Nikon 70-200 mm f/4 or Tamron 70-210 f/4 ?

Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
1,917
Location
Utah
Real Name
Carl
Looking at a "Mint" Nikon 70-200 f.4, VR used ~$850, 1 year warranty, or a new Tamron 70-210 f/4 VR about a Benjamin or so less, with the Tamron 6 year USA warranty. I have the $$, and permission from the Controller of the Exchequer to go for it. :D Any wise counsel re: quality, reliability, or other experiences with either, to help me choose? Thanx!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
788
Location
USA
I have the Nikon and will not part with it. My experience with Tamron overall is hit and miss (about 50/50). Make sure you are getting a generous return policy if you choose the latter.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
948
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I have the Nikon lens, and I have used the Tamron lens.

For shooting sports, I think the Tamron lens is better, because of the forward positioned zoom ring. I would not have thought so, until I actually used the Tamron lens. When I use my Nikon lens, I put the tripod foot on, reversed, then lay the foot into the palm of my hands, so that my fingers can work the zoom ring. With the Tamron lens, I just lay the lens in my hand (no tripod collar needed), and the zoom ring is nicely positioned for my fingers.

But . . . personally, I would go with the Nikon lens, if you can.

I do know that the Nikon lens is sharp. It was the lens that convinced me that the IQ limitation of my D7200 was the lens, not the camera.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
1,917
Location
Utah
Real Name
Carl
Thanks again for the insight...I just spent my "stash" for my first-ever, the new-to-me "pro" lens I had been wanting for years! The Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR. IMNHO, better than good! I checked it out...thankfully, it was made in Thailand, and not by China! But...even if it was made there, I wouldn't send it back! Howzat for Wishy Washy??
1f609.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Now to get finished treating a really inconvenient throat abscess so I can go out! Confined to pretty much indoor venues, I tried my handy-dandy "pro" sharpness test..flowered curtains at the window...back across the hall... against the bathroom sink. Sharp! I can count the threads in the curtain weave! VR and AF almost INSTANTANEOUS! Lighter than the legendary f/2.8s, with a tripod collar. Looking for years of satisfied use.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
1,917
Location
Utah
Real Name
Carl
FWIW: Joining the discussion(s) on the "NIKONIANS" site: "Is the Nikon 70-200 mm f/4 worth it?" ;)

Opinion by another member:
"I have long realized that the idea of zooming with ones feet
is downright stupid and ignores the perspective changes that
result from longer or shorter than "normal" focal
lengths." :wideyed:

RESPONSE: "Orrr...ignoring the very real danger (Don't ask!) of walking off a dock, trying to get the "perfect" perspective angle!"
flue.gif
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


But...the realities are...(at least mine) Economic$ do play a role, and as much as most of us have lusted after the "Big Guns" of photography for decades, in most cases, it just won't happen! We do what we can with the "consumer" grade, or "prosumer"...whatever cutesy little phrases Marketing departments come up with to make us feel better about not spending the mortgage payment for "better" stuff! And, truth to tell, my APS C cameras and "better, cheaper" lenses like the good old FX VR AFS 70-300 4.5-5.6 have done me proud, with several awards and years of satisfying photography.

Buuuut...every once in a great while, the stars align, and the Eagle of opportunity lands in our wallets, and we can $pend more than we EVER have before on one piece of photo equipment, and the results of hurried, amateur testing show that all the positive reviews were not mere "puff" It's time to just enjoy! Oh, did I say, I LIKE mine?:D
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
948
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Having both various non-pro AF zooms, and the 70-200/4, I will say it was worth it. $$$$ painful, but it was worth it.
I was contemplating upgrading to FX from my DX D7200, to get better IQ. But a few pics from the 70-200/4 showed me that the D7200 was not limited by the sensor, but by the glass. Admittedly I was doing some deep crops.

Though, in most normal situations, I don't push the IQ as much and the non-pro lenses were generally "good enough."
And in fact, I was looking at the 70-300 AFS VR to replace my 75-300 AF.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
232
Location
NC, USA
Real Name
Mike
Nikon focuses better and will have in camera correction for distortion and vignetting.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
71
Location
Copenhagen
Looking at a "Mint" Nikon 70-200 f.4, VR used ~$850, 1 year warranty, or a new Tamron 70-210 f/4 VR about a Benjamin or so less, with the Tamron 6 year USA warranty. I have the $$, and permission from the Controller of the Exchequer to go for it. :D Any wise counsel re: quality, reliability, or other experiences with either, to help me choose? Thanx!

I do not have the TAMRON, but I do have the Nikkor 70-200 f4.0 which is Sharp into the corners at Every focal length, already at f4.0 getting better at smaller F-stops down to f16, after which Diffraction sets in, yet not that objectionable, exept for f32, and set at 200mm it shows the same view as my Nikkor Q 200 f4.0, so No focus breathing, it has Great Close Focus Capability , about One Meter ( 3feet ) and still Sharp at every focal length , and AF is fast on D3s and D3x, it also feels Solid and Easy to use, it`s a Lovely lens.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom