Has it been compared with Nikon 400mm f2.8 AFS + TC 20 EIII, which I have?
1578620
I am not aware of a review that compares those 2 configurations, but I would be amazed if the 400 f/2.8 AFS with converter was as sharp as the 800. I have read a review that might shed some light on the question, but cannot access it without my laptop.
1578621
Not formally that I know of but I have tried to used my 300 with the TX 20 EIII and I have seen a fall off in my quality of image.
1578622
i did the comparison at 1/1000 f8 and the difference is slight but noticeable at about 1/4 mile...so if you're sick and have OCD then yes its worth it :-)
1578623
Suggest you read the review at the following link: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-800mm-f5-6-vr
1578624
In my experience, the 800mm is noticeably better, at least with my copy of the 400mm. The TC option is a lot lighter way to get to 800mm, though.
1578625
Try this link for multiple opinions on this comparison: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1960/400mm-f2-8-with-tc-2-0e-iii-vs-800mm-f5-6/p1My personal opinion - the photos with either setup will depend on your skills as a photographer, and quite frankly - luck. If you are going to take the 800 mm into the field there ought to be a well-defined high value objective since just carrying it and the tripod etc out there is quite a formidable task. By the way, don't forget that the 800 mm comes with a dedicated 1.4 TC. This extends your reach to 1000 mm. Of course this means that you need to have great technique to avoid camera motion blur. A remote shutter trigger is a good accessory. Try this link for multiple opinions on this comparison: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1960/400mm-f2-8-with-tc-2-0e-iii-vs-800mm-f5-6/p1My personal opinion - the photos with either setup will depend on your skills as a photographer, and quite frankly - luck. If you are going to take the 800 mm into the field there ought to be a well-defined high value objective since just carrying it and the tripod etc out there is quite a formidable task. By the way, don't forget that the 800 mm comes with a dedicated 1.4 TC. This extends your reach to 1000 mm. Of course this means... » Read More Try this link for multiple opinions on this comparison: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1960/400mm-f2-8-with-tc-2-0e-iii-vs-800mm-f5-6/p1My personal opinion - the photos with either setup will depend on your skills as a photographer, and quite frankly - luck. If you are going to take the 800 mm into the field there ought to be a well-defined high value objective since just carrying it and the tripod etc out there is quite a formidable task. By the way, don't forget that the 800 mm comes with a dedicated 1.4 TC. This extends your reach to 1000 mm. Of course this means that you need to have great technique to avoid camera motion blur. A remote shutter trigger is a good accessory. « Show Less
1578626
I highly recommend you put this question in the Nikon forum on photo.net. Experts there can give you a better answer than me. Most seem to agree that the TC 1.4 III is a very good telecom better but the majority think the 2.0 is not so good. Personally I have both and have had good success with them. The 800 mm lens is a beast and can only work with a good tripod which will add at least a $1000 to the final price. IThe size and weight mean you have to be very committed if you are going to take this lens into the field. A good prime like the f2.8 300mm is about as much as I would be prepared to use if I were walking about with the camera. It is even possible to do hand held shooting with a lens like this, though tiring, and you get good results with the TCd. Good luck with your photography.
677226
I bought it for a 400mm 5.6 & manual focus only...which is just as fast or faster than auto many times...I wanted the distance
1150052
Yes, it worth it. Have far less chromatic aberrations, more definition across all the frame, and weights far less. This lens is very good starting F1.8, but at the range F4-F8 it shines, even better than Nikkor 105 mm F1.8, which was my previous sharper lens
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
740232
I haven't tried it but I doubt you'll be happy with the results. You're losing 2 stops and the image quality will be poor. That lens at 600mm is f 6.5 which is already slow but acceptable. Add losing 2 stops & you've got a real challenge. If Tamron says a 2X TC will focus on this lens, your camera will still only autofocus semi-reliably to f8. I've never been very pleased with a 2X on anything slower than f2.8 & they work better on fixed lenses.
110371
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster. I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
1061952
Yes it is, I love my 17-40, I just wish it was f/2.8 but other than that is my go to lens. If I need to use only one lens for my camera is always this one. One difference is that I have a full frame camera (6D) so for a crop sensor camera like yours I will also look into the 10-22 one, if you ever plan to go for full frame camera then get this one. Hope this helps.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
2018169
I went to the camera store today to compare these two cameras and came away with a definite lean toward the FZ18 vs the TZ3. The three big negative factors for the TZ were: 1. There was significant color blurring (red text on white background) when magnifying comparable shots (the FZ was clean); the compression noise was also significantly higher on the TZ3. 2. The image stabilization on the TZ3 at 12X zoom was WAY inferior to the FZ18 at 18X. I had a LOT of trouble getting one clear shot out of 10 tries at 12X with the TZ3, while the FZ18 gave perfect 18X images 9 out of 10 times. I don't know why this might be, and I checked all the settings on both cameras to be sure I wasn't comparing apples to oranges, but these results are real. 3. The TZ3 does not have a viewfinder and I have found that in bright sunlight outdoors a viewfinder is a huge plus. All this said, the TZ3 is still a nice camera for the size - it is pocketable (in baggy pants) while the FZ18 is not. -- Just my 2 cents. _eric
1321064
For the most part, yes; however, I find that the AF doesn't always get the perfect focus on the first attempt when shooting in the manual mode. I still think it is a great lens. The match between camera and lens is not always the same in all camera/lens combinations, so you might find it great, while someone else doesn't. There is probably a good chance that you will be well satisfied with this lens. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
1526808
Have not tried the tamron the cannon 24-70 2.8L II . Is a a purchase I'll never regret. It holds up against my friends zeiss primes plus blazing fast auto focus
2058086
I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports... » Read More I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. « Show Less
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
110373
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster.I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
1803406
I had a D40 before the D60, the D60 is MUCH better, just my personal thoughts 1-Dust, if you live in a dusty environment is a BIG ONE 2-Active D-light, Say good bye to underexposed photos, the camera produces very consistent results, not so with the D40 3-Expeed produced lower noise at higher ISO 4-THE VR Lens is SOOO much worth it, my pictures are always sharp I considered the D80, but... 1-No Active D-light "a big one" 2-more focus points yes, but you can do anything with 3 if you use them well 3-the D80 has a motor, but Nikon will be updating most of this primes to AFS this year, I tried the camera motor its slowwww 4-I was planing to get the D80+50mm 1.4 lens for low light, got the sigma 30mm 1.4 its a much better lens to keep on the camera IMHO 5-Expeed processing on the D60 seems to produce more saturated/vivid pictures vs.. D80 I shoot RAW/convert with capture NX, tried all the options, capture NX is slow and ugly, but it gives you the BEST picture period.
1609778
Good timing on your question, because DPReview.com JUST posted their review last week on that lens:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/Optically it appears to be quite good. AF is slow and noisy, but for 694 bucks at Amazon you can't beat the price if budget is a concern.