In doubt between f2.8 and f.4(+)

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

Tijs said:

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

Click to expand...

It's no secret how much I love my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD; it's the lens I need a reason to take off of my D750. It's closely followed by another Tamron lens, their 24-70mm f/2.8 to be exact. Having used them both for quite some time, I don't think Tamron made any concessions whatsoever to get the price to where it is. In my experience the build quality equals or exceeds their Nikon equivalents. I think Nikon glass is, quite frequently, outrageously over-priced. As manufacturing technology has improved and I think it safe to say, reduced manufacturing costs, "upstarts" like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are proving time and time again that outstanding glass can often be done for a lot less that what Nikon is asking. Anyone not considering third-party glass because they think Nikon glass is better somehow simply for being Nikon glass are fooling themselves. Hard.

Now, as for using my zooms at f/2.8, I find that wide aperture very, very useful personally; but I guess just how useful that would be for anyone would depend on what and/how they shoot. I like that I can keep that wide aperture throughout the zoom range, unlike variable aperture glass that closes down as the focal length increases. I like being able to use that shallow depth of field because it gives the subject more "pop" from the background the creamy out-of-focus background that the wide aperture gives. But again, these things suit my type of photography. I understand that top-notch, fast zooms are pricey. It's why I've really pared down what glass I do own because I'd rather own few really, really good lenses, than several that are mediocre.
.....

Tijs said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have the three Nikon f/2.8 lenses, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-120. They are simply fantastic (but cost a small fortune). I imagine the Tamron is also very good, but have not used them, so no comment other than Nikon lenses certainly are premium price.
I have other lenses too, like the Nikon 24-120mm f/4, which is also very good. Actually, I take only the f/4 lens on trips (for a light load to carry), but around home, the f/2.8s get all the use. The actual difference might be more imagined than perceived.

Here's a sample, 70-200 mm at f/8 130mm, as full frame and a 100% crop.




I don't use f/2.8 much, because I tend to like depth of field (and ISO aids that effort). But like for flash, it seems to me that the quality f/2.8 lens used stopped down at f/4 is better than the inexpensive f/4 lens wide open. Other than that they are quality lenses, that's my reason for f/2.8.

For a DX body, then 16mm would equate to the same view as 24mm on FX. DX needs wider than 24mm, 24 would Not be very wide angle on DX. For DX, I always liked the Nikon 16-85mm, very decent, but it is not f/2.8.

One thing that causes zoom quality to suffer is a wide zoom range. 14-24 is about 2x, 24-70 is about 3x, 70-200 is about 3x, 16-85 is about 5x. Something like 18-200 is 11x, and is simply harder to correct. The smaller zoom ranges can deliver more (in their limited range).

Although I don't shoot at f/2.8 very often, there is an advantage to having fast glass. It allows more light into the camera which helps the AF. If you are in a dimly lit room, an f/2.8 lens may achieve focus while a lens that is f/4.5 or f/5.6 might be left hunting and not able to focus. And fast lenses tend to be made very well compared with similar lenses that aren't as fast.

Not all fast glass gives nice bokeh when shot wide open. It all depends on the lens.

Faster lenses provide for faster shutter speeds.

Faster lenses blur backgrounds and isolate subjects better.

The worse the conditions...the better faster more expensive lenses will shine.

I went through this also before getting my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 to go with my D7000. After a lot of consideration, posting, & reading posts, I decided f2.8 would offer low light options that an f4 wouldn't and that was important to me. Naturally I would like to have spent less but I feel like if I had gone with an f4 option, I would have regretted it (especially at something like my daughter's school musical). If I need 2.8, then I have it. But that doesn't mean you need 2.8.

I also have the trinity of 2.8 lenses in addition to a bunch of other zooms and primes. Unless I want to travel light, shoot birds/sports or macro, these are the 3 lenses I use. Maybe not at f/2.8, but most lenses are sharpest stopped down a bit. But I have 2.8 if I need it.

As your skills develop, down the road, you will regret having not purchased the f/2.8.

If, for example you take a Nikon 300mm f/4 and compare it to a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 there is a huge price difference, and on paper for what? one stop and a bit of dof, for the same focal length? Many modern cameras can handle one stop difference, so the f/4 looks like a bargain at few hundred over several thousand (£'s/$'s Euros..whatever.)
That several thousand difference is basically down to two factors. Build and performance. If you place them side by side the first difference is size. The f/4 is compact, and lightweight, the f/2.8 is a good twice the size and much much heavier, due to larger glass elements, better case and add to that waterproof over the f/4 being water resistant. The f/2.8 has a professional build to do a professional job (if need be)
Secondly is performance. The f2.8 is much faster and optically superior, which to many people is a crucial part of their photography.
So, there is a bit more to it than just one stop and a bit o' dof. Its just is the expense worth it to you?

70-300 vr g 4.5-5.6
no its not a 2k lens but it does a great job

I had the same struggle. I could not justify the 2.8 lens, but then a friend let me try his lens out and I realized I needed to find a way. I really like the fixed aperture thru the entire zoom range. I really like the effect of 2.8 when I want to use it. I am really happy with my Tamron lenses.

Wow, thanks you all for informative and passionate responses.
Of course I pretty much could have guessed what you were all going to write, but still, because it's quite a big expense I want to take all into consideration. I think my biggest concern was/is, will the cheapest f2.8 lens still be worth the big difference in cost compared to the f4 and f5.6 counterparts.
According to Horoscope Fish it certainly is I indeed did read your other comments about the tamron 70-200 and how you like to hug it, haha. It almost immediately made me buy one, but I wanted to be absolutely sure.

Horoscope Fish, I see you have the VR version, which is actually twice as pricy as the one without. (about €1350 compared to €700). But the VR version also seems to have a better built, like more elements, more quiete focussing motor, etc.

Camera Fun and Danno, which of the two versions do you guys ended up with?

hark said:

Although I don't shoot at f/2.8 very often, there is an advantage to having fast glass. It allows more light into the camera which helps the AF. If you are in a dimly lit room, an f/2.8 lens may achieve focus while a lens that is f/4.5 or f/5.6 might be left hunting and not able to focus. And fast lenses tend to be made very well compared with similar lenses that aren't as fast.

Not all fast glass gives nice bokeh when shot wide open. It all depends on the lens.

Click to expand...

Good point about the AF. did not consider that...

Tijs said:

Wow, thanks you all for informative and passionate responses.
Of course I pretty much could have guessed what you were all going to write, but still, because it's quite a big expense I want to take all into consideration. I think my biggest concern was/is, will the cheapest f2.8 lens still be worth the big difference in cost compared to the f4 and f5.6 counterparts.
According to Horoscope Fish it certainly is I indeed did read your other comments about the tamron 70-200 and how you like to hug it, haha. It almost immediately made me buy one, but I wanted to be absolutely sure.

Horoscope Fish, I see you have the VR version, which is actually twice as pricy as the one without. (about €1350 compared to €700). But the VR version also seems to have a better built, like more elements, more quiete focussing motor, etc.

Camera Fun and Danno, which of the two versions do you guys ended up with?

Click to expand...

I have the non VR version. I know that the motor is louder and it is slower to focus, but I am still very pleased with it. I think it has helped with my technique a bit. I practice a lot with my dog playing in the yard. I also use it a lot at church for baptisms and the lighting there is always unpredictable.

Now that you know that a 2.8 lens is a great choice, it's up to you and your budget to decide what you need. It's essential to make a clear cut decision about buying what you need or what you want.

If the money is tight, why not buy the 70-300 VR. This lens is excellent (except around 300mm) but can be bought for around 400.00$. This is a third of what a Tamron would cost you. When you get to the point where you NEED the 2.8 lens, you sell the 70-300 and get the one you've wanted for so long.

As far as I'm concerned, I kept the 70-300 because of it's size and weight. So I still have the choice of what I carry.

Good luck Shopping.

I own the 70-200 vr1. I hardly shoot at 2.8 wirh it at weddings. Im usually at 3.5 and up. Its just not sharp enough at 2.8 over 135mm. I prefer shooting with my 85 at 2.8 when i shoot people. 2.8 and 135mm+ isnt so easy. Dof is quite tiny and being accurate is sometimes funny that the camera says its in focus but its off by a bit. Other times its fine. The af performance and brighter vf is a big plus. Significant difference. Just like when i mount my 85 1.8 vs the 70-200 vr1. Big difference. Get a used nikon or a tamron vc if you can. I will tell you this.. You will need practice to get stabile images. Its not as easy as it seems at first. Good luck

As a parting shot I'll just point out that I'd much, MUCH rather have better lenses even if that means having fewer of them. Outstanding glass is expensive for a lot of very good reasons but I can tell you for a fact really outstanding glass brings out the full potential of the camera body it's attached to and, simply put, is a joy to work with. I've never regretted holding out and getting what I know I really want. There have been times I've settled for less and if I haven't regretted it outright, neither had the "itch been scratched". Oh, sure I saved some money by getting something less than what I really wanted, but I was always wondering what I was missing; and that kind of thinking can really suck the joy out of owning a new lens. Trouble is, at that point the problem is compounded by the fact I've already spent a hefty amount on something I didn't really want, so getting what I really do want now seems doubly silly because the first thing I think is how that money might have gone toward the lens I really wanted in the first place. But of course I also understand there are limits to this... I'd like to be driving a Mercedes, but my Nissan will have to suffice.

In short, when it comes to glass: Don't buy based on how a good a deal you think you're getting; buy the absolute best you can afford. "Buy once, cry once."

.....

Well, I though I'd give this topic some closure. I bought a new lens this weekend!

First I went to a local camera superstore on Saturday, where I knew they both had the Nikon 70-300 and the Tamron 70-200 VR in stock. They let me test out both lenses on my D3300. I tried to make the same shots using both lenses. Using both VC/VR functions and without. Using shallow DOF etc. etc. Then I went home to compare the results on the big screen. I must admit that at that point my goal was to see if the Nikon could live up to the Tamron, so in other words, if I could live with the results of the 4.5/5.6 lens taking into account I would save €800.

But it turned out, that even under the hard conditions of the store lighting, I had some pretty good shoots, using both lenses. I could hardly tell the difference, apart from some more noise due to the higher ISO while using the 5.6 aperture of the Nikon..
That I saw so little difference is propably because of my amateur status, but that's one more reason why spending €1400,- on a lens would be a bit foolish at this stage.

So, I'm now the proud owner of the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF VR!

Thanks again for all your advise! Also if it turns out I went the other way, it was very informative to read so many views and opinions.

Ok, so a couple of thoughts on the subject. First, 2.8 vrs F4 - a lot of this depends on what is going to be most useful for you.

The biggest advantage to the 2.8? Better background separation when shot wide open, better AF in lowlight, and on a long enough focal length zoom lens like the 70-200mm 2.8, the ability to use teleconverters effectively.

The disadvantage? Size and weight - a 70-200mm F4 is a whole lot smaller and more manageable. Not quite as good at background separation of course, and not something you can use effectively with a 2x TC unless your outdoors in very, very good lighting.

So depending on what you shoot and where you shoot, the advantages of one may out weigh the other. They are both very, very good lenses.

Now, as to Tamron vrs Nikkor vrs Sigma...

Tamron, the non-vc versions weren't really highly regarded by most from what I've read. They had a lot of AF consistency issues.

The VC version of the Tamron is a top notch lens, again based on what I've read. I haven't personally shot it but the sample images it produces are very, very good from what I've seen and most of the folks that have the lens seem to love it. One caveat here, from the research I've done if you want to be able to use TC's, this probably wouldn't be a good choice in lenses. I've read a lot of folks who've said they love the lens but it to doesn't seem to work with any model of TC. Again can't verify that 100% since I don't own one, but it does seem to be a very common complaint.

The Nikkor - I recently purchased a Nikkor VRI 70-200mm 2.8 myself. I shot both the Sigma 70-200mm HSM I and the Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM prior to getting the Nikkor. I can tell you the image quality from the Nikkor completely blew both the Sigma's out of the water. It was better wide open than the sigma's were stopped down to 5.6 or even 8. The biggest thing though wasn't even so much the sharpness, it was the color contrast. Just a huge difference really. So was the Nikkor worth it? For me,absolutely. Again I suppose a lot will depend on how much you use the lens and what you use it for as to whether or not it's worth the extra for you.

The best part about my Nikkor? I carry two TC's - a 1.4x and a 2x. So with one lens and a couple of very light easy to carry TC's I have a 70-200mm 2.8, a 98-280 F4 and a 140-400mm 5.6. Makes for an incredibly versatile combination. So for me, yes the 2.8 is worth the extra size and weight.

Horoscope Fish said:

It's no secret how much I love my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD; it's the lens I need a reason to take off of my D750. It's closely followed by another Tamron lens, their 24-70mm f/2.8 to be exact. Having used them both for quite some time, I don't think Tamron made any concessions whatsoever to get the price to where it is. In my experience the build quality equals or exceeds their Nikon equivalents. I think Nikon glass is, quite frequently, outrageously over-priced. As manufacturing technology has improved and I think it safe to say, reduced manufacturing costs, "upstarts" like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are proving time and time again that outstanding glass can often be done for a lot less that what Nikon is asking. Anyone not considering third-party glass because they think Nikon glass is better somehow simply for being Nikon glass are fooling themselves. Hard.
.....

Click to expand...

This is a great review. I'm currently thinking of getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 and I'm really torn between the Nikon and Tamron. I shoot with a D750. I just have a hard time with the cost of the Nikon, I was thinking I could get the Tamron AND a wide angle lens for the cost of the Nikon. I was just worried about the sharpness of the Tamron lens. I don't want to sacrifice image quality to save money.