Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

I know the Nikon is the standard for this lens. However, how close are the others? I have read a lot of opinions that the Tamron is about 99% as good for $500-$1000 less. That is alot of money. To qualify even more, I shoot alot of sports mostly Ice Hockey and I want(need, have to have) a 70-200 2.8 I shoot with a D7100. I have been to the sites that compare them and see the technical reviews now I want to know what people who actually use them think.

Thank You

(I am only interested in this particular lens so please don't jump in with "you should buy the xx-xxx F y.y or you should switch to canon. Not looking to change to body either so please do not suggest a full frame. I am happy with everything I have right now :-))

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

This is a photo I shot last night with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm and f5.6. I think the Nikon lens is as good as it gets. Just how much are you willing to compromise? If you don't need detail that rivals macro, then maybe another lens will work for you.

Ditigal Christmas Card

(Download)

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

You know, we've all had our own experiences and that drives how we think about things. Several years ago, as I was getting back into photography, and intent on saving money, I bought the Tamron 17-50 to use on my D90. Try as I might, I could never get that lens to capture images the way I wanted. I sold it, and bought the Nikkor 17-55, for quite a bit more money. It was a wonderful experience for me. The Nikkor was much better than the Tamron had been . . . for me.

Since then, I have bought only Nikkor lenses. I have the 70-200 and am regularly amazed with the lens. It's like it knows what I want it to focus on, and it does it faster than I can blink. I have no experience with Tamron's version of this lens, but thought I'd share what experience I have had.

Good luck!! Spending big bucks is seldom an easy decision.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Since you don't want a suggestion about something else more suited to sports photography, (also for less money) I will stick to the question. Of the 70-200 2.8's that I've had, the Tamron was the slowest to focus. It isn't that the images weren't fairly sharp, but for sports photography, I would consider that the bottom choice.

Not trying to be tough on you, but if you want a lens that is going to suit your needs, why wouldn't you want people that have experience with certain lenses, to give you their first hand knowledge, instead of limiting it to "I am only interested in this particular lens so please don't jump in with "you should buy the xx-xxx F y.y or you should switch to canon. Not looking to change to body either so please do not suggest a full frame. I am happy with everything I have right now " ????

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I have the Nikon 70-200 VR II and use it on a D7200 and before that on a D80. This lens is used pretty much exclusively for sports generally on a monopod as it a heavy lens to be holding at eye level for a length of time while following and shooting a play. I think you will be very happy with this lens and as bkyser noted it achieves focus quickly which is a very important consideration when shooting sports. ;)

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Satisfied with my with my Tamron.

Images straight from D7100 ... only made smaller for web.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

OK I will bite. It is not that I don't want other suggestions. I have done my homework and my question is about that lens specifically But go ahead please share with me what would be better and for less money.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Look pretty good to me

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Thanks for posting that There is no doubt the Nikon is the gold standard and worth every penny. But what I am really asking is how much is the compromise with something else? What the technical reviews say is the image quality is very close. But I am a sceptic, I look at the technical specs but also rely on what the eyes see

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

What you almost need since you are skeptical about reviews (I am also because they are often shot under ideal conditions and if the lens is supplied by the manufacturer with full understanding that the lens is being tested they might very well tweak the lens to it's highest performance level), you almost need someone to answer this for you that actually owns both lenses or have at least owned both of them at one time or another. One person has already listed displeasure with the Tamron focusing speed and since you say you want to shoot sports, that would be the tipping point if that is a universal aspect of that lens.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

I agree, I don't discount the technical specs and reviews but like you say they are almost always done under ideal conditions not always the real world. Actually Brucewells siad he had a different Tamron lens and I dont think his issue was the auto focus speed but rather the image quality. The knock on the Tamron 70-200 is that it is slightly slower auto focusing but image quality stands up well. So the real question is how much of a compromise is it. How much slower? Is it a real drop off.

Hammer Loc: London UK

How about the Nikon 70-200 f4. Apart from the one stop loss on aperture it is not weatherproofed , the 2.8 is .
However the f4 does not focus breathe , the 2.8 does .

I use the f4 and like it but I am not a good photographer and my eyesight is not that wonderful either.

DwsPV Loc: South Africa

I shoot Nikon and use a D3s. I do a lot of motor sport (some of which runs into night time) , I've also done outdoor hockey (full daylight). I say this because of speed of subject and light conditions. I'll get to the lens part later.

I have a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and used to have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. A $1000 difference. The Nikon was just a split second faster focussing in all conditions - low light, high speed etc. AND, almost no distortion in the corners and on edges with the Nikon - with the Tamron I have to be very careful with what is on the edge of the image. Summary: for $1000 more I would take the Nikon every time.

I hope this gives you an idea with where I am going with this?

I do have the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and I also have the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. I bought the 70-300 to shoot a hockey tournament - there was no way I wanted to carry the 70-200 for 6 days, 8 hours a day. I do not do tripod or monopod for sport photography..... The 70-300 is great in good light, but because of the glass, its focus speed is just that little slower (on a par with the Tamron 24-70 versus the Nikon). But image quality I never worry about.

I have never tried the Tamron or any other 70-200, but I am prejudiced and I think I know what to expect. The Nikon is built like a tank, weighs almost as much, but you will NEVER be sorry.

Lastly, I seldom shoot sport with VR on (VC in the case of Tamron). Nikon VR is much quicker to snap and lock than Tamron's VC.

Apologies for the long discussion......

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I have the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and I love it. I have used it on a D7100, D800 and D810. It is good for many things. I especially like it for portrait work. Good luck.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Like the old song says; Do you want to be happy for the rest of your life, get a ugly girl to marry you, and buy a Nikon 70-200!!!!