Polarizer Nikon Canon
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
Which lens to buy? Tamron 70-200 2.8 or Nikon 80-200 2.8 ?
Can't decide!
Nikon's focus distance is 5.9' (4.9' in macro)
F stop is 2.8-22
2.84 lbs
Magnification: 1:5.9 in macro
$914
And of course, it's Nikon
Tamron:
Focus distance: 3.1'
F stops: 2.8-32
Weight: 2.5 lbs
Magnification 1:3.1
Price $699
So Tamron is $200 cheaper - (I can get decent UV and Polarizer for the price difference).
It will be used mostly for wildlife, from bees to zoo animals.. (live in NY) For close-up Tamron's focus distance seems better and it would be great to use for this purpose too, since right now I don't want to buy a macro lens... (I use 18-200mm VR with Canon 500D filter for "macro" and get good results).
Thanks!
I really like 2.8 vs what I have is F5.6 at 200mm.. (with same iso settings, etc) Or F5.6 with VR is as good as F2.8 without VR??
I've actually used both, the Tamron at the camera store, and I borrowed the Nikkor from a friend of mine. The AF on the Tamron is a tad slower than the Nikkor, but it focuses a lot closer which helps with framing in close spaces. The Tamron is lighter than the Nikkor, which *could* make it easier to hand hold at 200mm and get a clear shot with no blur. The weight also makes it easier to carry around with you all day. But, the Nikkor has a superior build quality to the Tamron, and feels a lot more solid, so you could expect to have the use of it for many years. I own a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I haven't had any problems with it, so Tamron makes a solid performing product and I'd expect nothing less than the same with the 70-200mm f/2.8. I bought the 17-50 because I found I couldn't afford the nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. After doing so, I don't regret that I didn't get the same tough build in the Tamron, compared to the Nikkor. But the Nikkor is a pro lens. In that category, you get what you pay for. Lucky for me, I'm not a pro, so it worked itself out. If build quality isn't an issue for you and you'd prefer to save the money, get the Tamron. Optically, they're indistinguishable unless you're an optical engineer. And you may appreciate its close focusing ability and wider angle of view at the short end. If you expect it to hold up in demanding environments, or be safe from rough handling, I would recommend you spend the extra money and get the Nikkor.
Personally, I spent $250 on a used AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm - and I neither miss that aperture stop, nor do I care that it's not built like a tank. Compared to other non-pro telezooms, it's the fastest focusing (if your camera can auto-focus with AF lenses) and closer focusing than both of the cameras you've mentioned. On my D80, it's the best lens I own and I love it. Just some food for thought.
EDIT:
Yes, f/5.6 with VR can be as good as f/2.8 without VR, depending on what your shooting. For static objects, yes because VR helps reduce camera shake and not subject movement. So for sports, or other moving objects, f/2.8 is better if you never use your ISO to its advantage. However, you're like hung up on f/stops. You're capable of so much, but instead of shooting with what you have, you're on the internet trying to justify two stops. Pro lenses are great, for people who can afford them, but not a necessary aspect of image quality. If you ask a pro like Rob L down there - sure, he'll tell you an f/2.8 anything nikkor is the best lens ever. But that's not so for regular people, and I really hate it how pros interject themselves like that, seriously. Not everyone has pro money these days. And some think if you're not a pro, you're not capable of making great photographs. Whatever. If you're shooting nature - or wherever telephoto lenses are used - f/5.6 doesn't give you any less quality than f/2.8, you should be shooting at like f/11-f/22 anyway for maximum depth of field. I'll argue that point with any pro that chooses to take issue with it. If you want to spend all your money on a pro lens because a pro told you it's the best you could do on Y!A, go right ahead. I do fine with f/5.6 lenses. If you don't want your 18-200 VR, I'd gladly use it and just make pictures with it.
Items Recently Purchased From This Site:
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
Best Posts
- Series Service Repair
- Battery Sony Ccd
- Replacement Lcd Screen
- Vision Waterproof Wireless
- Cover Parts Repair
- Zeiss Jena Tessar
- Telephoto Tele Lens
- Dual Charger Canon
- Top Cover Plate
- Jvc Minidv Digital
- Dock Insert Adapter
- Nikon Lens Cap
- Red Yellow Green
- Camera Parts Oem
- Camera Hood Petal
Categories
- Camcorder Accessories (973)
- Camera Parts (309)
- Film Cameras (375)
- Flashes (540)
- Lenses And Filters (2031)
- Updates (1)
Tags
Recently Added
- Your Expensive Lens
- Cord Canon Eos
- Eos Xsi Xti
- Usm Iii Lens
- Canon Fuji Kodak
- Soft Diffuser Filter
- Stand Bracket Mount
- Panasonic Camcorders Replacement
- Shoe Mount Flash
- Roll Film Holder
Calender
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Archives
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (154)
- February 2011 (170)
- January 2011 (164)
- December 2010 (181)
- November 2010 (168)
- October 2010 (213)
- September 2010 (167)
- August 2010 (155)
- July 2010 (171)
- June 2010 (167)
- May 2010 (173)
- April 2010 (174)
- March 2010 (168)
- February 2010 (82)
- January 2010 (75)
- December 2009 (81)
- November 2009 (84)
- October 2009 (88)
- September 2009 (86)
- August 2009 (80)
- July 2009 (83)
- June 2009 (80)
- May 2009 (77)
- April 2009 (90)
- March 2009 (90)
- February 2009 (37)
- January 2009 (30)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (53)
- October 2008 (44)
- September 2008 (36)
- August 2008 (33)
- July 2008 (47)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (30)
- April 2008 (30)
- March 2008 (30)
- February 2008 (43)
- January 2008 (45)
- December 2007 (42)
- November 2007 (30)
- October 2007 (39)
- September 2007 (32)
- August 2007 (42)
- July 2007 (44)
- June 2007 (41)
- May 2007 (44)
- April 2007 (34)
- March 2007 (47)
- February 2007 (40)
- January 2007 (12)
