Anyone here with Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC g2

I'm looking at this Lens and wanted to know what you guys think of it. I have read reviews and looks to be a good alternative to Nikon 70-200. I'm also thinking of getting 1.5x and 2.0x tele-converter with this or Nikon when I make up my mind.

Also what if i just go with Nikon 70-200mm VR1 ? That seems to be around $1200 used. VR2 is around $3000

Thank you

I bought one instead of the Nikon. At that point I had spent enough $.
Also did not have enough need for that focal length. If it seems like I need that range I'll probably add the doubler and look at the USB updating dock.
Used the Tamron one morning for some shots at a State Preserve for flowers and wildlife. Rather pleased with the IQ that I got tho a comparison with the Nikon would certainly have told more. Little hard to do - "Hold it right there critter while I change lenses, now back up, and do that again!" Uh huh.

I got to shoot the G2 with the 1.4x TC in Chicago last summer and really enjoyed the Tamron. It's been enough of an improvement, I'm really tempted to replace my G1 but only struggle with the idea because I don't pull that lens out too often. I can't compare it to the VR1, but even excluding the price ... the performance and quality was very spot on.

D7100-79 said:

I'm looking at this Lens and wanted to know what you guys think of it. I have read reviews and looks to be a good alternative to Nikon 70-200. I'm also thinking of getting 1.5x and 2.0x tele-converter with this or Nikon when I make up my mind.

Also what if i just go with Nikon 70-200mm VR1 ? That seems to be around $1200 used. VR2 is around $3000

Thank you

Click to expand...

I have a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 on my D750 as I type this and it is one of my favorite lenses. I had the Tamron Service Center calibrate the auto-focus (which they will do for free under warranty) and it's spot on across the board. It's a relatively big, heavy lens but that doesn't bother me. It's extraordinarily sharp and clean shooting. I don't own any TC's so I can't really comment regarding them. The lens itself, in my experience, is an absolute winner.

Thanks for the reviews; I've had the same questions. I spend the summer months out at the race track in Monterey CA shooting the motorcycle and car races. Been looking toward a 70-200 for my D500. In the interim I bought an open box 70-300 Nikon VR. It does nice work, but I expect better images with either the Nikon or Tamron. Plus, I've paid attention to my 70-300 focal length out there. I am not often above 200mm anyway (or I can get some nice crops off the finished RAW images). Met a fellow photog last weekend who has been attending races there for 50 years; he presently has a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 he bought years ago. I certainly don't mind having a real Nikon, but for the money I also like getting a new lens, and if the Tamron rates that well, probably will save for that one. Sure, plenty of other shots to take outside of the races, and I tend to think I'd consider keeping the 70-300mm as it is very lightweight (lots of plastic), and would make an easier hiking lens; it still does a nice job....this is from last weekend...

I've been shooting with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 on my D7200 for about 1.5 years and absolutely love it!

When I was originally looking at used 70-200 f2.8 in B&H I got to try the Nikon VR, VRII, and the first generation Tamron. Out of those three I was going to buy a used VRII, but then the G2 came along. For the price of a used VRII it handily beats it IMO, so it was a no-brainer to go with the G2.

If there is any down side it's that it has "focus-breathing" issues at close range. So if you shoot a lot of really close shots you will only get 175-180mm worth of zoom and not a full 200mm.