Hi all,
As many other users before me, I'm finding myself wanting some more zoom than my tamron 17-50mm. But now, like all those other users before me, I was a bit shocked by the enormous costs of these telezoom lenses.
As photography is just a hobby for me, I just can't (or won't) afford the Nikor f2.8 lenses. But the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 might be at the far end of my price range.
But than I start to ask myself, how can it be that the closest Nikon f2.8 with that focal range, costs more than twice as much? How much consessions did Tamron have to make, to get the price lowered like this, or is Nikon just 'using it's name' to drive it's price up. Probably a bit of both.
Anyway. Than I started wondering, do I really absolutely need a zoomlens with an f2.8 max aparture? Looking at sample pictures of this tamron lens (@https://pixelpeeper.com), I noticed that most were shot with f5.6 or higher. And still those had a very small depth of field. There's even one of a bird's head, shot at 200mm @ f5.6 where only the eye is sharp, and the back of the head blurry. Very narrow DOF. Just like I would like to get as well.
Just how often are you going to use this f2.8 aperture? Wouldn't it make more sense to just buy a cheaper lens with a max aperture of f5.6 or a Nikon @ f4 (Like the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/4.0G ED VR ) and maybe invest in vibration reduction instead?
I would really like your insights on this, and please correct me if i'm totally wrong or missing some other pivotal points to take into account when buying certain telezooms. I'm totally new to the DSLR world, I've just been using my D3300 for about 4-5 months now, but I do love it!
Thanks and again, I'm curious to read your thoughts on this!
Tijs
As many other users before me, I'm finding myself wanting some more zoom than my tamron 17-50mm. But now, like all those other users before me, I was a bit shocked by the enormous costs of these telezoom lenses.
As photography is just a hobby for me, I just can't (or won't) afford the Nikor f2.8 lenses. But the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 might be at the far end of my price range.
But than I start to ask myself, how can it be that the closest Nikon f2.8 with that focal range, costs more than twice as much? How much consessions did Tamron have to make, to get the price lowered like this, or is Nikon just 'using it's name' to drive it's price up. Probably a bit of both.
Anyway. Than I started wondering, do I really absolutely need a zoomlens with an f2.8 max aparture? Looking at sample pictures of this tamron lens (@https://pixelpeeper.com), I noticed that most were shot with f5.6 or higher. And still those had a very small depth of field. There's even one of a bird's head, shot at 200mm @ f5.6 where only the eye is sharp, and the back of the head blurry. Very narrow DOF. Just like I would like to get as well.
Just how often are you going to use this f2.8 aperture? Wouldn't it make more sense to just buy a cheaper lens with a max aperture of f5.6 or a Nikon @ f4 (Like the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/4.0G ED VR ) and maybe invest in vibration reduction instead?
I would really like your insights on this, and please correct me if i'm totally wrong or missing some other pivotal points to take into account when buying certain telezooms. I'm totally new to the DSLR world, I've just been using my D3300 for about 4-5 months now, but I do love it!
Thanks and again, I'm curious to read your thoughts on this!
Tijs
Last edited: