[nandadevieast]

Guys, 

After asking 300 questions about 180/2.8, i went ahead and bought it. I am loving it, the DOF play that i primarily bought it for. 

However, i realize that its not a lens that can just stay on the camera all the time even outdoors. So i'm considering a zoom lens in 70-200-300 range. 

Looking at the tests of above mentioned lenses, yes the Nikon is better than Tamron. But how much better? Is the difference that's shown is SIGNIFICANT? Tamron achieves excellent center and very good borders from 70-200...and so does Nikkor, but slightly better....

I don't want to splurge money on this one, and if the Tamron is just marginally inferior, i should go with that. I will purchase a crop body to marry it with because i don't want to change lenses all the time. 

I also have a Panasonic 100-300 on my OMD, which i used recently for wildlife and i find it very useful. It is 70-200 range that i don't have any lens for, and that's what i'm looking for. 

Any free advice? A bit confused actually. 

regards,

anurag

Here're some shots with the 100-300:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/agnihot/set...648070419/

[davidmanze]

Sorry I can't help you with any technical info,just to say, very nice images,the first one especially is fantastic!  

 

  Dave's clichés

[nandadevieast]

no replies?

looks like everyone is bored with these questions

[Studor13]

Firstly, they are a very nice set that you have there.

 

But it's not a question of being bored but there's really nothing that I can comment as I don't have either lens.

 

However, I do have the 70-200 f2.8 II and can say that it's the best versatile lens that I have. I imagine that the 70-200 f4 is pretty close.

 

The 100-300 seem really good so I would suggest that you stay with it. I don't see any compelling reason to get a 70-200 if you are happy with the 100-300.

 

Of course if you are planning to get a D800 then I can definitely recommend the 70-200 II. The details, even on a heavily cropped image is simply mind blogging.

 

Here is a shot at medium size (5520x3680) 20MP but downsized (remember a full sized image is 36MP):

http://www.studor13.si/music/photos/PZ/_D8B4411-2.jpg

 

And here is the cropped:

http://www.studor13.si/music/photos/PZ/_D8B4411.jpg

 

So, it's not just about being able to crop but the details that are still there.

 

 

[JJ_SO]

If you can do this with the Tamron at 1/13 and without tripod, then go for it



 

I don't know the Tamron, I was looking for a not so fast (lightweight and small dimensions) 70-200 and I find the Nikon 70-200/4 very very well done. I wouldn't change it against anything else in that focus length. The VR is also better than 70-200/2.8, at least in my hands and in the ones of the friend who owns the 2.8 II

[davidgarth]

There are several reasons telling someone else what's a significant difference in image quality is nearly impossible.

 

1. Different people have different standards for what's acceptable image quality.

2. Different people have different end uses for their pictures. Some just upload to Facebook, some view only onscreen, some make large gallery prints. (I just sold an image that being used as a backdrop 9x11 feet in size.)

3. Different images demand more sharpness or less distortion. A portrait can been less sharp that a cityscape for example. An architectural image might need less distortion than a landscape.

4. Different people post process their images differently. Skill levels, software, and time available all differ. Intensive post processing can sometimes make an inferior lens look acceptable.

 

You might try renting a lens first to see if it meets your standards. But, even then, be careful, because your own standards will likely change over time (the bar usually gets higher, not lower.) I've been a pro for 40+ years, and I cringe when I see some of my work from decades ago, even stuff published in national magazines. As the technology moves forward, everyone's standards seem to go up. (Take a look at an old Life Magazine or National Geographic and you'll see what I mean.

 

All that said, I love the new 70-200 f4. One of the most usable lens I've ever owned. (Usability for me=Image quality+size+weight+handling)

[Steinar1]

Considering that you own the 180, I would still buy the 70-200 f4, assuming that you have an FF camera. I agree very much with the arguments brought forward by the previous participant and personally I am in the process of buying a 70-200 f4 for my D700, instead of a f2.8. The better VR, lower weight and size make it a better lens for me. Now, if you own a DX body, I would sincerely consider the Tamron 70-300 VC. It is equal to the Nikon from 70-200 and better from 200-300. I used it a lot on a D300s and loved the sharpness even at 300mm, (450 mm focal range). To achieve that with a FF, you need the converter, which does not work with the 70-300, so....................!!

[Brightcolours]

Considering that you own the 180, I would still buy the 70-200 f4, assuming that you have an FF camera. I agree very much with the arguments brought forward by the previous participant and personally I am in the process of buying a 70-200 f4 for my D700, instead of a f2.8. The better VR, lower weight and size make it a better lens for me. Now, if you own a DX body, I would sincerely consider the Tamron 70-300 VC. It is equal to the Nikon from 70-200 and better from 200-300. I used it a lot on a D300s and loved the sharpness even at 300mm, (450 mm focal range). To achieve that with a FF, you need the converter, which does not work with the 70-300, so....................!!

You only reach 200 x 1.4 = 280mm with an 1.4x TC. That is about the same as the Tamron on its own.

A 2x TC will lose AF unless your camera can AF with an f8 lens, and a 2x TC will have a bigger impact on resolution.

If you do not care about good AF, you can also put a Kenko 1.4x TC on the Tamron.

[nandadevieast]

Considering that you own the 180, I would still buy the 70-200 f4, assuming that you have an FF camera. 

 

 


<p style="margin-left:0px;">Hi Vieux, why so? Isn't 180 kind of duplication? Also why do you recommend F4 for only FF and Tamron for crop body? Won't 70-200 be nice on crop body as well?

<p style="margin-left:0px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:0px;">I own a D800. One of the things i am absolutely uncomfortable is, changing lenses on the go...because shots just come and go while you're changing. And then changing back. And then changing back again. Also i am scared of dust getting in. So i thought if i buy a 70-200, i will have to buy a crop body to go with it. 

[nandadevieast]

"Tamron 70-300 VC. It is equal to the Nikon from 70-200 and better from 200-300."

 

This is what i was interested in knowing. Is this true?