rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I don't need to go to a Tamron lecture. The crux of the matter is that Nikon has over 200 glass recipes. The elements in Nikon lenses are "recipied" to produce the sharpest image possible with minimum aberrations. This was a rather technical seminar and not a sales seminar. So there was a lot of discussion regarding optical coefficients, etc. Tamron uses the same glass throughout the lens assembly. Nikon optimizes the various lens formulas to produce the image.

One of the things pointed out was that if you pick up two different Nikon lenses and look at the front element, they may appear different. That is possibly a bit different in color, etc. that difference is due to the different recipe used to make each of those lenses. As such, I won't waste my time sitting through a Tamron sales pitch.
--Bob

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

You make some good points, but I have been looking at it a bit differently lately. With modern PP software, you can eliminate some lens aberrations. For example, say, one lens is tack sharp but has a little bit of barrel distortion, vignetting and CA, but another lens is just a little less sharp with slightly less distortion, vignetting and CA. At one time I would have picked the latter as the best compromise, now, I know I can remove barrel distortion, vignetting and CA in PP, so I pick the sharper lens. PP software compensation for lens aberrations is a game changer.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To each his own.

I prefer to use processing as a means of achieving my creative goal with a photograph through enhancement of an image. I don't use processing to "fix" an image. Thus, I prefer to use equipment that will provide me with the best negative or RAW file.
--Bob

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Some distortions such as barrel are easier to repair in PP than others. CA, in particular (which I find particularly unattractive) is more difficult and typically results in some loss of detail when “corrected” in PP. For that reason, low CA is a lens characteristic that is valuable to me.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Tamron lenses are NOT manufactured to the tolerances of Nikon, Canon, or Sony. If you think DxO Marks are the only way to judge quality, you are very mistaken. Yes, Tamron may test well when new, but how about a year of heavy use from now. Nikon, Canon, and Sony will test much better then because they will hold TOLERANCES better than any third party glass. AND, Nikon, Canon, and Sony glass will be worth MUCH more than any third party glass when it comes to trade in time. WHY? Nikon, Canon, and Sony are manufactured to a higher degree of quality than ANY third party glass.
SO, go ahead and buy third party glass. My images continue to win awards, they may not score as high in DxO scores, buy the buying public thinks differently.

wetreed

I must respectfully disagree,I

I must respectfully disagree, Tamron actually test to a higher quality and degree than Nikon, cannon,and Sony. Tamron leads the industry in post production, heavy use TESTING. I have also won numerous awards with my Tamron lenses. Maybe someday the big three you mentioned will raise their standards to come close to that of Tamron’s. Have a great day.

O2Ra

So sorry this is not true anymore. I have third party lenses that I shoot on my Nikon bodies that out preform the best Nikon has to offer.
If I were shooting over 200mm though I’d stick to a Nikon lens. Nikon 300-800 mm lenses rule on a Nikon body .

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Without knowing what their specific test specifications are, it's rather difficult to foist the theory that because they test more they must be better.

Perhaps it comes down to a "religious" belief in one being better than another.
--Bob

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

They have not proven that in the past. Not true today. And I am sure it will not be true in the future. Tests are meaningless in the REAL WORLD of professional photography where Nikon, Sony, and Canon excel hands down of third party glass. Sorry Charlie. Your living a nightmare.

wetreed

What I was Tamron does better and more extensive testing than anyone else. They are in the industry leaders in every aspect of testing.

darekstudio Loc: Minnesota

This is great discussion only what's left for me is decides which one I can buy for my money:
G1. G2.
15-30mm f2.8 ,
6 years warranty from Tamron, different seat in price $400 🙃

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I would just add that while price would be an issue for me, I would give less value to a long warranty. It may make the customer feel more secure, but it is often used as a marketing tool rather than an indication of quality.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

But, what are they extensively testing. Without knowing their test specifications making a statement like this is a non sequitur. To take it to the absurd, I test every lens. I pick it up and if nothing falls off, it's good to ship. I can boast of 100% testing, but really?
--Bob

O2Ra

My Tamron 15-30 needed a -19 adjustment on my d810 and -14 on my d850. My Nikkor 70-200 e fl vr I have been struggling getting sharp focus. I didn’t dial it in real good before using it on jobs . Big mistake. Just shot a wedding and used it for the coming down the isle shots . It front focused . I think I can salvage some pictures. But the Nikon lens is a -20 . Both lenses are going to the manufacturers. Luckily I shot with 3 bodies. I got my best results with the d810 and my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art . This is my most inconsistent and a slow focusing lens. In poor lighting it is usually more accurate than the Tamron. The Nikkor 70-200 e fl vr also struggles in some odd situations that shouldn’t cause it problems. My Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 afs-d hands down hits (hit) focus better than all of them . Until the motor died on it .
I also have the Sigma 18-35 art it is a phenomenally fast and accurate focusing lens on the d500.
As for straight out and out highest quality images it is the Nikon 70-200 e fl vr . This lens is a Zoom and actually has good microcontrast. I’m thinking this is why it is so expensive. Yes a ton of research has gone into its lens formula. Top notch glass . Then is for landscape and in good light the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 g1 . The Sigmas are sharp and well corrected in many ways . But don’t have the microcontrast quality. They are contrasty in design loosing the depth in shadow detail. The Nikon excels in its depth in shading dimensions. It makes great black and white pictures. Many old Nikon lenses have this quality along with Zeiss and some other lenses. The Tamron is not bad and better than the Sigmas.
So learning the attributes of a lens and using it for a certain purpose. I think all the companies are building good and so so lenses. The newest bunch of Sigma lenses are really stepping up as it Tamron lenses are . Each one has its standout in abilities. Nikon and Canon are very expensive. I don’t know much about the Canon lenses but have only heard rave reviews for most of them. Quality of build is what Nikon built the name on . The 3D pop of their images and build quality stood the test of time . Lenses are being designed differently now with many glass elements in them . They correct for aberrations and everything else. Every time light goes through an element for correction it looses information. With each loss of information it looses that microcontrast (information) . Sharp highly corrected high element lenses need lots of engineering and proper coatings to add back the lost information. The glass has to be of the highest quality and so do the coatings . All this costs and takes tons of r and d . I really don’t know who does this the best out of Nikon ,Canon, Tamron and Sigma . But I think it’s very close and with a little research you can get you a good lens from one of these companies that will work for your needs . There are so many reviews and they are are competing to build good quality products now . Read the reviews watch YouTube reviews and get the lens that meets your needs . I don’t think you can go wrong with any of them.