostly up to 200mm. But it can be matched in PP and it's not a huge difference anyway.
• I can't say for sure without disassembling the lenses and seeing how they are really made, but a general impression is that the nikon is made slightly better. Actually not better made, just a bit more solid. The Tamron is made just as accurate, as far as what I'm able to feel without disassembling (I work with precision mechanisms almsot every day).
• The Nikon has a slightly faster auto focus.
• The Tamron has a noisier start and finish to the VC, a more mechanical sound.
• The Nikon VR was more obvious while it was working and I could hear or feel it more than the VC.
• Both VR and VC take a moment to start (after you start to focus) but the VR is a fraction faster.
• The VC is IMO significantly better than the VR. I could simply hand hold the Tamron at lower shutter speeds than the Nikon at same focal length.
• The VR and VC are a bit different, with the VC really holding the frame stable and the VR a bit more "free" for lack of a better way to explain it. This might make a difference in video, with the Tamron moving smoother while moving, but if you start to move you might get a "jump".
• The Nikon has more purple fringing, especailly at 300mm f/5.6.
• Here, the Tamron is less expensive.
• Here, the Nikon has three years warrenty and Tamron one year.
• Bonus difference: The Tamron has a better back lend cap and the Nikon has a better front lend cap
  

I chose the Tamron because the advantages in sharpness and VC were very significant to me, while the advantages of the Nikon were a lot less. The only real (but somewhat small) advantages I found with the Nikon are the faster focus and the longer warrenty. The warrenty varies in each country. If the faster focus is more important then I'd go with the Nikon.

Of course what I found is from the lenses I tried. Some say these lenses can vary in quality FWIW.

I have the 70-300 VR and have not use the Tamron before. I only have the Tamron 17-50 non VR. From my experience, the Nikon lens is better but you pay much more for it.

I have wanted to replace the 70-300 with the 70-200 VR but has not made the move mainly due to cost. I want the f2.8. What I wish to share here is that the 70-300 VR is value for money. The more you use it, the more you love it. I am beginning to feel that I don't need the f2.8 if my camera body can focus fast at low light with high ISO.

So, if you are on budget, Nikon 70-300 VR is the lens to consider.

Thank you, y'all for the posts, you've been very helpful.

Bukitimah said:

I have the 70-300 VR and have not use the Tamron before. I only have the Tamron 17-50 non VR. From my experience, the Nikon lens is better but you pay much more for it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't base my opinion about the Tamron 70-300 from experience with the 17-50. I've tried both. For a start, the 70-300 has the excellent VC and the USD. I also completely disassembled a Tamron 17-50 and was unimpressed in some ways (but impressed in others). The 70-300 seems better (though I haven't disassembled it).

The Tamron 70-300 is certainly good value and arguably sharper than the Nikon at 300mm... I settled on going Tamron instead of Nikon and got my lens a week or so ago - had my first outing with it at the weekend... This Blackbird is one of the shots I got at one of the local beaches last Saturday:


I was about 4m-5m from the blackbird when I took it and the above crop is close to 1:1 off the original D7100 24MP image.