Login at opticallimits.com

04-08-2013, 11:41 PM

I was reading in details PZ reviews for Nikon 70-200 F4, Nikon 70-300 VR and Tamron 70-300 VC and based on the resolution analysis, they don't seem too much far apart.

Then on the DXO lens comparison on the D800 camera

Nikon 70-200 F4 has Sharpness of 21

Nikon 70-300 VR has Sharpness of 11

Tamron 70-300 VC has Sharpness of 10

and Sigma 70-300 OS which should be the worst (by far based on PZ test) has Sharpness of 11

How is that possible?

Also when I look at just the MFT numbers from PZ test in 70-200 range, 70-300 lenses look pretty good compared to 70-200 F4:

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]



I made even bigger table (with more interesting lenses) - perhaps you will find it usable:



[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]



and also the same in PDF:

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]



Markus, Klaus, other knowledgable lens testers, can you please cheap in a little bit please?



based on the numbers nikon and tamron 70-300 looks quite good in comparison to 70-200 f4 (I am looking for lightweight zoom in 70-200 range).



It seems to me like Nikon and Tamron should give about 90% of Nikon 70-200 F4 performance, and prices here in Canada are:

$440 CAD for Nikon 70-300 VR

$450 - 100 MIR for Tamron 70-300VC

and

$1300 for Nikon 70-200 F4.



I already have Nikon 85 F1.8 and Nikon 300 F4 (non AFS)

So this morning I was thinking 70-200 F4 for 1300 or Tamron/Nikon for 350/450 - it is almost 1000 difference (with the tax it will be 1000). For 1000 I could get used Nikon 180mm F2.8 and flash (SB900/910) and even perhaps 50mm F1.8 Smile

Can you please share your thoughts?



thank you in advance

yours truly

Bojan

**mst** · 04-10-2013, 09:07 PM

Hi Bojan,

well, there is probably no easy answer to this. If possible, you should maybe try out one of the candidates to see if it fits your needs.

Just a few thoughts about the 70-200/4 VR though: the price difference is not ofr better sharpness (as you mention, the lenses are quite close). But it is a lens with much better build, constant aperture and constand physical length. All this features require some serious engineering and probably more expensive materials.

In addition, the lens features a newer and better VR, faster AF, no focus breathing and a quite close MFD. You may of course argue if all this is worth a premium price (in general and of course especially in your case).

-- Markus

04-10-2013, 09:20 PM

Thank you very much Markus,

your answer really helps me!

I completely understand the reasons for price difference (build quality, close focusing, etc), but to be honest, didn't expect that cheap 70-300 are actually optically that good. Of course 70-200 is better - but I thought that 70-300s would be much worse (as in DxO charts) which gladly it is not the case (based on your review in which I believe much more then in DxOs Big Grin

)

I will let you know what I got and how happy I am with my decision Smile

Thank you so much once again!

yours truly

Bojan

04-19-2013, 07:20 AM

Hi Bojan,

I use Tamron 70-300 VC on D600, and I used to have a Nikon 70-300 VR before. From my experience, Tamron definitely has sufficient sharpness for 24mp sensor, probably slightly better than Nikon 70-300 VR. Plus Nikon’s contrast was pretty dull at long tele, while Tamron’s images look more “punchy”. The only downside is that Tamron is made from cheap plastic, and you can even feel a liiiittle bit of zoom creep in some situations. Let’s say, if 70-200 2.8 build quality is 10, I’d personally rate the Tamron as 5 and Nikon 70-300 as 6 <_<

04-30-2013, 01:58 PM

Thank you all for your help and answers.

I got Tamron 70-300 VC and for now I am quite happy.

These are "real-life" images:

http://phototraveldiary.smugmug.com/AllI...&k=Cz99DC4

the lenses used were Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 300mm f4 non AFS and Tamron 70-300VC. On Nikon D600 and monopod. Most images are wide open. Also most of them shot through glass and wire mash. And all are RAW straight converted in Aperture - no other postprocessing done.

yours Bojan

05-15-2013, 02:11 PM

This was (and is) an interesting topic for me. I already have the Tamron 70-300mm VC but had thought it was DX only. I purchased it after it bettered the well regarded Nikon 70-300mm in a couple of initial lens comparison reviews. Later a review placed the Nikon higher but the supplied images in that review definitely showed the Tamron as top? It is a moot point as both lens are fabulous for the money. I find the Tamron lens stabilisation to be by and far the best! Also when I got a Nikon D600 body I was pleased to find the Tamron was FX after all.

At the start there is some query around 70-300's and 70-200's tested at DXO on a Nikon D800. You should note that DXO score 'fast' lenses rather highly so relatively a 70-200 f2.8 always seems a better lens than a 70-200mm f4. In practice this is not the case (unless you really need f2.8). It is easier to design a better f4.

I do not for one second believe that the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is twice as sharp as the 70-300mm at f8. It is clearly nonsense. A professional will need the f2.8 and after all does not pay for it as it is tax deductable and/or the customer (or employer) pays for it. Why not have the more impressive faster lens? Pretend professionals and wealthy amateurs also value looking good.

Bigboki, thanks for posting your photo's (above) clearly this is a great lens and I hope you enjoy yours like I do mine.

nandadevieast · 08-11-2013, 06:43 PM

Why such DXO numbers? Why such a difference?