Top positive review
5.0 out of 5 starsOn Par with the Nikon 70-200 E FL, which I Tested
Reviewed in the United States on September 8, 2017
As with many Nikon users taking a serious look at this Tamron G2 lens and the Nikon FL, I researched to gain insight as to relative performance of these two lenses, deciding whether or not I should go with the $1300 Tamron or fork up the $2800 for the new Nikon E FL, anticipating that I would not buy another 70-200 f/2.8 for years to come.
As an aside, I own an A7RII and an A6500, for which I have some of the best glass. The 90mm macro and 55 f/1.8 are razor sharp lenses, by the way. I was willing to buy the 70-200 Master ($2600), for which I would use to shoot/video action in low light conditions. But that lens on those two top-of-the-line Sony bodies has way too many autofocus issues. The Sony 70-200GMaster, which I tested, is pretty sharp, but what use is a 2.8 telephoto that can't focus in low light conditions? You're better off just getting the Sony 70-200 f/4, which, given the Sony 70-200 f/2.8's poor low light performance, would basically give you the same performance in a lighter less expensive body. I just throw my 55f/1.8 and zoom by foot to cover the 70-100mm range on my A6500 and throw the 90mm macro on the same to cover the 130+ range. Remember, the 200mm on the Sony 70-200mm is more like a 150mm due to focus breathing. In any case, due its poor low light performance, the Sony was disqualified, even though I prefer Sony for still photography and video.
Back to the Tamron 70-200 G2 and the 70-200mm Nikon E FL:
I went to a local camera store which sells and rents all the top-of-the-line lenses. There I hooked up the 70-200mm Nikon FL to my Nikon D750.
To my 20-15 pixel-peeping eyes, the Nikon FL seems to have slightly, and I mean SLIGHTLY, better sharpness wide open in the center of the frame and better magnification--i.e., less focus breathing. While in the store, I took dozens upon dozens of wide open photos at 70, 85, 100, 130, 170, and 200mm and compared them in Lightroom to photos of the 70-200mm Tamron G2 and the Sony 70-200mm GMaster, which I only attached to my A6500. I understand the Master would have been sharper on my A7RII, but both cameras use the latest versions of 24mp+- CMOS sensors, making the comparisons somewhat on par, I guesstimate. Plus, the poor focusing of the Sony, which was validated on my A6500, disqualifies that lens for action photography or other forms of low light photography.
IMHO, the new Nikon FL, which I was willing to buy in a split second were it as sharp as some say, is not worth $1500 more than the Tamron G2. I wouldn't pay $1800 for that lens, especially now that I've tested the Tamron G2, which is basically the SAME LENS. REALLY. For its slight increase in center sharpness and decrease in focus breathing, the new Nikon may be worth $250 more, IMO, as the slight edge in center sharpness is truly negligible. In fact, I would have instantly either suffered from buyers remorse after purchasing the Nikon FL or rationalized/validated the purchase of it by convincing myself that its worth every penny to suppress buyers remorse. That lens is not worth $3000 and neither is the Sony 70-200 GMaster. If the Tamron were not as good as the Nikon, then the Nikon may be worth $3k; but the Tamron is as good as the Nikon, maybe even better, if you look at the totality of the lens, not just it's center sharpness.
Let me tell you why.
The Tamron SP 70-200 G2 is just as sharp. I tell you no lie. But that's more or less to be expected. IMO, all the 70-200 f/2,8 and F/4's are pretty much as sharp as the other. You have to really pixel peep to see the difference. Where they distinguish themselves is in their low light performance--wide open. That's what you pay the big bucks for.
What is good low light performance on a lens? It's the ability to quickly find focus in low light conditions. The camera is responsible for the ISO performance, not the lens. And when it comes to the low light performance of the Tamron G2: Absolutely Awesome Low Light Performance.
On my D750, the Tamron G2 acquires focus instantaneously. To be fair, the Nikon FL acquired focus instantaneously on my D750, as well. Both the Tamron G2 and the Nikon FL acquire focus instantaneously on my D750. It is truly truly remarkable. Having said that, the Tamron does so for $1500 less.
It's sort of like clothes shopping. The name brand item is better than the generic brand, 90% of the time. But sometimes it isn't. In this case, the name brand Nikon is only slightly better than the reverse-engineered Tamron, but the difference is truly negligible, unless you pixel peep on Lightroom in 100% crop mode. And that's only in the very center of the frame, looking at an eyelash or the microscopic hairs on the persons nose. Fresh out-of-the-box, my Tamron G2 instantly focuses on anything I point it at, less a plain white wall or some other contrast-less thing. But all lenses do that. And no, I did not hook up the Tap-in-Console to achieve that level of focus acquisition.
In a nutshell, the sharpness, focus acquisition, lens stabilization, seeming build quality, and warranty of the two lenses is virtually identical. The Nikon is lighter, seems to be a tad bit brighter, and the focus rings are smoother, but that's it. $1500 more for that? Not me.
Instead of paying about $3k for the Nikon or Sony, I bought the Tamron G2 and the D750--all brand new for $3100 or the same price you will pay if you buy the Nikon locally and pay tax.
If you buy online, make sure to buy from a reputable dealer like Amazon, B&H, or Adorama. I wouldn't risk any open-box or used copies of any of these lenses, given the QC issues reported.
What's more, both lenses are said to have quality control issues. However, both lenses come with extended warranties, and Tamron even went so far as to develop a Tap-in Console, enabling fine-tunings.
I highly recommend the Tamron SP 70-200mm G2.
Update:
The lens is still performing very well, and I received a $200 Rebate check from Tamron because I qualified for the Student Rebate, per the Tamron Website.
