Tamron vs Nikon

[sbougon]

Can I expect better photos by choosing the Nikon 70-200 2.8 over Tamron? There is a $1,000 difference between the two.

[Dave Humphries]

Can I expect better photos by choosing the Nikon 70-200 2.8 over Tamron? There is a $1,000 difference between the two.

Undoubtedly

... but whether you can afford/justify it, is another matter Steve

I tried Sigma once, now I only buy Nikon lenses - but one day there might come a time when I cannot afford/justify it. Not sure I can for a lens much over 1000 and I bet that is

[Downrigger]

I'm in the 70-200 market too - but mainly struggling with the Nikon 42.8 VRII vs the f4 and wonder why the f4 isn't on your list as maybe a middle ground (in cost and performance) between the two over which you struggle.

It is incredibly tangled to consider a choice in terms of all the reviews out there as they frequently conflict in what they find (especially in sharpness and color abberation) and the differences are in any case of unclear importance for the vast majority of applications.

It still comes down to the photographer - look at the beautiful eagles shot on the big 150-500 Sigma on a currently running Bald Eagle thread and realize its being there and shooting well that get you the great results you want.

[Manfred M]

Of course not; as the quality of the photo comes from the photographer, not the camera.

It is also complete wishful thinking that Tamron can build the same quality of lens for $1000 less than the Nikon. There have been compromises made in the optical, mechanical and electronic build. You get what you pay for. I can vouch for the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm; it is well built mechanically and optically. I probably do around 30% - 40% of my shooting with it.

[Black Pearl]

You can't expect any lens to give you better photographs - you might ask of it an extended shooting range or situations in which you can still get a shot or a different set of parameters from which you can crate an image but better is down to the person behind the camera.

The Tamron will be an excellent lens and will produce sharp images if used correctly.

The Nikon will be an excellent lens and will produce sharp images if used correctly - it will also be better built, have superior performance when you push the limits of its optics and focusing plus it will have a higher resale value.

The thing to remember with lenses is that they can be a solution to a problem but not a solution in themselves.

[rpcrowe]

We all love to say that the quality of an image is due to the photographer, not the equipment and we all like to say that a excellent photographer with mediocre equipment will achieve better results than a mediocre photographer with excellent equipment.

I agree with this concept but...

The same photographer (or two photographers of equal abilities) will usually get better results (especially when stretching the envelope as mentioned by Robin above) using better equipment.

As an extreme example, there is no way that I could compete with a photographer of equal ability who is shooting with a Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens if I were saddled with using the crappy Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 dog...

OTOH... The 55-250mm IS lens shot at 150mm at around f/8 to f/11 and tripod mounted will produce results quite close to that of the more expensive L lenses shooting at around the same aperture and focal length. Where the more expensive lens will shine is when you need to expand the envelope and shoot wide open at maximum focal length...

Sometimes IQ is not the entire measurement of the lens capability. I once owned a 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX lens which produced very nice image quality even wide open. However, the auto-focus was not up to par and would search before locking on. My 400mm f/5.6L Canon lens also produces very good image quality but the auto-focus is quite quick and accurate.

[Brev00]

Isn't this a guessing game? I don't know of many (none here so far) who own the Tamron and am not sure it has been released to the general public. I have seen only one or two reviews so far with one saying to get it if you shoot Nikon but, if you shoot Canon, the Tamron and the Canon are very close with the advantage going to Canon. My question is even if the Nikon is superior according to various testing parameters, will these differences be perceptible to you? And, if you do notice them, will they be worth the price difference? Only you can answer these questions (and that is only assuming that the Nikon version is superior, subtly or otherwise). Without having tested either one, I am pretty sure the Tamron would be good enough for me. They have been doing a nice job of updating their line starting with my Tamron 70-300 vc.

[arslanturegun]

If you are a full time professional photographer go for Nikon. If you are a serious amateur go for Tammy + tripod (as it doesn't have IS).

[Black Pearl]

Yes it does: http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overv...keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

[arslanturegun]

a ha! then get Tammy and a tripod. A tripod will serve you anyway