Nikon Lens (Page 2): I googled Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and this is the one that i got. There was another one that only cost about $700 dollars, but i didn't think that was it.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

sbesaw wrote:

Not the same lens. The new 2.8 has VC, a prominent feature, not mentioned above. Even so the DxO labs test was on the two lens tested on the bodies I care about and either use or will use. How it fared against Canon on a canon body holds no interest as I don't shoot Canon. That said I still believe it was the previous version but thanks for taking the time to point it out. It is an interesting perspective and I respect Thom's work

I googled Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and this is the one that i got. There was another one that only cost about $700 dollars, but i didn't think that was it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

SteveR wrote:

I'd read Thom Hogan's reviews before I did anything so radical.

Here's a review on the Tamron, which says it doesn't reach the quality of a Canon L lens. Is this the lens you're talking about?

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/579-tamron70200f28ff?start=2

All web articles should have a date. That is obviously the old Tamron. Matt Grainer did a good multipart comparison of these 70-200mm lenses, and he was impressed by the new Tamron

Bobbee

jerryc41 wrote:

That deserves the F/2.8 trio, sometimes called the Nikon Holy Trinity: 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm.

Lots of links here -

http://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+holy+trinity&oq=nikon+holy+trinity&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4052j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Thanks, I am missing the 14-24. Next target (after some research)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Bobbee wrote:

Thanks, I am missing the 14-24. Next target (after some research)

Take aim on ebay.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

SteveR wrote:

I googled Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and this is the one that i got. There was another one that only cost about $700 dollars, but i didn't think that was it.

The key is VC. The new one has VC and DxO labs, which is recognized and independent and accurate, rates it the sharpest 70-200 2.8 out there.

OviedoPhotos

I have both, the 28-300mm is the tourist lens on my summer road trip, used on the D800. My son keeps the 10-24 on his D300. Its sharp enough considering I never can predict how close I will be to something. Of course when shooting beyond 200mm or in low light I brace myself and watch the breathing. I admit to use an ISO of 1000 when this one is mounted.

The 70-200 v2.8 is used a lot also, but its heavier. I take it when hiking.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Having both, the 28-300 is much easier th =o use when hand=-holding. You are taking your chances using the 70-200 without a tripod.
The 70 is going to be better in low light or for when you want a much shallower DOF.
My eye is not sufficiently trained to distinguish which make the better image and, frankly, I don't care enough to to do a super-enlargement in the computer to compare pixels.

coondog Loc: Lost in Vermont

Having both will depend on what you shoot. Do you need the reach of the 300mm? The 70-200 is a fixed aperture throughout the entire focal rangea big advantage over the 70-300. I wouldn't but the 70-300 if I already owned the otherunless I really needed the reach.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

coondog wrote:

Having both will depend on what you shoot. Do you need the reach of the 300mm? The 70-200 is a fixed aperture throughout the entire focal rangea big advantage over the 70-300. I wouldn't but the 70-300 if I already owned the otherunless I really needed the reach.

But how about the 28-300 that the OP asked about?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

sbesaw wrote:

Interesting to note, as an owner of the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 Nikons, that the new Tamron equivalents rate higher in DxO lab tests. Maybe time to sell them used and but the Tamron's and still pocket some change. The Tamron 70-200 is about a grand less that the Nikon.

Just so you know, DxO lab tests are not the last word in testing lenses. Here - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison - is an interesting test showing the Nikon is better than the Tamron - but not much !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I like the 70-200 2.8 with a 2X behind it gets you to 400mmm - or 1.4X to 280mm.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

imagemeister wrote:

Just so you know, DxO lab tests are not the last word in testing lenses. Here - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison - is an interesting test showing the Nikon is better than the Tamron - but not much !

Would you say $900 better? And I ask as owner of the Nikon

IsoBob Loc: Hamilton, NJ

juicesqueezer wrote:

I had that Tamron 70-200 2.8 in my hands last year and it's a nice lens. A little cheaper looking than the nikon and the attachment ring for the foot does not come off. Not a deal breaker, but I opted for the Nikon version instead. However, will be trying out that new Tamron 150-600 that is to be released soon. Love the reach on that one.

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC and the tripod mounting foot most certainly does come off. This is a fantastic lens! Check out Matt Grainger's reviews on Utube and you will see for yourself. Long time Nikon user but this Tamron is great. For what it's worth.
Bob

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

police340 wrote:

Hello,

What woudl be the differences between these two Nikon lenses and would it make sense to have both?

AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

and the other lens:

AF-S NIKKOR
28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

I actually have the first lens and the second one is on order. I am not a pro or even a serious hobbyist but like the equipment. Thanks.

why would you duplicate focal lengths?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

police340 wrote:

Hello,

What woudl be the differences between these two Nikon lenses and would it make sense to have both?

AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

and the other lens:

AF-S NIKKOR
28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

I actually have the first lens and the second one is on order. I am not a pro or even a serious hobbyist but like the equipment. Thanks.

I am going to bet the question. I just received my Nikon 70-200 f/4. I rarely use f/2.8 on my other lens, but am thinking that the much lighter weight of the f/4 version and its' imporove VR will allow my torn rotator cuff to have a little relief and make for a much lighter walk about kit. I now will be carrying:
Nikon D800E
24-120 f/4
70-200 f/4
Polarizing filter for each.
Tripod. Either small gitzo or much heftier RRS.

Wish I had extra $ to buy gear because I like the mechanics.

:)