....ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

On Nov 20, 5:53*pm, Boater wrote:
...ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

Might be good for taking those action shots at the Yale football
games, eh?

Boater wrote:
....ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

Is this another one of those low transom jobs? What's it get for mileage?

Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
....ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one,
I couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with
the corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a
skosh better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is
lighter and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

Is this another one of those low transom jobs? What's it get for mileage?


Dunno. Just ordered it today, doesn't arrive until tomorrow. Will check
its transom and mileage.

On Nov 20, 6:53*pm, Boater wrote:
...ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

Does that lens have VR?

On Nov 21, 1:32*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 21, 9:32 am, Boater wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
I'm guessing not. *I don't know if there is cheaper alternatives to the
active vibration resistance or image stabilization but lens with it cost a
whole lot more than those without. *Admittedly you can shoot a whole lot
wider range of shutter speeds with it but you do pay a hefty price.
I've often ended up going with the lens from other parties over the camera
brand myself. *Particularly when price comparing against nikon and canon. *I
don't think they are better, just that they are close in quality and far
less expensive. *Guess it's the same for me with cars having two toyotas and
numerous hondas and mazdas in the past. *I've never considered a lexus or
acura. *I wound not argue with anyone that said they were better quality,
just not enough to make me pay that price difference.
wrote in message
....
On Nov 20, 6:53 pm, Boater wrote:
...ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.
Half the price, too.
Does that lens have VR?
No, James...the lens does NOT have VR or IS. I'll be using it on fairly
heavy cameras, though, and it internally zooms, so it should be fairly
easy to control, especially at reasonable shutter speeds. I did not use
"VR' much on the Nikkor 18-200 mm lens I recently sold.

In the good old days, I used to use a fast Nikkor 180mm fixed focal
length. I borrowed the lens from one of the photogs at the KC Star,
where I worked as a reporter/copy editor. There was no VR or IS in those
days, at least none of which I was aware.

I'm not knocking VR. It works. But I can hold a handgun steady enough to
do very well at amateur target shooting contests, and once I am comfy
with the lens, I am sure I will be able to hold it steady.

As you stated, these non-VR lenses are much less expensive. The Tamrom
runs about $700, half the price of the Nikkor. The optics produce
identical results.

I bought the Tamrom because I was pleased with the results of a 28-75
Tamron zoom and read a few very strong reviews of the more powerful zoom.

I'm also contemplating a 2x teleconverter for the 70-200. I wouldn't
mind having a 400 mm lens available for those few times it might be fun
to use.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Holding it steady is not a substitute for image stabilization. *I
won't argue you will get fine pictures with the lens you have. *But
blow the same picture up from it and an IS lens and you will see a
difference. *No matter how steady you hand is.

Well, the lens arrived this morning, and I just took a couple of shots
out the back door at one of my wife's bird feeders. At 100%
magnification on my screen, it is as sharp as a tack. I'll play around
with some new photos when it warms up a bit and see what I can see.

Again, I am not knocking IS or VR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I will bet you any amount of money you wish that if you take a shot at
200mm handheld, I can show you movement in the resulting picture. Bet?

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:53:55 -0500, Boater wrote:

...ended up with the Tamron f/2.8 70-200. After a day of testing one, I
couldn't see any difference between its shots and ones taken with the
corresponding Nikkor lens. The build quality on the Nikkor is a skosh
better, but not enough to make a diff to me. Plus the Tammy is lighter
and the zoom is internal.

Half the price, too.

Sure hope it fits your wife's Cannon. Damn but she's good with that thing.
Even the pictures you took and posted in Chuck's Place were pretty good.
You'd surely need nothing further!
--
John H.