Imagemine Loc: St. Louis USA

Going to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens have chosen Tamron . Does anyone out there know if the latest Nikon version is better?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

This may answer your question?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pb37PGa2E

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Recently got the 70-200 F2.8 FL - it is optically better than the 80-200 F2.8 AF-S, which was one of the sharpest in this category. Unfortunately it had horrible AF-S motor issues and was retired. It was the best until the FL.

I have not owned or used a Tamron, so I can't comment on it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You will find detailed comparisons online. In the past, Tamron has done very well in these comparisons, especially considering the price.

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

The latest Nikon 70-200 2.8 FL VR ED is the sharpest 70-200 on the market, hands down, no argument, no holes barred.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Lucky what is your perceived "need"?
The 70-200mm f/2.8 is typically used for portraiture on an FX mount.
From your Flickr feed I'm not seeing much in this genre...

Nearly all the FX mount optics in this category are massively heavy...
The Tamron is plagued by it's dependence on Tamron tap-in console which (unlike the Nikkors) tethers the optic to a single body. Which I find totally unacceptable for those who have more than a single body to deploy it on...

You use the parameter "better"... Better for what? Acuity? Hand Holding? Distortion? CA? Focus breathing? Lucky this list goes around the block... seriously.

For me I'm totally in love with the 1988 single ring which has higher acuity and zero focus breathing compared with my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IF ED VR2 (which I've relegated to on-site usage only...a.k.a. it literally is lame in the studio because of focus breathing i.e. set at 200mm it's only a 135mm at portraiture distance).

However I'm pretty much a studio photographer so the slower focusing first iteration one-ring AF 80-200mm f/2.8 works stellar for my needs... besides at $280 for a "Like New" copy I'm smiling all the way to the bank.

That said Lucky you would not be happy with that vintage glass... no tripod mount... no VR... no NANO Crystal coating... however it's feather light in the hand compared to the image stabilized variants at 1280g measured.

Best advice? Please let folks know what you believe your perceived "Need" actually is... if it is portraiture and you are shooting FX then look seriously at the vintage AF 85mm f/1.4D which is a faction of the price and delivers in spades at f/2.8 and above... I shoot this lens (with it's awesome metal hood) to great effect for portraiture and events. The newer f/1.4G variant is way over priced... the older screwdriver is a workhorse that will likely outlast you... but you have to shoot it with it's hood since it flares like 4th of July fireworks.

An alternative? the 1986 AF f/4 70-210mm (constant aperture)... I shoot this optic all the time in the studio... at less than $200 you simple can't beat it (provided you get a good copy (I went through 4 before I found a gem)). See below for the AF f/4 70-210mm in a studio scenario.... That is a $200 lens Lucky...

Hope this hopes Lucky
All the best on your journey...
.

1986 AF f/4 70-210mm (constant aperture) on a D810

(Download)

Crop from the same above Fitness Editorial

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, most objective testing says the Nikon version is better - optically - ...

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I need one!

Imagemine Loc: St. Louis USA

Thomas I broke my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 although I didn't use it a lot it came in handy for the focal length for a composition I couldn't get close enough to please me that lens filled a large gap , because I don't use it a lot is why I was thinking Tamron but I don't know if the Nikon is worth the cost, my research says the Tamron is excellent & the cons can be fixed in post , thanx much for your helpful response

MrT Loc: Gilbert, AZ

As mentioned above, the 70-200 F2.8 Fl is the best lens for your nikon body - whichever one it is. I do this for fun not profit so the money matters. I bought my D7000 new but most all equipment since has been used. a D800, D850 and some lenses. I got a deal on the Tamron and love it. I purchased the tapin adapter and had some adjustments to the it for the D800 and now it seems perfect. It you have a thick wallet go for the Nikon if not you will not be disappointed with the Tamron. Happy Shooting.

Imagemine Loc: St. Louis USA

thanx much

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

Get one. Although, they are currently not on sale. Wait until they are and snatch one up.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

IMHO, the is no better lens than the Nikon 70-200/2.8E FL, in it's range, period.

MidnightManiac

In my arsenal of lenses, being a Canon shooter I have many Canon lenses, Sigma and Tamron. Love my Tamron 70-200 f2.8, use this for indoor sports. Crazy but I like the Canon 70-200 f4 for outdoor sports. My favorite walk around lens is a Sigma 24-70f2.8. Guess it all depends on the results you're looking for. My 7dmark II my favorite sports camera. My 5Dmark II (still running) for walking around and family things. I really don't think you can go wrong with a Tamron, Sigma or Canon...Not sure about Nikon as I have shot Canon for decades...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Check it out for yourself....

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1089&CameraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I'm gonna get blowback for this, I'm sure... but to me the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 "G2" looks better at 70mm.... while the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" looks better at 200mm.

The MTF charts seem to support this, too...

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1116&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1089&CameraComp=1210&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Really, 70-200s are among the most thoroughly developed lenses in every camera system. They are all exceptionally good. And both the latest Tamron and latest Nikkor are easily the best each of them has ever made.

Lensrentals.com is another good source of info, if and when they happen to post detailed info about a particular model on their website. The problem with many reviewers (including The-Digital-Picture) or forum feedback is that they usually only see one copy of a lens and "tests" may not be very scientific... may be more personal opinion than "fact". Lensrentals.com has dozens of copies of lenses that they test every time they're returned from a rental. They track particular models and have been very helpful with reliability concerns of certain models over the years, too. Check their site and blog to see if you can find it, there was a recent post from Roger about 70-200s.... a lot of praise for the most recent Canon, Tamron and particularly the Nikon. I don't recall if he talked about the Sigma, but do remember he wasn't very favorable to the Sony... citing a lot of variation between copies. Some he said were as good as Canon, but others were among the worst. The Sony is also the most expensive of the bunch, go figure!

One of the reasons the Nikon is so good is that it's one of the lenses they revised a couple years ago to use fluorite. That's expensive to work with, but helps minimize chromatic aberration, which can be a problem with telephotos, particularly zooms (notice in the test shots at the above link, the Tamron appears to have a tiny bit of CA at 200mm... it doesn't use fluorite). Not many lens makers are using fluorite, because it's rare in crystals large enough for and difficult to shape into lens elements. Still, Nikon revised five or six of their more premium lenses a couple years ago, incorporating fluorite in them for the first time. They are designated by an "FL" in their name... and by a much higher price than their predecessor. The 70-200mm FL actually has come way down in price. It's $2347 today.... When it was introduced it was more like $2700 or $2800. (By the way, Canon has used fluorite in many of their telephotos for decades. In the 1970s and 80s they pioneered means of growing artificial crystals with high purity and new methods of working with it. All but two of the ten different Canon EF 70-200s over the last 23 years have included fluorite. So have many other Canon telephotos. Fluorite is one of the reasons Canon telephotos are painted white.)