I'll stick with the Nikkor. I like the bokeh of Nikkor better. I really dislike the color tint of the Tamron compared to what I get with Nikkor lenses in general. 30 years ago I had some bad experiences with Tamron lenses (Canon FD mount) that I just don't care to repeat.
Erik Moore wrote:
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.
You're right that real world use is where you see the real results. It's like a movie critic ripping a movie apart because he is looking for flaws, most people don't see those flaws.
If you read my entire post you'd see I'm not a Nikon loyalist. I own Tamron and Tokina, I like them both, well not the Tamron anymore since it no longer auto focuses. The point I made was that Nikon Glass on a Nikon Body (Canon on Canon) will perform better "mechanically", not necessarily optically although that is very debatable if you comparing apples to apples.
Back to the OP's questions, I'd still take the Nikon over the Tamron in a heartbeat, even with the price delta, maybe it's my bad luck with Tamron and bad experiences with their customer service but I won't be going back to them again.
Yep, it is is common that the 3rd party lenses have worse construction, especially Sigma, but the others as well. Then too, forward compatibility can be an issue. Nothing is free and you take your chances. I'd rather take my chances on the real thing unless there is no alternative, and I've suffered enough from 3rd party lenses.
but the others as well. Then too, forward compatibility can be an issue. Nothing is free and you take your chances. I'd rather take my chances on the real thing unless there is no alternative, and I've suffered enough from 3rd party lenses. 