I have the original Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR I. It is an incredible lens and I have never felt the need to upgrade it for a newer version. My opinion is that the Nikon is the gold standard of 70-200mm f2.8 lenses. You can save money, of course, by buying another brand and I hope you are satisfied with it. I know I would not be after my experience with my old friend. As to the value of the increased performance and durability in dollar terms - that is a value judgement that only you can make. You are unlikely to get an empirical comparison of the Tamron and Nikon with relative performance and durability statistics coloured with a personal opinion since very few people own more than one 70-200 f2.8 lens. No, I'm afraid you will have to decide for yourself.

We'll let me tell you differently..and politely.. If you are a beginner you going to wonder whether or not there is a difference between brands. You may even regret a lesser brand purchase thinking that it could have been better if I purchased the name brand. But as you being to fine tune your skills and begin to use light and composition, the subtle differences among the brands is not a difference at all. Under good light and composition any image will look outstanding, even win awards and recognition. (see my link on award winning iPhone pics).

I belong to the Michael Frey blog. Michael is an world famous photographer. He is published and revered for his skills and work. In his recent post after a Yosemite National Park snowfall, Michael pulled out his "best" lens and posted images. Was it a Nikon? Noooooo, Was it a Canon? Nooooooo. It was a Rokinon 24 f/1.4. Would a Nikon or a Canon make a difference - not likely because when you see Michael's work, you don't see camera or lens. You see outstanding works of art.

When you take mediocre images, you often wonder was it just the camera or lens? It was neither...but the lack of good composition and light.

The Tamron is a good lens and will produce good if not outstanding work. There will be no regrets if the OP does buy it. As for all of us. It really is not the equipment but composition and light that will make you a good if not an outstanding photographer.

You can follow Michael at:

http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/

If what you are saying is that an i phone takes photos that are as good as cameras that means we can do away with all our equipment and just carry an i phone.

As for the Frye images you are referencing, he is shooting stills, no doubt on a tripod with the time to wait and pick light, focus manually and do a ton of post processing. Hardly the same as shooting 5 fps with rapidly changing focal points

The OP here was asking about a fast high quality lens to take fast moving sports with no choice of lighting. Not quite the same type of photography. I don't see many i phones on the sidelines at major sporting events. Not many Rokinon's for that matter.

I have shot sports with a 55-250 kit lenses, a 70-300L and a 70-200L f2.8, and I can assure you that pro, amateur, or beginner, the lens makes a big difference in usable photos that you are going to get. Any lens that doesn't focus instantly without any hunting in a wide range of light conditions is going to be a determent.

To the original OP. B&H has the Nikon for 2096 and the Tamron for 1399, a 697 difference. At this point only you can decide if faster, more accurate, lower light focus is worth that much money. To me it was.

Bill

I have the original Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR I. It is an incredible lens and I have never felt the need to upgrade it for a newer version. My opinion is that the Nikon is the gold standard of 70-200mm f2.8 lenses. You can save money, of course, by buying another brand and I hope you are satisfied with it. I know I would not be after my experience with my old friend. As to the value of the increased performance and durability in dollar terms - that is a value judgement that only you can make. You are unlikely to get an empirical comparison of the Tamron and Nikon with relative performance and durability statistics coloured with a personal opinion since very few people own more than one 70-200 f2.8 lens. No, I'm afraid you will have to decide for yourself.

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 :-))