70-200 and 80-200... which one to buy, Tamron or Nikon

My 1st post beyond introducing myself to this friendly forum,

Use a D300 withAFS 70-300 for mainly schoolboy soccer photography, every sunday and the odd 5 a side event. Aware that as light get's worst during the winter months a F2.8 maximum aperture would be very useful. Also mindful of the limitations of the D300 at higher ASA's.

Working to a modest budget,

All the prices below are in sterling £ and are typically grey market imports

Spotted the old Tamron SP 70-200, no VC and 1st generation AF circa £399,

Typically (for me!) I then looked upmarket and...

Tamron SP70-200 with VC and better AF (the current model) circa £659

Then moved sideways and found

Nikkor AF 80-200 ED Zoom, non AFS circa £619 old style Nikon build quality, no VC and AF powered by body. Virtually settled on this.

Concerns, wary of grey importing Tamron lenses given possible indifferent build quality. More comfortable with bringing in a Nikon lens...

Reckon AF speed of Nikon is in between the 2 Tamron's above?

Long search on here and elsewhere then mentioned issues with back focussing with combi of D300 and above Nikkor lens. (As well as a few other bodies)

Not sure if I would have the ability or confidence to adjust focus in my D300 body

This lens has been around for years, are these (possible?) issues still likely to be there now. Given my use would mostly be at F2.8 a lot of the time.

My 1st thoughts were that this combi would be pretty good being a near semi pro old school body with this lens.

Also I am not entirely sure I could buy this lens in the UK anywhere other than the grey market. Don't think it is officially imported anymore (but not sure on this)

Fearing I might just stick to what I have got and crank up the ASA and see how it goes...

All guidance very very welcome...~

Here is my two cents........the Nikon 80-200 would be my last pick....I understand wanting to stick with Nikon though. If that is a major consideration for you, it would move it up your list.

The Tamron 70-200 with VC is easily the best lens. The 70-200 Tamron is a great lens without the real advantage of VC. You can get good shots with the old Tamron in low light and you can get good shots after dark handheld BUT you have to be super steady or better yet use a tri-pod.

Fearing I might just stick to what I have got and crank up the ASA and see how it goes...

All guidance very very welcome...~

Read more: http://nikonites.com/telephoto/33579-70-200-80-200-one-buy-tamron-nikon.html#ixzz3pdK96BAk

Click to expand...

Following the above... what post-processing software are you using? Just so you know, there are several programs now that would accommodate pumping up the ISO as you've indicated, and then resolving/fixing the noise issue in post-processing. Certainly way cheaper than your other solutions...

If you're shooting sports and other fast paced stuff the 80-200 shouldn't even be considered as the 70-300 is much better and the tamron is way better than that. If you're shooting stuff that doesn't fly or run, then the 80-200 (D not push pull) will probably take better pictures and that lens your father shot with will still be kicking for your grandkids to use. These lens aren't even comparable as they are intended for completely different purposes.

Better yet get a minty 80-200 used on ebay for 400-500 bucks.

john*thomas said:

Here is my two cents........the Nikon 80-200 would be my last pick....I understand wanting to stick with Nikon though. If that is a major consideration for you, it would move it up your list.

The Tamron 70-200 with VC is easily the best lens. The 70-200 Tamron is a great lens without the real advantage of VC. You can get good shots with the old Tamron in low light and you can get good shots after dark handheld BUT you have to be super steady or better yet use a tri-pod.

Click to expand...

Interesting, perhaps I have undervalued the advantage of VC. Most of my soccer use I am shooting at 850th or 1000th rather assumed that VC is not so important at those speeds? I am certainly not tied to Nikon though so will I think move the Tamron VC to top of the list.. Basically the fastest available AF will determine the number of keepers I get all things being equal.

salukfan111 said:

If you're shooting sports and other fast paced stuff the 80-200 shouldn't even be considered as the 70-300 is much better and the tamron is way better than that. If you're shooting stuff that doesn't fly or run, then the 80-200 (D not push pull) will probably take better pictures and that lens your father shot with will still be kicking for your grandkids to use. These lens aren't even comparable as they are intended for completely different purposes.

Better yet get a minty 80-200 used on ebay for 400-500 bucks.

Click to expand...

Yes sports is the thing for me, if the Tamron VC is a tad faster than the Nikon 70-300mm AFS at AF speed and the Nikon D 80-200 is appreciably slower than both then I will dismiss the D.

FredKingston said:

Following the above... what post-processing software are you using? Just so you know, there are several programs now that would accommodate pumping up the ISO as you've indicated, and then resolving/fixing the noise issue in post-processing. Certainly way cheaper than your other solutions...

Click to expand...

I am somewhat ashamed to say I use no post processing and just shoot in Jpeg. Given I might have 400-500 shots at the end of a match the volume is just to much for me to process. I would like to learn post processing though and this I guess deserves another post at some point as to which path to start with...

Weso said:

Yes sports is the thing for me, if the Tamron VC is a tad faster than the Nikon 70-300mm AFS at AF speed and the Nikon D 80-200 is appreciably slower than both then I will dismiss the D.

Click to expand...

For sports (even soccer) if money is no object, the 70-200 Tamron should be the best. The 70-300 VRG should probably suffice (nobody complains about AF speed on this lens) and you could get a minty used 70-300 and 80-200 for the price of the Tamron though and each of those lens will outlive your grandchildren and will certainly work on your next camera. The reach of the 70-300 would let you get a little higher for more coverage and less cropping.

Weso said:

Interesting, perhaps I have undervalued the advantage of VC. Most of my soccer use I am shooting at 850th or 1000th rather assumed that VC is not so important at those speeds? I am certainly not tied to Nikon though so will I think move the Tamron VC to top of the list.. Basically the fastest available AF will determine the number of keepers I get all things being equal.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking for soccer you are correct. You mentioned low light and IMO that is where the VC helps.

For the money the T[FONT=OpenSans, arial, sans-sarif]amron 70-200 f2.8 Di lD If is a great lens. I have one....being on a budget I was able to find an official refurbished
[/FONT]with a warranty for $599 (U.S.) The cheapest Tamron 70-200 Di VC I could find was grey market with no warranty for $1000 (U.S.).

I read and read and read and asked here and while anything you read is only someone else's opinion, everyone had the same opinion. The Nikon 70-200 is a great lens.....it's a lot of money. The 80-200 lags behind them all. The Newer 70-200 VC is as good and many say better than the Nikon 70-200 and it's half the money. The older 70-200 Di Id Lf has limitations the VC has addressed but if you can live with that you can get one much cheaper.

I also find that when you have the equipment that does other things well you end up expanding your range of taking pictures. From my researching the Tamron 70-200 Di ID Lf refurbished wasn't much more expensive than the 80-200 used and by all accounts was still a much better lens.

None of it probably matters if you are taking pics in good light....The lens you have will do a great job now. Either of the Tamron's will do a better job in low light with the VC doing a superb job by all accounts.

john*thomas said:

Generally speaking for soccer you are correct. You mentioned low light and IMO that is where the VC helps.

For the money the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di lD If is a great lens. I have one....being on a budget I was able to find an official refurbished
with a warranty for $599 (U.S.) The cheapest Tamron 70-200 Di VC I could find was grey market with no warranty for $1000 (U.S.).

I read and read and read and asked here and while anything you read is only someone else's opinion, everyone had the same opinion. The Nikon 70-200 is a great lens.....it's a lot of money. The 80-200 lags behind them all. The Newer 70-200 VC is as good and many say better than the Nikon 70-200 and it's half the money. The older 70-200 Di Id Lf has limitations the VC has addressed but if you can live with that you can get one much cheaper.

I also find that when you have the equipment that does other things well you end up expanding your range of taking pictures. From my researching the Tamron 70-200 Di ID Lf refurbished wasn't much more expensive than the 80-200 used and by all accounts was still a much better lens.

None of it probably matters if you are taking pics in good light....The lens you have will do a great job now. Either of the Tamron's will do a better job in low light with the VC doing a superb job by all accounts.

Click to expand...

Many thanks for your detailed response, I assume you use your Tamron 70-200 DI LD on your D7100? How would you describe the AF performance of this lens, I believe it's 1st generation as such compared to the VC version. It just so happens I reckon it's AF performance should be fine for my needs. Just need half decent tracking really.
I actually started out with the cheap and cheerful 70-300 Tamron, non VC non everything and even that proved adequate in terms of AF speed.

Any low light concerns I have are related to daytime football in the depth of a uk winter, not sure VC would be much use to me given the shutter speeds I have to use to stop the action. The extra F stops though would be very useful.

From what I've read, the newer 70-200 is a good bit quicker at AF.......The one complaint you will find with the older non VC like mine is a slower AF and on occasions a bit of hunting for the focus.

Based only upon my personal experience I would say that those complaints are probably legit. Mine will on occasion do a bit of hunting for focus. It's not always instant fast while the reports are the newer one is. The thing I like is the quick action in and out of AF. It has the in/out action of the focus ring which I like far better than the switch on the Nikon.

Once I got used to mine I've been able to adapt somewhat. I take a lot of pics of my daughter in the High School band. Probably the same sort of distance you are going to shoot. In day light under those conditions I don't have any problems. In low light I'll often times just shoot in manual. The band doesn't move as quick as soccer players though.

I've had zero compatibly issues so that wouldn't concern me that much but yet, you never know what Nikon may pull in the future. I'd say the odds are low though. If the extra money wasn't a problem, I would go the newer VC version. By everyone's account it is a better lens. If money is a concern the older one does a great job, you just have to get used to the limitations, which by limitations we are still talking much better than a slower lens.

Used versions of the older lens I have are still selling for 90% plus of what I paid for a refurbished unit with a warranty. I figured if it didn't cut it I could sell it, not be out much and get the newer version. Now that I've been using it for awhile, I've decided I'll just stick with it. It works 90% plus for what I wanted it for.