Nikon 70-200 V Tamron 70 -300

I have a Tamron 70-300mm lens and i mainly use it for sports, but i have been advised by a local photographer to get the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 or a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 so if i was to take the leap and purchase one of these lenses what would be the advantages be over the Tamron lens?

An interesting question. I have the Nikon 70-300mm and have today borrowed a nikon 70-200 f2.8 Gii ED to see the difference.
First thoughts are the 70-200 is very heavy but have noticed that it shoots easier - which is crazy since it is the body that effects a smooth shutter but somehow this just seems to shoot with no shake at all. I even shot one last night at 1/80 sec and it was perfect.
Going out this very minute to test it.

What's the budget?
Shooting sports, the longer reach would come in very handy. What kind of sports?
Shooting on a DX or FX body?


I'd look at it like this;

1. Nikon VRII
2. Tamron VC
3. Sigma

Budget £1k tops sports include football cycling and running, shooting with a D7100.

That's about $1,500 USD I believe. That buys a new Tamron VC here in the US or a used Nikon VRI version.
Not sure what the market is like where you are.

£1k in sterling is about $1600 been looking a preowned lenses there seems to be a lot of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 ones about is the VRII the newer lens?

yes, VRI is the older version. VRII is the current/better version. Sells for about $1,800 USD used over here.

Thanks guys for your advise, i will keep you posted, Lawrence i look forward to hearing what you thought of that lens you borrowed?

bikeit said:

Thanks guys for your advise, i will keep you posted, Lawrence i look forward to hearing what you thought of that lens you borrowed?

Click to expand...

Well over all I was not that impressed with it. Might be just me though. At NZ$3000.00 (about £1500.00) I would spend my money on something else.
I found the reach a bit limiting - remember though I am more used to my 70-300 - and the images weren't as sharp as I would have expected.

I realise this sounds mostly negative and could be the opposite of others have experienced but I am just being honest. Maybe my expectations were a bit high.

Anyway i hope it helps in some positive way.

Here's probably the best one I took with it.
This has been processed and cropped

bikeit said:

I have a Tamron 70-300mm lens and i mainly use it for sports, but i have been advised by a local photographer to get the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 or a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 so if i was to take the leap and purchase one of these lenses what would be the advantages be over the Tamron lens?

Click to expand...

Well there's a quite a price difference between the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma equivalent... Both of these would be faster than your Tamron at f/4 or f/5.6 maximum aperture and that extra bit of speed comes at a cost. Beyond that, though, you'll gain sharpness to be sure.

I'd tell you look at the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI VC USD, though. It more costs more than the Sigma but less than the Nikon. It's sharper than the Sigma and as sharp as the Nikon. I shoot with one on my D750 a LOT; almost a daily carry lens. It consistently delivers amazingly sharp, clean images and has very good image stabilization.

The larger aperture means a more shallower depth of field means your subject will popout from the background. Also the fact you can use a faster shutter speed to stop action the subject

Do you shoot sports outside or indoors? You might rent the Nikon 70-200 f4 which has unbelievable VR. If its bright enough its about 1000/US used. Just a thought.
Steve

70-200 VR1 sells for $1200 for mint used. I also say get a tamron 70-200VC which is excellent and the tamron stabilization is the best in the business IMO. vignetting a bit on the open which I think adds to portraits and isnt a minus IMO. excellent lens. I have to get a video taken of my friend who has 2 nikon 70-200 VRII and also the tamron 70-200VC and uses only the tamron. not kidding.

I have Nikon's 70-200 VRII and the 70-300 VR and under certain conditions, there is no comparison. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens and the 70-300 is a decent lens and an OK lens at 300. If you want a reachy tele zoom and are on a budget, the Nikon (or third party) 70-300s are great, but if you want an awesome tele zoom for portraits and a bit of reach, the 2.8 is where it's at.

I love my 70-200 VRII Nikon lens. Here is a shot with my D610. I use it a lot for landscape. This one is at 160mm at f16 and a 10 second exposure. There is no PP except for the B&W 6x ND filter I had on the lens.
D610#2 Ft.Wm.ND6_040 by J T, on Flickr