Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The thing is, as you get into more "rarified" glass, the price goes up exponentially for incremental gains, just the way it is. In addition, putting a dollar figure on how much "better" one optic is than another isn't really a good way to benchmark either. What's worth $1400 to one person may or may not be worth $1400 to another. :)

Plus, there's more to it than just overall sharpness (although I'd certainly think the Nikon was sharper in this case). Often the 3rd party lenses don't seem to exhibit the same focus accuracy and consistency of the manufacturer's glass. Not sure on the 70-200s, but it seems like this is the case between the Tamron 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Old perceptions are hard to let go.

(Download)

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

That is surprising - but neither of the two nikkors on that chart are the current "E" version - which is the best of the 70-200 nikkors and the lens that was mentioned in the original post. Also, the review mentioned in the original post did say that the Nikon lens was the sharper of the two, but the reviewer felt he could simply use the unsharp mask to make up the difference (which was really the reason the entire thread was started).

Also, as I said earlier, there's more to it than just pure sharpness. There's AF speed and reliability, durability, etc. Third party lens users sometimes find their lenses to longer work after a firmware update, I've never had that happen with my Nikon glass :)

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Joer- you're a brave man.
When I've quoted dxomark in the past, the die-hard OEM fanatics have screamed
that they must have been bribed by the 3rd party manufacturers.
I, however, always consult and trust dxomark before I buy any lens.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

DxO mark is OK, and I for one don't think they are taking bribes. However, they also only test one copy of the lens, so if they have a particularly good or bad copy, it can skew the numbers.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Of course, the more 'zoom' built into a lens, the more compromises the designer has to deal with.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Cheap lens? How bad can the Tamron 70-200 be? I would not place it in the cheap/aftermarket/no name bad glass category. Up here in the cold country it's selling for about 1900 Canadian dollars. I'm sure that it's quite possible that an "original" Nikon or Canon version might perform a bit better and for critical work the additional sharpness MAY be worth the additional investment.

As a professional/commercial photographer I am oftimes forced into investing in very expensive lenses only because some, not all, of my work is going to appear on billboards, bus and transit advertising, large video type displays in fast food restaurants or the odd photo-mural. Many hobbyists view their images on a moderately sized monitor and hardly make prints larger than 16x20. So...a lens that hovers around the two grand mark and is made by a known and long time aftermarket manufacturer may do the job.

Call me a spendthrift if you like, but I often purchase my lenses from a local dealer rather than the big "mail order" places. I get to go to the store, try out the demo and make my own assessments. I have a long relationship with my dealer and sometimes I get to try out a camera or a lens for a couple of days before I make the purchase. In the long run, it's good economy for me. I never get stuck with a lemon or have to waste time in arranging for refunds or exchanges and dealing with the shipping issues. Oftentimes the so-calld "cheaper" lens is surprisingly good.

Again, call me "old school" but I am a stickler for the theory that any kind of sharpening or softening is best applied at the camera whenever possible. Of course, using a good lens, careful focusing, good camera supporting technique, understanding depth of field and depth of focus all factor into sharp imagery. Being aware of any given lenses best performance aperture range also helps. Any sharpening in post processing, other than routine tweaking of an already well crafted image is basically a salvage operation with marginal results.

Believe me, I am not invincible or immune to screw ups! I have shot jobs where dozens of sharp images were made and the most important or selected one, for whatever reason, is soft and there was no opportunity for retakes! And, as per murphy's law, that's the shot that required a 30 inch print! In the film days we would "fake" the sharpness with airbrush, dyes, pencils, manually add detail to the eyes of a fuzzy portrait, literally pencil in details. Oh, and print the image on a condenser enlarger and increase the contrast to fake more sharpness. A TOTAL NIGHTMARE! It's a bit easier with digital but something I want to avoid.

$$$ as for money issues- don't always read the menu from from right to left, unless it is in Hebrew or Arabic, and judge the quality of all gear strictly by price. Yes, usually you do "gets what you pays for" but there are exceptions and compromises that you can work around and stay within your budget.

Oftentimes, on the forum, someone asks a question about a quality issue or defect they are experiencing in the photograph or a specific piece of equipment. Many folks then jump to the conclusion that the person used an inferior lens, filter, lighting apparatus or whatever. Many times, however, the actual problem is caused by user error, a perfectly good piece of gear but one that in inappropriate for the work at hand or a simple adjustment that was overlooked.

What do they say "The love of money is the root of all evil"? Nah- it may the the love of expensive gear!

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I'm not going to look at all of the other opinions here, but I would just add that it depends on what you want to do with your pictures. You can get the sharpest (most expensive) lens money can buy, but if all you do is look at it on a computer monitor, then you are not really using your investment. These days, most people look at their pictures that way.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Mark Sturtevant is right. Many people never print anything nowadays.
They are content to view images on a TV or monitor or cell phone screen.
In that situation having a super sharp lens is meaningless.
In fact, 80% of the photos taken in the world are now done on cell phones.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I can believe that figure of 80%. The Driver who mauled and killed Toronto pedestrians the other day, and was confronted by police, before his arrest, was captured by smartphone video. I own a smartphone, but never use the camera. I do carry my smartphone, only for communication. Perhaps, I may need to one day?

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

To quickly record something just out of interest or in case of emergency, it behooves everybody to know how to quickly get their smartphone camera going. Just learn how to do it, and make it a common practice just to get into the habit. At the very least the darn things are very useful for taking a picture of something off of a store shelf. Or to copy a grocery list or restaurant menu. Lots of unexpected but useful reasons. Then if something important happens, you can be the 'hero' who records it.
For the iphone, just press the home button to wake up the screen, then swipe up from the bottom. This reveals buttons for the basic apps like the camera, flashlight, etc. Your phone is not unlocked, but those apps and others can still be accessed in just a couple seconds.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

I resent your resentment! I am well known as being proud to be both a cheap bastard and a son of a bitch, with great dependencies on who is speaking and what they think I did/didn't. My present wife wants to pre buy my headstone- it'll say: "It Was A Good Deal!" THAT said:
There's other issues here. Like buying CPUs for a computer: AMD's version of an equivalent Intel chip maybe $400 cheaper- but add $200 to the AMD equiv and you'll be ahead. I'm replacing my incandescents and fluorescents with LEDs as they go out. I'm not replacing 60s with 60 equivalents, I get 80s and 100s. More better light and still saving money.
So, $1000 *extra*? Take $300 from that budget- you can get a really good Sigma for that. Or maybe a slightly used Nikon lens- maybe Nikon or KEH refurbed and warrantied? Does it bother you to do without? Can you hit ebay and buy the $50 POS Tamron in that range? Use it for now, and see if that is the range you really want.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Now I'm replying to my own reply. Sheesh!
ANYway, I was researching some Nikon lenses, and some were proud to say that they were made with Tamron, or Sigma, glass. Some of the Yongnuo primes get highly recommended, especially the f:1.8 50mm. .
And yes I don't make prints as much as I should, and my biz works are mostly limited to "binder" sizes: 8x10s and 5x7s.
Then Youtube: Various "Cheap camera+good lens vs good camera+crap lens" comparisons. Most of the time, the difference is in the expertise of the photog.