Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 461 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 9871 times:
I'm looking into a new lens in the 70-300mm 'budget' segment. I have been looking at the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR and the Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon.
I've read several reviews and both lenses are quite good. The nikon is about 100 EUR more than the Tamron. I've heard from user experiences that the Nikkor gets quite unsharp at 300mm and that the Tamron remains sharp till the full 300mm. But then again some people said you have to have some luck with Tamron as some lenses are less good than others.
What are your thoughts on these and if you one of these lenses, please share some pics and your experience with it!
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 9855 times:
I own the Nikkor and love it. Use it on a D40x and D90. I can't comment on the Tamron. Yes it gets a bit soft on the long end, but if you want that to not happen you need to be ready to spend some serious money on one of the 2.8 zooms.
I would refer you to one of my many excellent shots taken with this lens, but, I don't upload here.
Tomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 9842 times:
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 1): I own the Nikkor and love it. Use it on a D40x and D90. I can't comment on the Tamron. Yes it gets a bit soft on the long end, but if you want that to not happen you need to be ready to spend some serious money on one of the 2.8 zooms.
I would refer you to one of my many excellent shots taken with this lens, but, I don't upload here.
Cheers for the reply, I've got the D90 myself so should be good. If I'm right on DX camera's it extends to 450mm (well the true value of your pic is 450mm or something like that)
Where do you upload your pics then? Would appreciate if you could send a link to your flickr profile or other website where you have your pics 'exposed' ^^
darthluke12694 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 276 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9696 times:
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 1): I own the Nikkor and love it. Use it on a D40x and D90.
Are you copying me?? I use it on the same equipment! But the Nikkor lens is a great lens. All of my shots on a.net were taken with a D90 and 70-300mm Nikkor lens (with the exception of still shots on the ground). I love it. Sure it might get a little soft, but you can always sharpen it up. There is also a setting on the camera where you can sharpen the picture. I usually set it 1-2 above the default in sharpness.
KBNA - "To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home."
celestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9647 times:
I happened to have used both in my past experience. The Nikon is a steller performance given it has been around for so long. The Tamron seems to be slightly sharper and more contrast on the long end, that could be a subjective call. Tamron came out this lens to celerbrate their God know how many years.... Saying that for Japanese means extra care goes into this one and the result sure tells... My recommendation to you is that if this lens is for you to keep, you should consider Tamron but if you intend to trade it off later, then goes with Nikon as it keeps its value better. Good Luck! You can't be wrong either way.
martin54 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2007, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9488 times:
Initially I had bought the Tamron but unfortunately it didn't work well on my D7000 body. On many occasions the AF made a rattling sound while the AF-light kept blinking without achieving focus, so I traded it a few days later for the Nikkor equivalent and the problem was solved. It looks like that the more advanced the cameras become, the less compatible they are with 3rd party lenses...
A pity because the photo's that I managed to make with the Tamron looked great. The Nikkor is a just as great performer and I don't think that -maybe only under lab conditions- there is a significant difference.
iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9474 times:
Based on the SLRgear.com tests, which are only tests of single lens samples and not real world results, the Tamron should be just a little bit softer wide open at 300mm, but pretty comparable almost everywhere else
However, some of the user reports I've seen claim the Tamron to be a little sharper at 300mm. I wonder if SLRgear might not have gotten a good sample; It seems common for the third party lens makers to have less consistent quality control compared to Canon and Nikon.
So I don't think you'll be at any real disadvantage with either choice.
I had this lens until not too long and I can vouch for it. It does get softer at 300mm but in my experience it was always workable in post processing unless you had "aggravating" circumstances such as heat haze or strong midday lightning.
I recently sold it to get the 28-300 which pretty much fits all my needs, aviation-wise and others (I really needed the mm before the 70). I had it mounted in my D90, here's some examples I took with it, they are not full 300mm, more like 200mm-ish (the Embraer 190 is almost full 300mm though) or a little less but will give you a glimpse of what to expect:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4): Is any 300mm zoom lens sharp at the full 300mm?
Other than a prime I think you are always going to lose some sharpness at the full end, but my Nikkor 28-300 has managed to obtain sharp images at 300mm, even if a little softer than when less zoom is used.
Here's one I took with the 28-300 at full zoom if I am not mistaken:
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9326 times:
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 2): If I'm right on DX camera's it extends to 450mm (well the true value of your pic is 450mm or something like that)
Before digital cameras came along, all 35 mm cameras used 35 mm film, whether it was a mega-buck Leica, or an inexpensive $100 35mm; so all 35mm cameras had the same "format", an opening 24mm X 36mm to get the cone of light from the lens, onto the film frame; so lens designers only had to design lenses for ONE format;
Then, along came "digital"; no more "film frame", (and no more film); now, the light is directed to a "sensor"; in the early days of digital, sensors were (and still are to some extent), VERY costly to make, so for a few years, they were very small;
just like everything else, the cost of making them came down, the technology went up, and before too long, a few makers were producing "full-frame" sensors, in other words, the sensor is the size of the old 35mm film format. For quite a time, to buy a camera with a full frame sensor you needed VERY deep pockets. It also led to another "problem"; since camera makers know only a small % of camera buyers are going to spend $ 8,000 USD for a camera, they have to continue making the cameras with smaller sensors, (which have become somewhat "standerdized" as APS-C (I think it is, but don't quote me, as I tend to forget nomenclature fairly quickly) Now........lenses don't produce nice, rectangular light on the sensor; all lenses produce a "cone" of light; obviously, it takes a larger cone of light to fill a full frame sensor,than it does to fill the smaller, DX, (or APC-S) size sensor;
So, the smaller sensors have what is called a "crop factor"; with Nikon, which I'm much more familiar with, the crop factor for the smaller sensor is !.5; So if you buy that 70-300 zoom, that's what it would be if you used it on a D 700, D3s, or other full frame sensor body; on any Nikon body less than the D 700, you must multiply the focal length by 1.5,
so on a D-90 body it becomes a 105-450 mm lens.
Right about here I must point one other thing out; there are reasons for using full frame sensors, but there are also reasons (other than just cost) for using so-called "DX" lenses.
I'm not going to get very far into the Nikon-Vs.-Tamron thing; Tamron makes some great lenses; (so does Nikon !)
With all things being about equal, you will almost always pay a bit more for a Nikon lens than an "equivalent" Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, whatever. You will ALWAYS hear great things about cameras and lenses from the people who own them.
IMHO, the greatest photographs are almost always taken by the greatest photographers. (Regardless of who's lens they are shooting with.) (Just remember, I said "IMHO")
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
darreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 223 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9101 times:
You should be very happy with the Tamron. I use the 70-300mm with a d7000 and it's sharp all the way out to 300mm. No focus issues and it seems to be holding up quite well. Every picture in my database is taken with it. You can click on my name to see the album.
darreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 223 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8992 times:
Quoting Tomskii (Reply 18): Awesome Darreno1 are you experiencing on the lens that you need to overexpose the lens 2/3 stops in Aperture priority mode?
Actually it's the opposite for me. I've had to use negative exposure quite a bit during the day. However I hardly use aperture priority. I'm usually in shutter priority or manual mode. I'd imagine from body to body, lens performance will differ. For example, with the Tamron, I've found myself stopping down more when I switched to the d7000 from the d3100.