Nikon vs tamron (Page 2): Not entirely true - Tamron and Sigma make lenses "on contract" for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Canon and others. Before anyone get's excited about my statement, I've...

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

billnikon wrote:

Nikon is one of only two scientific companies that... (show quote)

Not entirely true - Tamron and Sigma make lenses "on contract" for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Canon and others. Before anyone get's excited about my statement, I've been inside them and seen first hand. "Work your plan, Ride with the brand" is not as easy to do as it is to say, these days. I do appreciate the sentiment, but much harder to do when even the big boys have contractors building their lenses, and it is very common. The good part is that the contractors build them to the buyers specifications.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Arubalou wrote:

Looking at the 70-300 nikon vs the 100-400 tamron. The nikon gets rave reviews for focus speed and sharpness. The tamron gets good reviews also. I am a bit more interested in the tamron due to its longer reach but am concerned about focus speed. This lens would replace my 55-300 nikon kit lens on my d7200. Any opinions out there.

I have always liked Tamron lenses and the IQ and value they offer. The 100-400 is one of them, great reviews, great price. What would you do with the missing 55-100 focal length if this replaces your 55-300? I have the Nikon 70-300 and it is a great lens also. Not as much of a void between 55-70. Just asking.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Arubalou wrote:

Looking at the 70-300 nikon vs the 100-400 tamron. The nikon gets rave reviews for focus speed and sharpness. The tamron gets good reviews also. I am a bit more interested in the tamron due to its longer reach but am concerned about focus speed. This lens would replace my 55-300 nikon kit lens on my d7200. Any opinions out there.

The AF-P 70-300mm with VR is a very good lens. If you should decide to purchase it, make sure your D7200 has an updated firmware for it. If you really want a good zoom telephoto lens for the D7200, you can't go wrong using the FX lens, 28-300mm. A friend has that lens on his D7100. And it stays on his camera.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use only Nikon lenses with my Nikon bodies. Those lenses were specifically made for Nikon cameras. Indeed they retain their value when sold.
The 70-300 VR (mine is first generation) is a sharp lens with an excellent AF system. If I was the owner of a Nikon body in need of a lens like the 70-300 VR that would be the lens I would buy.
Tokina, Tamron and Sigma are making very good lenses optically. There could be issues with those lenses used with Nikon bodies but I do not expect them to be major issues if indeed there are issues.
If you want the best performance always go with OEM lenses.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

camerapapi wrote:

I use only Nikon lenses with my Nikon bodies. Thos... (show quote)

I agree on the Nikon and Canon high end Pro lenses, however, in the consumer grade stuff, Tamron and Sigma both are lens contractors for all the biggies, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and others. They are made to the buyers specs, but some Nikon and others are made for them, not by them. I've never had issues with Nikon, Sony/Minolta, Tamron, Sigma or Tokina lenses used on the bodies they were made (mount) for, however I do take very good care of my gear. I've bought a few used ones (all brands) that came with issues, but most were easily repaired, at least the ones I could find parts or a donor for the pieces I needed. The 70-300 AF, AF-S and AF-P are all good lenses, the oldest (AF) is the sharpest one of the 3 I've used, but the VR makes up for that in low light.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

wetreed wrote:

In my humble opinion, Tamron is a much better value than Nikon. You can look test with a microscope and see really minimal differences, but for the money you can’t go wrong with Tamron.

I have found that to be the case as well...even though my ego wants to say "all Nikon" my wallet says "think again." My Tamron 18-270 DiII 3.5-6.3 is a quality all-around lens that has served me well on my Nikon D7100. Not the fastest or the longest, but certainly not the most expensive, either. I'm very pleased with it.

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

I own both nikon and tamron lenses. For my money, the Tamron lenses are very good in comparison to the Nikon.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

I too use Nikon lenses for Nikon cameras. Nikon has an 80mm-400mm zoom.
See: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon%2080-400%20zoom&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

That's B&H web page for Nikon 80-400

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If speed and accuracy of AF matters, you want the Nikon lens - that is the latest FX most expensive one ( don't know what the exact nomenclature is). If you maximize your IQ, you can crop fairly well on the 7200 and that is what I would do. For larger print sizes, use well applied pixel enlargement software on the image. The simple reality is the AF of a Nikon lens on a Nikon body will always be better than a third party .....

..

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If one knows anything about the 'recipes' Nikon uses for their lenses, the choice would be a moot point. Nikon would be the only choice.
--Bob

Arubalou wrote:

Looking at the 70-300 nikon vs the 100-400 tamron. The nikon gets rave reviews for focus speed and sharpness. The tamron gets good reviews also. I am a bit more interested in the tamron due to its longer reach but am concerned about focus speed. This lens would replace my 55-300 nikon kit lens on my d7200. Any opinions out there.

Arubalou

Thank you to all who replied. My interest in replacing the 55-300 is due to this lens not being able to auto focus in certain situations. Last summer in alaska for example trying to focus on a glacier when clouds were over it was impossible. The lens literally hunted in and out. I know the nikon 70-300 has very good reviews but the tamron 100-400 seems to have good reviews and 100mm extra reach.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Arubalou wrote:

Looking at the 70-300 nikon vs the 100-400 tamron. The nikon gets rave reviews for focus speed and sharpness.

Which 70-300 are you looking at? There are about three versions of this lens, if I recall correctly. The lens that I've been using is the f4.5-5.6G version.

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-vr-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%252f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

imagemeister wrote:

If speed and accuracy of AF matters, you want the Nikon lens - that is the latest FX most expensive one ( don't know what the exact nomenclature is). If you maximize your IQ, you can crop fairly well on the 7200 and that is what I would do. For larger print sizes, use well applied pixel enlargement software on the image. The simple reality is the AF of a Nikon lens on a Nikon body will always be better than a third party .....

..

I have the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G VRII lens, which is the one I believe you're talking about. I find that the AF is extremely fast and that the lens can be tack-sharp if you're really good at handholding or using on a tripod.

Arubalou

ronpier wrote:

I have always liked Tamron lenses and the IQ and value they offer. The 100-400 is one of them, great reviews, great price. What would you do with the missing 55-100 focal length if this replaces your 55-300? I have the Nikon 70-300 and it is a great lens also. Not as much of a void between 55-70. Just asking.

I have the 18-140 on my camera most of the time so i really dont need the 55mm focal length and would gain an extra 100mm on the long end.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Arubalou wrote:

I have the 18-140 on my camera most of the time so i really dont need the 55mm focal length and would gain an extra 100mm on the long end.

Makes sense to me. I like using my 18-200 Tamron most of the time on my D50. Very versatile and I can go longer with my 70-300 FX.