CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

"Photography" guys, PLEASE!!!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I'm not so sure you can just assume the Tamron is not just as sharp as the OEM lenses.

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

You cannot sharpen a fuzzy image in post. It will look funny. Los idiotas.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Just because someone writes a blog doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Or, if you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

To me sharpness is worth spending every dollar you can afford to get it. Not to say that there should be no limit to price, you shouldn't have to go on a diet of tortillas and beans to afford equipment. Just sayin'

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

[quote=Kmgw9v]I buy and use the best gear I can responsibly afford--whether I need it or not.

EXACTLY. And some can afford more than others. But what matters is the pleasure one derives from taking and editing, and being happy doing it.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

None of your business , I was speaking to Jeepdady! Stay out of my rant and the anger is not hidden, as you saw.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Well that is something that someone with no knowledge of optical physics, or of sharpening software, would say.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

Everyone seems to be assuming that Nikon lenses are sharper than the Tamron lenses.
I own 3 Nikon DSLR bodies but own several Tamron lenses, several Sigma lenses,
in addition to some Nikon lenses.
The reason I bought the Tamron and Sigma lenses is because after extensive research
I determined that they were sharper than the Nikon lenses.
As a side benefit, it didn't hurt that they were also less expensive.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Then again, many reviewers believe some newer Tamrons are better than their older-tech Nikon counterparts, for less money. Especially some of their medium zooms. The 70-300 seems to come out just about even. I agree that good glass is imperative- but good money is not.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

It has been my experience that Tamron lenses (at least the ones that I've tested) were generally equivalent to most Nikkor DX or entry level Fx lenses but were not comparable to Nikon's mid or pro-grade lenses. I have one Tamron lens that was given to me as a gift... (Tamron 10-24mm DX wide zoom) which is not as sharp at the Nikkor 10-24 DX and has a slight fisheye at 10-12mm. It fails horribly when compared to the Nikkor 14-24mm FX lens. However the DX lens was about $300 less expensive than the slightly better Nikkor 10-24 DX and about $1000 less expensive than the much better performing Nikkor 14-24mm FX lens.. (Remember that the 14-24 FX will give a true 14-24mm on an FX Camera and roughly equivalent to a 21-36mm on a DX where the Tamron and Nikkor DX lens gives the equivalent a 15-24mm lens on both DX and FX because (being a DX lens) it will automatically shift the FX to DX (Crop) mode. The FX version will work on both cameras with the DX camera ignoring anything outside of the crop sensor. Personally, I ONLY purchase FX lenses now as they give me the ability to be used on both my D7000/D7100 crop sensors and my D610 full frame without any issues. However, as far as Tamron is concerned, they've had their chance to sell me and have fallen short.. If I need a really good FX quality wide angle, I would look at Nikkor, and probably Sigma or one of the others... as for Tamron, I use the old adage.... Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me.... They've had their chance and the lens is lacking. Yes, Tamron has a 6 year warranty vs. Nikon's 5.. but, they fell short on the quality of the lens and that isn't a warranty issue.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I own BOTH. The Tamron is okay but it is not in the same ballpark with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 FL. I bought the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G as a backup because I use that specific focal length most of the time. After using the Tamron I will only use it when I must.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

#3. Is a responsible citizen who lives within a budget and doesn't spend all 'loose' funds on his own pleasure.

SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS

I was somewhat satisfied with the Tamron 18-270 when I came back from Oregon in 2014, until, I went to the horticultural domes in Milwaukee and photographed some cacti. Initially the shots looked fine, then I enlarged them and there was not a single image that was sharp and not fuzzy, not one spike of certain cacti looked nasty sharp. That's when I began to doubt that lens. That's when I put the Nikon 18-200 DX VR back on the D7100 and have left it there. That Tamron is "OK", "adequate"; but not good enough for what I expect when I start shooting and spend a bunch of cash on airline tickets and hotels and car rentals.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I'd grab the Nikon as long it wouldn't cost me $2700. I haven't seen any head to head comparisons between the E version and G2 that actually show measurement data. The Nikon should be better but not $1400 better. I bet there would be very few if any that could tell the difference.