Bought a Tamron SP 70-200mm G2 Lens Today

gunfighter48

Senior Member
I have wanted a 70-200 for years but could never afford the Nikon version and didn't care for the other brands that were available at the time. After reading posts and watching YouTube videos for the last week I took the plunge today and bought one. It's a beast compared to the lenses I've used in the past. At 3lbs 8oz it's no light weight but that's why I also have the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-6.3 VR lens. I like to do outdoor/landscape photography so the Tamron will fit the bill just fine for that. It also does an excellent job for close up/portrait work from the pictures I've seen. The Nikon 70-300mm lens will work for most of the everyday things I photograph. I do a little wildlife photography and the Nikon will be excellent for that. Plus it will be lighter for the times when I don't wast to pack a lot of weight. Now all I have to do is get some days off so I can go shoot with both the 70-300 and the 70-200!!
 
Last edited:

gunfighter48

Senior Member
Re: Bought a Tamron SP 70-300mm G2 Lens Today

Sorry guys, very excited and yes many typos. Yes the Tamron is the 70-200mm. I went back and corrected the post but can't correct the title. I'm still excited and I'll be that way until next week when I get two days off to go shoot some photos with it!! For now all I can do is sit here and fondle it!!!!;)
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Re: Bought a Tamron SP 70-300mm G2 Lens Today

Sorry guys, very excited and yes many typos. Yes the Tamron is the 70-200mm. I went back and corrected the post but can't correct the title. I'm still excited and I'll be that way until next week when I get two days off to go shoot some photos with it!! For now all I can do is sit here and fondle it!!!!;)

No worries at all! That's an awesome lens, congrats!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gunfighter48

Senior Member
The thing I found interesting is that the Nikon $400.00 70-300mm is not that far behind the Tamron 70-200mm in most the head to head reviews. They both get excellent marks for sharpness and detail. I might take a trip down to Seattle and the Woodland Park zoo next week if the weather stays nice. Should be able to give both lenses a workout at the zoo!
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I still don't quite see why you'd need to overlap the same length you already had covered pretty well. 2.8 adds a nicer bokeh, but you lose reach and with a telephoto shooting subject far away bokeh will be there even at f/8 if the background is even farther. And it's MUCH heavier.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I still don't quite see why you'd need to overlap the same length you already had covered pretty well. 2.8 adds a nicer bokeh, but you lose reach and with a telephoto shooting subject far away bokeh will be there even at f/8 if the background is even farther. And it's MUCH heavier.

I use the 70-200/2.8 when shooting events with low light. It's a heavy lens, relatively speaking, so I use it when it's needed for indoor portraits when I need the extra stops for AF performance or to keep ISO down.

For travel, the 70-300/5.6 is smaller and lighter, plus has the extra range. If I can only take 1-2 lenses, this is probably one of them ... for general purpose.

If I'm wanting to be serious about wildlife, then I'm on to the 200-500/5.6.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I use the 70-200/2.8 when shooting events with low light. It's a heavy lens, relatively speaking, so I use it when it's needed for indoor portraits when I need the extra stops for AF performance or to keep ISO down.

But does OP do that as well? And myself as an example - I sold my 70-300 when I stepped up to 70-200 to avoid redundancy, and since filled the gap with 2x TC for when I really want more reach beyond what 70-300 would've pulled (and at a fraction of the cost with luck).
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
But does OP do that as well? And myself as an example - I sold my 70-300 when I stepped up to 70-200 to avoid redundancy, and since filled the gap with 2x TC for when I really want more reach beyond what 70-300 would've pulled (and at a fraction of the cost with luck).

Agreed, but I also think everyone will have their own trade offs on what's acceptable. I would rather not carry the 70-200 around unless it's needed ... to the point where I was also considering the 70-200/f4 just to save some weight. I ended up with the 70-300 not so much for the reach, but because I could travel with it for recreational use without worrying about how I packed it or needing to carry a second bag for it.

When I stopped in to buy the 70-300, we had the same conversation on pros/cons to just slapping a TC on the 70-200 ... but at the time there wasn't a good TC option for the older Tamron 70-200, and that still didn't address my concern for smaller/lighter.
 
Top