I have owned a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 DiLD since they came out and have been happy with the results though it was very slow. The AF recently went out and it spent 7 weeks in the shop. While gone I acquired a Nikon 70-200 VR AFS.
Below are comparison crops at 100% (or more). D300, tripod, ISO 200, first 2 @ 1/1000 sec, third @ 1/250. As they say a picture's worth a thousand words. The only place that the Tamron beats Nikon is it focuses about 2 feet closer.
Absolutely gorgeous capture of the hummingbird moth. Thanks for sharing. That's also a key reason why I got the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 -- because of the great minimum focal distance and near-macro ability. Another reason was for the beautiful, smooth bokeh the lens produces, which is also evident in your moth photo.
I apologise for the way my reply sounded.that is not what I was trying to say.sometimes my words come out differant than my thoughts.I'll try this again.I think it is absolutely great that there is an affordable lens available that is almost as good as a top notch nikon.thats a luxury that don't come around very often these days. Troy
there is no problem to big or small that can't be fixed with brute strength and ignorance visit my gallery
Phillip, keep the Nikon, if nothing else it's worth it for the VR. When I was looking at 70-200's and reading the revews I decided that based on the bad history I had with Tamron lenses I would go for the Sigma. I own 8 now and never a problem and all are EX series and very sharp. My bad luck with Tamron included a loose front element on a 17-35, returned for a refund and bad AF and flash exposure problems with a 28-75 that seemed never to get fixed even though I sent it in a couple of times so I sold it on eBay and disclosed my problems with the lens and took a terrible beathing and years ago I had a 28-105 and while using it on my N90s and SB-25 something went wrong and the lens. It would work but the Af was slower than it used to be. I sent them both in and the N90s checked out fine and I got a new 28-105 and quickly traded it in on a wide angle lens while it was still NIB. I'd love to rave about Tamron but I've haven't had good luck with them even though they were great picture takers when they worked properly. While reading the 70-200 reviews I almost persuaded myself to get the Tamron based on the all the people raving about the image quality. In the end the Sigma's HSM won out and my lens is very very sharp. Now if Tamron offered something similar to AFS/HSM and VC for less than a $1000 I'd go for the Tamron 70-200 but keep the Sigma for backup. Mark Stephan USN, retired
Thu 16-Apr-09 07:23 AM | edited Thu 16-Apr-09 09:51 AM by Ho72
Here's a quick post comparing the Tam 70-200 to the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D. Both images were shot at 200mm, f6.3 @ 1/2500 sec, ISO100 tripod mount, mirror locked on a D200. I've found the Tamron to be a bit more prone to shake, at least in casual testing, so care must be given to technique in order to eliminate it. In order to take pixel peeping to its extreme, these are 800% magnification crops. File size limitations at Nikonians prevented better quality, larger images.
It looks to me that the tamron is front focusing a bit. As you stop down the two lens become much closer in resolution because the depth of field starts to eliminate the focus problem. All independent test I'v see show the tamron to be very strong at f2.8. Quite the opposite of your results. John
>It looks to me that the tamron is front focusing a bit. As >you stop down the two lens become much closer in resolution >because the depth of field starts to eliminate the focus >problem. All independent test I'v see show the tamron to be >very strong at f2.8. Quite the opposite of your results. >John
A calibration test and use of the D300's AF offsets in the menu should cure the little bit of front focus that seems to be there and sharpen it right up.