craigart14

The downloads look fine; very sharp.

Abo

There may or may not have been noise. But the "blur" is noise reduction imho
Many say the image is sharp...but it sure as heck is not sharp in this universe:

Do the double download and view at 1:1

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Of course - I agree - but what you see has differences before going to downloads. There is no way that going to larger pics can be satisfactory, as what I attempted was to edit on top of edited pics, with unknown adjustments - not a clever thing to do.

Abo

LOL

Gregger Loc: Phoenix area

I personally think they are great. I would have enjoyed seeing them without the editing. I am just not one for editing, but these don't seem to be over done. Some edit to the point that their photos look like paintings. These do not.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

I went thru the same process a couple of years ago and opted for the Tamron 150-600mm G2. I could not have been happier with my choice. It's obviously hard to compare the subject lens with the Nikon 200-500mm at 600mm for obvious reasons. Your shots look great to me but I do not hold myself as an expert. I have never sold any of my shots to National Geographic nor have they invited me to do so. I guess I just bumble thru life being absolutely happy with my G2 and the shots it delivers. It's nice to be in the position that cost just doesn't matter that much. Nice to be able to purchase something because we would like to have it.
Stay safe and be happy my friend.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

If I lived next door to you, I would be an absolute pest with questions--at least until I learned. I always enjoy your thoughtful responses to questions and I learn from them and I appreciate the time you take to post them. Again, thanks.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The images will not look 'pixelated' on a larger monitor. What is important is that you review / inspect your work always at the 1:1 pixel level details, aka 100% zoom. Questions of sharpness, noise, and resolution can only be addressed by viewing the 1:1 (one to one) pixel level details. This 'one to one' concept is that 1 pixel of image maps to 1 pixel of the screen, hence 100% zoom. You can view only so much of the larger image as the pixel resolution of your view screen. At some point in your edit workflow, you should scroll up-down / left-right through the entire image looking at the details. Sensor dust and sharpness issues will tend to appear during this review.

When we look at images by today's leading standards, we'd want to see more detail and individual separation of the feathers, particularly around the feathers of the eye for the bluejay. At this 1:1 level of detail, you'll also see the grain in the feathers and background of the image noise. There's nothing 'wrong' in the bluejay, but all the questions in my first post should be considered if you sought to see the individual feathers in the dark blue along the back of the head of the jay. So about the lens, the question is: can this lens resolve at this level of detail if all other aspects of the image capture process are 'perfect'? My quick scan of images tagged in Flickr with this lens indicates 'yes, clearly this lens can'.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I didn't see a mention of the camera used for the pics. I have D850 and D800E cameras. I own a G1 Tamron and got pics similar to yours. For me, I get better, sharper pics with the Nikon 200-500. And the images are sharper on the D850 than the D800E, but the difference is small.

I've read a thread here about variations among lenses and the desirability of testing before the 'trial' timeframe has expired so you can keep or return a lens that doesn't perform as you should expect. - I do always test a new lens immediately upon receipt.

The ultra lenses/high MP cameras are affected by small differences - sharp focus, possible need to calibrate lens/camera, camera motion, photographer caused less sharp pictures. My shots are much better, on average, since I stopped freehanding and regularly use my Manfrotto monopod. Guess I've lost some of the old ability to handhold as steadily as I used to.

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

Unfortunately for me, I don't have that lens. Anyway, I find nothing wrong with the pictures. Look spot on to me. I have a couple of Tamron lenses, and am very happy with them. From those photos, I think you should be happy with the outcome.

crabbydog

I would rent the Nikon for a day and try taking some comparable pictures and see if you see a difference.

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

Honestly your images are nice. No way to tell from your images if the 200-500 is sharper. Your first image appears to have post processing done on it.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

Suggestion: Go buy the Nikon lens, shoot both under same conditions, then choose one, sell the other. This is basedon yu comment that nothing was stopping you from acquiring the Nikon, .

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

Y are you lafffin?
Try some eye drops and the images will look razor sharp! . . .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

There is too much noise in the first to tell what the sharpness MAY be .....

The second image is too small to tell much of any thing except maybe much sharpening done !

What I will say is there really is not $.10 difference in optical performance using proper techniques and focus as demonstrated in the following Imatest results - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-597795-1.html =

However, there can be differences in AF accuracy and speed especially on moving subjects and differences in weight/management/useability
.