this thread is actually talking about a different lens altogether. Its like comparing apples and oranges !!..we can not generalize about tamron, unless someone has a slow focussing issu with 70-300 itself !!
Lens Nikon 70-300mm AF G
- Thread starter deepanshus
- Start date
- Status
this thread is actually talking about a different lens altogether. Its like comparing apples and oranges !!..we can not generalize about tamron, unless someone has a slow focussing issu with 70-300 itself !!
I would suggest you go for 55-200VR than 70-300G as it is too soft for me.
Also, in order to get a sharp pic, u need to use high iso+ fast shutter speed...70-300G is good only in day time, at night, 9/10 of my pic is blur ：（
This end up my 70-300G is collecting dust while 55-200VR always mount on my d90
Also, in order to get a sharp pic, u need to use high iso+ fast shutter speed...70-300G is good only in day time, at night, 9/10 of my pic is blur ：（
This end up my 70-300G is collecting dust while 55-200VR always mount on my d90
I would suggest you go for 55-200VR than 70-300G as it is too soft for me.
Also, in order to get a sharp pic, u need to use high iso+ fast shutter speed...70-300G is good only in day time, at night, 9/10 of my pic is blur ：（
This end up my 70-300G is collecting dust while 55-200VR always mount on my d90
90% blur is quite an issue. You mentioned night... what about indoors with a flash... I reckon should be ok, right?
Both are about similar price and I believe TS is in a similar situation as me... I'm using for indoor stage performances.
I think TS have to consider which is more important - the extra 100mm reach of the 70-300mmG or the VR of the 55-200mm. I hv both of this lenses and both are used for diff purposes and time
finally bought the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro from MS yesterday...
to really convince myself i tried the Tamron 1 more time...MS only got 1 of each model for nikon...
suddenly the tamron got the target right...then shortly later starts hunting again...
the Sigma remains fast but have to really endure the loud AF motor...nowadays these lens comes wit built-in motor already..
the tamron is $120 cheaper than the Sigma ($360) filter size is 62mm compare to sigma 58mm.
the sigma comes wit a lens pouch which tamron don have..but sigma lens hood feels very plastic but fits firmly.
both are 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro with built-in AF motor..
also tried tamron 90mm SP n sigma 105mm f2.8...distance not significant but they don have sigma 150mm f2.8..
maybe getting the 70-200mm f2.8 in the near future...
to really convince myself i tried the Tamron 1 more time...MS only got 1 of each model for nikon...
suddenly the tamron got the target right...then shortly later starts hunting again...
the Sigma remains fast but have to really endure the loud AF motor...nowadays these lens comes wit built-in motor already..
the tamron is $120 cheaper than the Sigma ($360) filter size is 62mm compare to sigma 58mm.
the sigma comes wit a lens pouch which tamron don have..but sigma lens hood feels very plastic but fits firmly.
both are 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro with built-in AF motor..
also tried tamron 90mm SP n sigma 105mm f2.8...distance not significant but they don have sigma 150mm f2.8..
maybe getting the 70-200mm f2.8 in the near future...
yes, its quite known that Tamron "hunts" in low light an as such can be used in outdoor bright light shoots only. However did you try out sigma at 300mm...reviews say its quite soft. Will it be possible to show us your sample shot at 100%crop perhaps!!
yes i also read about this lens but i trhink its discontinued. Even ken Rockwell has no review for this lens :bigeyes:
but if anyone has any reviews then it will be great..
Just a quick question...does it mean that 70-300 is a FF lens..ie the actual focal length on nikon DX sensor would be 1.5x (105 - 450mm)...can some one please clarify. I may be mistaken.
The actual focal length of a 70-300 is still 70-300 whether on FX or DX. Only that on DX, the FoV of a 70-300 is like that of a 105-450 on FX.
yeah that was what i intended to ask... so it means that by comparing 55-200VR with 70-300 it means that we are losing 200 on tele end and gaining VR.. :thumbsd: not worth comparison in my opinion
so it means that by comparing 55-200VR with 70-300 it means that we are losing 200 on tele end and gaining VR.. :thumbsd: not worth comparison in my opinion
What you mean by losing 200 on tele end?
wellll...i mean the actual FOV is equivalent to 105 - 450 DX lens...and if we compare the same to a 55-200DX lens then we are losing 200 mm (equiv FOV) on the tele end...
or i have just confused myself :think:
or i have just confused myself :think:
Yes you are confusing yourself. 55-200DX has FOV 82.5-300mm. So your lens FOV is shorter by 150mm when compared to the 70-300mm FX lens.
The DX designatin on lens simply mean the lens is designed for DX and has image circle covering DX only. Focal length markings remain a physical parameter, 200mm is 200mm regardless DX or FX, but 200mm DX won't cover FX image circle. But 200mm on DX has 300mm FOV (Field of View, that is) due to crop factor.
The DX designatin on lens simply mean the lens is designed for DX and has image circle covering DX only. Focal length markings remain a physical parameter, 200mm is 200mm regardless DX or FX, but 200mm DX won't cover FX image circle. But 200mm on DX has 300mm FOV (Field of View, that is) due to crop factor.
i got to use a 70-300 VR it seems to be ok... even the AF was fast enough... i used it to take indoor tennis shots in malaysia... you should get the latest 70-300 VR version just to make sure...
70-300 VR is a different ballgame as it is not in the price bracket of the discussion.
TS (and myself) are basically looking for a reasonable bang for the buck for a lens that will be seldom used. Not sure about TS but $300 or thereabouts would be my price limit. The cheaper the better so that money can be put into other lenses that would see more light of day.
My envisioned usage would be less than 50 shots per year.
i agree, just got myself confused :mad2: as long as we are comparing DX with DX the lenswont make any difference, one might get better edge sharpness as the edge of the sensor is not the edge of the lens (if teh lens is FF) plus u have more glass weight to bear which u might not use as it is beyond sensor...
hope i am getting it straight this time
absolutely my budget too...i am only getting this lens to experiment and understand my usage and handling and nikon VR is just too costly for it...however i am quite impressed with the slow shutter speed that VR allows, as per ken rockwell
No VR VR Real
70mm 1/15 1/4
100mm 1/80 1/8
135mm 1/100 1/13
200mm 1/160 1/8
300mm 1/160 1/20
... but then it comes with a price...
back to the main topic now..tamron sigma tamron sigma
- Status