70-300mm lens - Nikon or Tamron?

molinari

molinari

molinari

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2003
Posts
5,282
I'm looking to get a telephoto lens for my D90 (mainly for wildlife photos) so I thought I'd see if anyone here has experience with the ones I'm looking at, or can offer some advice on alternate choices.

At the moment I'm looking at either the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 or the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6. I've seen people mention the Nikon 70-300, but does anyone have the Tamron or are able to compare them? also, will a 1.4tc work with these lens on a D90 to give me some extra reach if required?

The Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 is another choice but a fair chunk of extra money so I'm not sure if I can justify that at the moment (unless someone can convince me!).
 
The Nikon is excellent for what it is, a little (just a little) soft in the 200-300 range but at the price that's to be expected, it's superb value. No point even looking at the competitors in my view.

It won't take a Nikon TC though, you might manage to get a third party one working but god knows what features you'll loose in the process (potentially VR and AF might cease to work).
 
I have the Tamron 70-300 and I like it given its cost, sometime I think the images are not as sharp as I would have liked but as I'm still new to photography I'm unsure if it's user error or actually the lens, most likely a mix of both especially at the higher lengths.

The added macro feature is nice, but he focusing can sometimes go a bit mental when on auto with it moving through the entire focus ring (don't know the right terminology :p) before getting it right. Not a constant problem just occasional, same for normal shooting too.

Autofocus is rather noisy compared to my kit lens and seems about as fast if only a little slower.

Example pic below, as I say not as sharp as I'd of liked.

DSC_0566.jpg by bLuE_UK, on Flickr

Excuse the blurs on either side it was shot through railings.


DSC_0871.jpg by bLuE_UK, on Flickr

One form yesterday.

Hopefully this was in some way helpful, cant answer on your other questions though.
 
I have the Nikon 70-300 VR, it is a fantastic lens for the money, one of Nikon's best value for money.
Over the 70-200mm range it is basically as sharp as my 70-200mm 2.8 VR I,slightly less contrast and much more CA, the Bokeh is slightly more nervous, but overall stunningly good.
From 250-300mm it gets a bit softer, but nothing dramatic, it just looses the critical sharpness, stopping down to f/8 largely rectifies this.

There is now a 55-300 VR DX lens which is not quite as good as the 70-300, but should eb cheaper and lighter.

The newest Tamron with the VC is supposedly quite good, but I would stick with the Nikon every time.


Neither lens will work with a 1.4x TC. The Nikon TC wont mount, the Kenko TCs will mount but will give you terrible quality, you are better off cropping. Autofocus will be almost non existent.


If you think 300mm is really not enough, the best option is to pick up a 300mm f/4 and 1.4TC. None of the sigma zooms really satisfy. Some are utterly dire, some are terrible, the best are usable but wont provide critically sharp photo at the tele end wide open. The 50-500 BIGMA is supposedly the best of the bunch, but a 300 f/4 + 1.4 or 1.7 TC gives you 420-510 mm and much better sharpness.
 
Thanks for the quick replies!

D.P. said:
If you think 300mm is really not enough, the best option is to pick up a 300mm f/4 and 1.4TC. None of the sigma zooms really satisfy. Some are utterly dire, some are terrible, the best are usable but wont provide critically sharp photo at the tele end wide open. The 50-500 BIGMA is supposedly the best of the bunch, but a 300 f/4 + 1.4 or 1.7 TC gives you 420-510 mm and much better sharpness.
Click to expand...
The lens will be used frequently so 70-300 would probably be fine but a big use of it will be in Canada whale and bear watching this year, so I'd be disappointed to not have enough length when I'm out there. The 300mm f/4 with a 1.4tc would be good but then again I'd have a big gap with no lens covering 100mm to 300mm. Decisions decisions, argh :(.
 
I went whale watching off Tofino a couple of years ago, 300mm was enough. When Whales were too far and needed more than 300mm it wouldn't really be worth photo graphing. I found the 70mm end of the my 70-300 perfect for many whale shots - they often swim right under the boat.
Of course you can be unlucky and they are all further out.

The biggest problem I had was focussing, they breach for only a couple of second and reappear some way form where they go under, very hard to predict unless you have much experience. Mostly you would swing arod just to see them dip under the water. So fast focusing is important, pre-focus at reasonable distances is mandatory.

If I went again I would take my 70-200mm 2.8 to guarantee the fastest focusing possible. Not that the 70-300 VR is slow, its just it is a very hard situation to photograph. the waves also tend to cause problems.



For bears, unless you go on an organsied trip you wont see many unless you are lucky.
 
D.P. said:
For bears, unless you go on an organsied trip you wont see many unless you are lucky.
Click to expand...
It was the bears and other wildlife (eagles for example) that I thought I'd need the extra length for. We're trying to plan the trip to coincide with the start of the salmon run and go on a few organised bear trips otherwise you're right, it would be a case of being lucky to see them.
 
Nikon 70-300 is superb considering you can now get it for less than £400. Here's one at 300mm hand held (on a D90).
033/]
5273022033_b9e2a09b92_b.jpg

Robin by mhk1058, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
If you think 300mm is really not enough, the best option is to pick up a 300mm f/4 and 1.4TC. None of the sigma zooms really satisfy. Some are utterly dire, some are terrible, the best are usable but wont provide critically sharp photo at the tele end wide open. The 50-500 BIGMA is supposedly the best of the bunch, but a 300 f/4 + 1.4 or 1.7 TC gives you 420-510 mm and much better sharpness.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the Sigma 120-300m f2.8, cracking lens and still fast enough and very sharp with a 1.4TC (and some are happy with the 2x TC). This is a big lens though as you might expect for f2.8, and not cheap.

Wouldn't touch a TC with the Nikon 70-300 (or the Tamron), your down to f8/f9, slow focussing and shutter speeds too slow for wildlife. (Nikon TC doesn't work - that's what Nikon think)
 
Last edited:
mhk1058 said:
With the exception of the Sigma 120-300m f2.8, cracking lens and still fast enough and very sharp with a 1.4TC (and some are happy with the 2x TC). This is a big lens though as you might expect for f2.8, and not cheap.

Wouldn't touch a TC with the Nikon 70-300 (or the Tamron), your down to f8/f9, slow focussing and shutter speeds too slow for wildlife. (Nikon TC doesn't work - that's what Nikon think)
Click to expand...

well, ok the 2.8 is a different matter, I was referring to the numerous 150-500,120-400, 50-500 type lenses from sigma, none of which really stand out and most of which are pretty dire.
 
bigredshark said:
The Nikon is excellent for what it is, a little (just a little) soft in the 200-300 range but at the price that's to be expected, it's superb value. No point even looking at the competitors in my view.............
Click to expand...

Why are people so closed minded about looking at and buying equipment with neither Canon or Nikon written on it? :confused:

I own the new Tamron 70-300 VC lens and I love it too! It beats the Nikon hands down at all focal lengths, especially at 300mm
Click to expand...

The Tamron is slightly better. I use it on a D700 with great results. But both are good and you can't go wrong either way.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can have people preferring the Nikon over the Tamron as well. Just don't rule the Tamron 70-300 VC out.

I've seen the Tamron 70-300 VC for as little as £329 online.

OP, take a memory card into Jessops and ask to try both lenses on their D90 in the cabinet. See what you like when you look at the examples from the memory card later.
 
Last edited:
fozzybear said:
Just don't rule the Tamron 70-300 VC out.

OP, take a memory card into Jessops and ask to try both lenses on their D90 in the cabinet. See what you like when you look at the examples from the memory card later.
Click to expand...
I certainly haven't ruled the Tamron out, in fact I was going to go into Jessops tomorrow and do what you had suggested to compare them. I will report back my findings and choice over the weekend :).
 
Also, if it matters, I think the Tamron weighs about 40g more than the Nikon lens. One might balance better on your D90 body than the other. Make sure it's the VC USD version of the Tamron 70-300 you're trying and not the older and cheaper version.

Also, check out some reviews on the .com version of the 'Rainforest' site. They seem favourable.

I'm not sure what warranty you get with the Nikon but I think the Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty. Finally, the Tamron starts at f4 whilst the Nikon starts at f4.5.

If the reviews were favourable, I'd sell my Sony 70-300 G SSM lens and get the Tamron version (whenever it eventually arrives for Sony) without a doubt.
 
Last edited:
The Focus on the Tamron is also slower than the Nikon, and there is much more variance. I've seen lots of posts on DPR and although the best copies do seem to be marginally sharper than the Nikon at 300mm (and slightly worse at the 70-200mm range), there appears to be many copies that are definitely worse than then Nikon. The Tamron also has worse edge and corner performance, the more even performance of the Nikon is useful for many.

There are also differences in the colour rendition, if you have other Nikon lenses the Tamron would provide a different colour rendition.

Moreover, the Bokeh on the Nikon is definitely better than the Tamron.


The 3rd party lenses can be terrific, and the Tamron 70-300 VC seems to be very good, but considering how good the Nikon is and that it is very cheap anyway, there really isn't a reason not to buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom