trenchmonkey wrote:
...or you can actually shoot REAL pictures and throw all the testing out the freakin' window
The Nikon 70-300VR is the best sub $400 (used) zoom on the planet.
I must agree with you that shooting real pics tells the story vs. shooting brick walls, etc. but I felt the test did provide some valuable information for me. I agree the Nikon's 70-300mm VR is a fantastic lens but ater shooting "real" pics I am leaning right now towards the Tamron.
trenchmonkey likes to be argumentative about this, but it doesn't add a lot to the conversation, particularly since he only uses one of the lenses while confidently declaring it the best consumer zoom on the planet. Fortunately, they're both excellent lenses. That doesn't change the fact that optically, the Tamron seems consistently a bit better.
The difference isn't enough to be too worked up about either way.
Sheesh. These tests are great. Thanks for posting them. If ever in the market for this range I'd have to seriously consider the Tamron. That was something I didn't know before this thread and something I couldn't know by simply looking at a bunch of real world pics.
155mm stopped down to f7.1 too bad about the legs...if you pulled back to 100mm
they might have been included your Tammy zooms, right I shot with one and thought the AF
didn't handle lower light well and wasn't nuts about the colors. Glad you're pleased with yours...how's
THAT for conversation.
I have been so pleased with my Nikkor optics that I did not find any reasons to buy any other brand. I have nothing against Zeiss or Leitz, if so you prefer.
My 70-300 VR lens was indeed a sample I bought from Will. At the time he did not appear to be so sure of how useful the lens would be for him. As soon as I began to shoot with the lens I knew I have made the right decision. My enlargements from this lens are really awesome.
My experience with Tamron has been limited. While at a time I owned their 70-300 LD, DI lens and I though the images compared pretty well with those of the similar lens from Nikon, I was not happy with its construction and I never though its AF was better than the Nikkor. Over the years the optical quality of Tamron lenses has improved considerably but the AF, and in those cases the lenses were fit with a motor, I saw reports that their performance was nothing to write home about.
I hope we all understand that lenses within this price range are not professional optics and they have their compromises, especially so with Independent optics. I have no experience with the Tamron but I have used the 70-300 VR Nikkor extensively and I have been very satisfied with its performance. It is not the best lens in low light and it is not spectacular wide open (although very acceptable to me) but the lens has satisfied my needs and I guess that is what counts.
Most recently I used it for portraits and I was once again impressed with its rendering of details. Excellent lens for studio work.
My lens performs for me and I see no reasons to buy anything else.
Hey William, glad it's still serving you well!! This shot taken with 'your' lens over 3 years ago on a lowly D50
Wide open 300mm SOOC...way back when we were postin' just 800 on the wide side
Tamron fans, please do post YOUR wide open 300mm shots for our perusal.
edit: oh, yeah...handheld. Can't imagine needing a tripod with either of these little lenses.
The CA and lack of weatherseal would be sore points even if the IQ was marginally better.
Time to find that ignore button -- disappointing that such an active member here is capable of being such an antagonistic jerk simply because someone dares to have a different opinion.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Time to find that ignore button -- disappointing that such an active member here is capable of being such an antagonistic jerk simply because someone dares to have a different opinion.
You are right, but you would be on the receiving side
trenchmonkey wrote:
155mm stopped down to f7.1 too bad about the legs...if you pulled back to 100mm
they might have been included your Tammy zooms, right I shot with one and thought the AF
didn't handle lower light well and wasn't nuts about the colors. Glad you're pleased with yours...how's
THAT for conversation.
You're one to talk about cropping. You missed the whole lower body of the rider and the horse he was on!
I tried the Nikon for a week and based mostly on price (money was tight when I needed to make the purchase) I bought the Tammy. It was 100.00 cheaper. I find both to be an excellent value. IQ very close. VR - VC very close. The tammy has a 6 year warranty.
But, in hindsight I would probably buy the Nikon if I were doing it again for a few of reasons:
Based on feedback from a number of people, there seems to be more variance from copy to copy with the Tamron. Zooming is slightly smoother through the entire range with the Nikon. The Tamron (at least mine) seems to under-expose by about 1/2 stop. The Nikon will most certainly carry a higher re-sale value. Not that this is that important on a 400.00 lens.
My point is that there is no clear undeniable reason to buy the Tamron.
1. It's not cheaper (they are with in $40.00 of each other today and you have to wait for a rebate from Tamron to even get that advantage.
2. It's not significantly superior in any other way (build, IQ, speed)
I always observed that the Tamron lenses seemed to have a slight cyan tint to them and I never kept any of the few I bought. Looking at the samples by the OP, I'm still seeing a touch of cyan in the Tamron, so I'll be staying with the Nikkor.
Here's my 2 cents. In my experience buying a product that is specifically designed for a piece of hardware (Nikon glass for Nikon Body, Canon glass for Canon body) will always yield better performance results. Not necessarily better optical results but definitely better mechanical/performance results and overall functionality. A Tamron, or Sigma lens will both work but are designed to work with all bodies. Take the Windows OS, it has to work with all PCs and all PC configurations and therefore is not very stable and crashes a lot. OSX is designed specifically for Mac PCs and therefore is much more stable. Better? IMO yes but ask a windoze fan they will tell you otherwise, and most of them have never use a Mac. It's all personal preference. I have 3rd party glass, I wouldn't trade my Tokina 12-24 for anything, for the price it's unbeatable IMO. My Tamrom 90mm Macro however just crapped out and will no longer autofocus and when I contacted Tamron, they said it would be $150 to look at it. So much for the 6 yr warranty!
BrianJarvis wrote:
Here's my 2 cents. In my experience buying a product that is specifically designed for a piece of hardware (Nikon glass for Nikon Body, Canon glass for Canon body) will always yield better performance results.
Sounds good. Too bad many thorough tests on many third party lenses on many Canon and Nikon bodies clearly show otherwise. And my and many other peoples experience in the field can confirm. Yet somehow this religion persists.
My tammy has been back to them twice for warranty repair. Once for significant underexposure problems (2 full stops). This was fixed. A couple months later the AF stopped working. Again it went back and is now fixed. Both times Tamron warranty service was fast and easy. Personally I think that the Tamron is equally as sharp (maybe sharper)than the Nikon and has nice bokeh for a zoom.
Above I posted that I thought that there was no real reason to buy the Tamron over the Nikon mainly because at the time the two lenses were almost the same price. Since then, the price on the nikon has increased to the point where the Tamron might make sense again. The tammy on B&H is 350.00 after rebate and the nikon is 586.00 and is out of stock.
deep.paryani wrote:
can anyone say which will be the best lens for a non professional photographer tamron or nikor ?
I haven't been keeping up with the buy-sell board here so I don't know what the current prices are for a gently used model. I paid $375 for my gently used Nikon 70-300VR a couple of years ago. I still consider the lens to be a bargain and one of Nikon's best bang-for-the-buck lenses. It's small, light, cheap and works better than a $400 lens should. Why fret about $50 between the Nikon and the Tammy? Just buy one.
your Tammy zooms, right 
I shot with one and thought the AF