70-300MM for D7100

[PhilT]

Hi everybody, following a previous thread and an experience with the too heavy (for me) Sigma 150-500 (great lens anyway, but too much for my current needs, perhaps later... So I would like to go to 70-300 (possibly 50-300 but only if the quality/price ratio is better) for a Nikon D7100, and now I would deeply appreciate your expert opinions for the choice between Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 and the Tamron 70-300. Is there a significant quality difference between both? For my budget the price of both is in my range. Eventually is there a better 50/70-300 from Sigma? I read the different reviews but it's not as clear than an user experience.
Thanks a lot for any advice, have a nice day/evening/night, according where you live
Philippe

[Black Pearl]

If you're talking the Tamron VC against Nikon VR then the reports are very similar. Some will say it's basically the same lens (Taron do make it for Nikon) while other reckon the Tamron has edge. Probably just splitting hairs.
The Nikon has a 67mm thread while the Tamron uses a 62mm if you've other lenses you might swap filters from.

As to the Nikon 55-300 VR then it's a DX lens not a FX one so while good the edge performance of the FX ones tend to be better on a DX camera. The 70-300mm VR Nikon also has a better build, a faster AF motor and I think a more advanced VR system.

I've been using the Nikon 70-300mm VR on both my old D200 and my current D300s with excellent results so would recommend it. Mind you I would say that as I have one and that tends to be a common internet thing to do - it is a good lens though and know others who enjoy using it.

[John 2]

Can't make a comparison for you but I own a copy of the Nikkor and I agree with Robin, you wouldn't be disappointed if you settled on that lens. My only negative comment is that for nature, I frequently find that it isn't quite long enough. You might find yourself missing the longer reach of the Sigma for that sort of photography.

[ajohnw]

I tried out the 55-300mm recently. This should give you some idea. As Robin points out there is some fall off to the edges but bear in mind this was shot at a bit of an angle - also focused on the bird body rather than the head to try and even out the dof. Full sized jpg straight out of the camera all improvements off. Taken from 12m according to the camera - biggish "duck" probably around 300 - 350mm long

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/16395876/original

This is another image, full frame just reduced taken from 16m - usual UK sized duck.



This is quickly processed crop from the jpg



Interesting that the Nikon exposed the duck well and forgot the water. The sun was behind me.

In my view it's not a bad lens. I have seen a comment in a review that the Tamron is still pretty contrasty at 300mm. Most zooms like this drop off at the long end. I haven't seen decent recent review on the Nikon full frame on a crop camera and it may have been updated since the one I have seen.

To be honest I wonder about things like the 70-200m F2.8 or F4 and converters for this sort of thing and it seems that the more recent Nikon 80-400mm is well liked and might even take a 1.4x converter. That one may out weigh the Sigma. The F4 70-200 is probably lighter and should work out using a 2x and the central AF point on most Nikon's.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

We'll go with UK prices just to make things easier but they should translate quite well.

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED - £339.99 - pay particular attention to the three hundred of pounds bit......

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - £1599.00
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £949 + Nikon Tc-20E Af-S Teleconverter - £449
Nikon 80 - 400 mm / F 4,5 - 5,6 AF-S NIKKOR ED VR - £2098

I am absolutely certain that the lenses ajohnw mentioned will be far, far better than the ones talked about by the OP but they are - lets say - somewhat more expensive.

[ajohnw]

We'll go with UK prices just to make things easier but they should translate quite well.

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED - £339.99 - pay particular attention to the three hundred of pounds bit......

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - £1599.00
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR - £949 + Nikon Tc-20E Af-S Teleconverter - £449
Nikon 80 - 400 mm / F 4,5 - 5,6 AF-S NIKKOR ED VR - £2098

I am absolutely certain that the lenses ajohnw mentioned will be far, far better than the ones talked about by the OP but they are - lets say - somewhat more expensive.

That's why I wonder. In some ways nature is toooooooooooooo expensive. The 70-200mm seem to work out at around £1000 used even the F4. Kenko converters about £100 odd new, not much less used. Nikon converters circa £150 used. They vary a lot.

You didn't mention the price of the F4 200-400mm but that is bound to weigh a lot.

The Sigma / Tamron versions may be comparable especially with a converter on. From the reviews I have seen they have more fall off to the edges than the Nikon lenses. I also don't know if Tamron have maintained the quality on the newer VC lens but these I believe are around £1000.

I've no idea at all how well any of these lenses work with a converter.

A much cheaper option is a used 300mm F4 D lens and kenko converters but no VR. I'd guess this and a 2x would seem to be a good set up but the birds will realise and move closer and over fill the frame or move even further away. As 300mm lense at F4 aren't available with IS I can't see the point of buying the newer version. There used to be a number of cheaper F5.6 long prime lens options but all seem to have gone off the market. F4 would be better but Sigma long primes for instance are fast, F2.8 on the 300mm and don't have IS.

On the 55-300mm crop lens I was fairly pleased by the duck crop and as birds don't usually fill the frame I see it as ok but it would be interesting to compare straight camera jpg's from the 70-300mm full frame lens from a similar distance. No point once they have been PP from raw as results can be distinctly different.

John
-

[Polar01]

Philippe just out today with my D7000 with the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 on. I was out shooting birds which is something I very, very, very, rarely do I was getting bored so I shot some critters. That lens is excellent on the D7000 very fast getting on focus and staying on focus following the bird through the air. Included on of the shoots that I took this morning, estimate the distance was about 100ft or so away.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

I sorted out some reviews from a site where it's a bit difficult to find lenses but it shows why I might buy the Tamron if I went the 200mm F2.8 way which to me is too expensive.

http://www.lenstip.com/375.4-Lens_re...esolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/371.4-Lens_re...esolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/342.4-Lens_re...esolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/284.4-Lens_re...esolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/229.4-Lens_re...esolution.html

Simple to use. The higher the lp/mm figures and the closer together the better. I get the impression Tamron may be trying to get back where they were years ago. Often the best apart from lenses the camera manufacturers made. At the moment speaking a bit loosely it seems that may even be better at times.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

Horrendous conditions, spray on the front element, high winds, cold, a fast moving subject and high iso - the AF was perfect on just about every shot, the VR helped immensely and even though it, the camera and myself got soaked through I got some cracking' good shots.

It is not a perfect lens but for the money is a damn good one.

Nikon D300s
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR @ 300mm
1/500s - f11 - 720iso



Nikon D300s
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR @ 195mm
1/200s - f8 - 200iso
Hand Held



The car TAX badge is a 100% crop (12mp camera) of the original file.

[Saorsa]

This is with the Nikkor 70-300mm VR on a D300. It now hangs out on a D7100.



I did AF tune it outdoors, handheld just the way I use it.

[Brev00]

If you take responses to threads like this as reflections of reality, you will be happy with whichever one you choose. Three and a half years ago, I went into a camera shop to get the Nikon vr. I wound up with the Tamron vc. It had just come out so there were few reviews. I trusted the clerk (a real photo mensch) and the five day trial period he offered. I liked the lens right off the bat and it is a mainstay in my kit to this day. I use it for a wide variety of purposes, initially for sports but it also gets a lot of use with flowers, wildlife, landscapes, etc. This is one of my most recent:

[IMG][/IMG]

Since I never tried the Nikon version, I can't draw a comparison. It is usually cheaper by a couple of hundred dollars with the Tamron $100 rebate. Tamron's 6 year warranty is excellent. I just had the lens adjusted after steady use within the warranty window. The vc is superb. It really stabilizes the viewfinder making it possible to get acceptable shots down to 1/15 at 300mm. Some people don't like the way the vc works, though, so it is good to get a trial window if possible.

[pnodrog]

You should also include the Sigma for confederation.

It does well in the DX0 tests and comparisons.

"Comparisons" above is a link.

[lenelg]

If you are shooting birds or other wildlife, focus performance is more important than what ultimate resolution you could measure in the lab. Loved my Nikon 70-300 from that point of view!

[PhilT]

"The Sigma / Tamron versions may be comparable especially with a converter on. From the reviews I have seen they have more fall off to the edges than the Nikon lenses. I also don't know if Tamron have maintained the quality on the newer VC lens but these I believe are around £1000"

Thanks for your answer John. It raise another point I would like to ask for: is the quality of a lens + converter as good as the equivalent lens only? In other words does the converter keeps the quality of the lens or seriously flaws it? PhliT

[pnodrog]

If you do go for a converter it is probably best to just use a 1.4X rather than a 2X. You should retain a bit better quality and a lower (faster) f stop. Every time you add a filter or any other optical device to a lens the performance will reduce by some extent.

[PhilT]

If you do go for a converter it is probably best to just use a 1.4X rather than a 2X. You should retain a bit better quality and a lower (faster) f stop. Every time you add a filter or any other optical device to a lens the performance will reduce by some extent.

Thanks for taking time to answer, my question then is: the extent of optical quality loss with x1.4 is acceptable or not? For example if you need cropping.

[John 2]

If you do go for a converter it is probably best to just use a 1.4X rather than a 2X. You should retain a bit better quality and a lower (faster) f stop. Every time you add a filter or any other optical device to a lens the performance will reduce by some extent.

I second that thought for a different reason. I use mine with a good quality pro 1.4. x and the IQ fall off isn't significant but its' ability to auto focus is restricted. Not a function of the lens but down to the camera's ability to AF at smaller apertures - hence the recommendation to use f2.8 lenses if you can afford one because you loose 1-1.5 stops by fitting the converter. This gets worse if you use a 2.0x because you lose correspondingly more. However, the D7100/D300 and the more high end cameras cope better due to their having more focus points. I saw a distinct improvement when I swapped my D7000 for a D7100 in this respect. Even so, beyond f8, I'm generally in manual mode. By the way, if you are thinking in terms of a Nikon converter, I think I'm right in saying that it is not compatible with the 70-300 Nikkor. Nikon publish compatibility tables on their site.

A final thought. If you are prepared to spend a little more than the price of the 70-300mm Nikkor but less than the £1000 + offerings, the 18-300mm Nikkor might be worth considering. It's a later generation dx lens and reviews well. It's described as being equivalent in performance to the earlier 18-200mm which I have and that is a very good performer. I use it as my everyday carry lens on the D7100. No point in using a converter at the wide end though.

[pnodrog]

When the choice is either getting a photo or not I am happy to use my 1.4X adapter with my lens. Acceptable or not will depend entirely on the size you wish to view the photograph, the subject mater, its use and your own expectations. I do not resort to using my adapter often but it has on occasions been very useful.

[John 2]

If your want some idea of achievable quality Phillipe, this was taken with the 70-300mm +1.4 converter on a D90. However as always, the quality of the converter is also a factor.

Visitor on the Fence
.

[jordand]

Many opinions and options , and maybe at the end it all comes to personal preferences as well.
Tamron is less expensive than the Nikon but the build quality and performance are NOT inferior.
This is unedited JPEG, taken with my Tamron 70-300 at 70mm, mounted on D7000 handheld with VC on.
f/4.0; ISO 800; 1/80; Center weighted; no compensation.



And this is the final result from the respective RAW file PP.

Ecce Homo
.