PDA

View Full Version : Which lens should I go with Tamron or Nikon?



Janasphotography
06-05-2010, 06:16 PM
Ok so I have two options for lenses and am curious which I should go with and also if you have used one the pros and cons of the lens as well as any pictures you are willing to share that you have taken with the lens. I have a Nikon D3000 camera and a Nikon 18-55 mm VR AF-S lens right now and am wondering should I go with the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with the built in motor for the Nikon cameras or should I get a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR ?

Thanks in advance looking to do a little bit of everything with the lens, sports, movement shots, wildlife, scenery and just all over shots.

Jana

jcon
06-05-2010, 06:27 PM
Hi Jana and welcome to the forums!

I would go with the Nikon. It will hold a better resale value should you ever decide to sell it and also, in my opinion it has better image quality. One other option to look at is the Nikon 70-300 VR. That would be my top suggestion in your case, assuming you cant afford or dont want to spend for the 70-200 F2.8 VR.

umijin
06-05-2010, 09:15 PM
Tamron has had a 70-300mm lens in the works for several months, with VR-like ability. Folks have been anticipating it for a while (one Japanese site is taking orders w/o any pricing, in fact). That may be a more affordable option if you can wait.

But I generally agree with the comments above about resale value and quality of Nikon lenses.

Janasphotography
06-05-2010, 11:21 PM
Tamron has had a 70-300mm lens in the works for several months, with VR-like ability. Folks have been anticipating it for a while (one Japanese site is taking orders w/o any pricing, in fact). That may be a more affordable option if you can wait.

But I generally agree with the comments above about resale value and quality of Nikon lenses.

I dont mind waiting that would definatly make it easier to decide on which one to get. I am looking at mainly doing some coast guard photos (helicopters, boats underway and stopped) and wildlife, and then some of my son on the beach and some macro close up shots of flowers and such. I wonder how much this lens would be as I only have about 200 or a little over to spend on one right now.

Jana

Janasphotography
06-05-2010, 11:23 PM
Hi Jana and welcome to the forums!

I would go with the Nikon. It will hold a better resale value should you ever decide to sell it and also, in my opinion it has better image quality. One other option to look at is the Nikon 70-300 VR. That would be my top suggestion in your case, assuming you cant afford or dont want to spend for the 70-200 F2.8 VR.

Yeah those are both on my wish list but are both way out of my price range I am looking at about $250 max right now. I like the photos I have seen with the Nikon but also like the photos I have seen with the tamron and they both where about equal. I saw some airshow pictures of the tamron that where amazing.

Jana

tim11
06-06-2010, 04:54 AM
Tough to decide. The Tammy has extra reach while the Nikkor has VR which will be ideal for beach. As for difference in quality one will have to train to see the difference.

Yeah... my ideal lens would be the Nikkor 70 - 300 VR or 70 - 200 F/2.8 but I cannot justify getting either one yet, personally.

herc182
06-06-2010, 09:23 AM
All i will say is that I had the 55-200 VR for a few years and I was amazed at the quality of the pics that came out of it. Sharp and good contrast. highly recommend it.
Unfortunately I have never used the Tamron.

K1W1
06-06-2010, 02:37 PM
All i will say is that I had the 55-200 VR for a few years and I was amazed at the quality of the pics that came out of it. Sharp and good contrast. highly recommend it.


Next to the 50mm f1.8 it's the second best bargain Nikon make.

umijin
06-06-2010, 10:03 PM
I don't have personal experience with the 50-200VR, but experienced friends of mine are not terribly high on it. Perhaps there are build quality consistency problems.

If K1W1 likes it, though, it must be good. :-)

Falconest174
06-06-2010, 10:25 PM
If budget is a concern, certainly the Tammy is a valid choice. While it doesn't have VR:( it does produce good images with the D3K. I have posted a number of shots taken with it in the Nikon DSLR Pic of the day and in the bird, insect and flower pages of the Gallery. Also you might check out my facebook page where I have posted a lot of stuff.

K1W1
06-06-2010, 10:43 PM
100% crop D50 55-200VR hand held and the stick the cicada was on was hand held as well.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2198/1780089839_0c44aac582_o.jpg

D50 @ 62mm f5.6

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2211/2095211316_693796e0ef_b.jpg

D50 @ 75mm f5.6

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/3069815899_6505ae7271_b.jpg

D50 f5.6 @ 110mm

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2787987147_45487c81c7_b.jpg

D300 f5 @ 110mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/3687149098_a355432dac_b.jpg

jcon
06-06-2010, 10:56 PM
Amazing shots, K1W1! That Cicada shot is sick!!

If that doesnt sway the OP I dont know what will.

tim11
06-06-2010, 11:07 PM
...
If that doesnt sway the OP I dont know what will.

The extra range, maybe?
Apart from that I agree. I have seen K1W1's sport shots before with that 55-200. I might sell my cheapo 70-300 which I bought just because it was so cheap, and then get a copy of 55-200 instead while I still can. It will be more suitable for my son's U7 soccer games. One day we all feel we have enough lenses.

tim11
06-06-2010, 11:17 PM
K1W1, What's exif data on the boy with the helmet? I can see the effect of VR at work.

K1W1
06-06-2010, 11:24 PM
K1W1, What's exif data on the boy with the helmet? I can see the effect of VR at work.

I'm not sure whether VR would have been turned on. Generally for sports stuff I have it off.

Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 62 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0/6 EV

tim11
06-06-2010, 11:40 PM
It's a sharp lens nonetheless. Why did you turn off VR since you shoot hand held anyway?
I am looking at a 55-200 VR on DDphoto right now.. :).............. Like I said... I would go Tammy only if longer range is more important.

[Sorry OP for hijacking the thread.]

K1W1
06-06-2010, 11:52 PM
For about 1/500 sec or faster VR is no use and slows focus acquisition down. I hardly ever use it on the 70-200. It's a case of what works for each person I guess.

tim11
06-06-2010, 11:55 PM
I'm just curious, that's all. I thought there might be other technical reasons that VR should be turn off for action shots.

Janasphotography
06-07-2010, 01:46 AM
K1W1 wow amazing photos thank you for posting these I think I am going to go with the Nikon it just seems to be a better lens and even looking at the customer photos on amazon they seem much crisper and clearer then the Tamron. I really love those shots and it looks like this lens will do what I want and work well for me.

Thank you so much,
Jana

K1W1
06-07-2010, 02:11 AM
Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/356195@N23/) for the Nikon lens with over 12,000 photos.

Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/httpwwwflickrcomgroups750630n21/) for the Tamron lens with over 3000 photos.

umijin
06-08-2010, 11:10 PM
Nice shots k1w1! :-)