Finally...Tamron beats Nikon

Started Mar 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
krikman Regular Member • Posts: 417
Re: Finally...Tamron beats Nikon
Again, the one feature most people look for in a 70-300 is a sharp long end. We all know, with it's slow optics, that the bokeh will falter at times and that rendering will be lesser than with top level zooms and primes. You use a 70-300 with such compromises understood. But the Nikon's fault at the long end denotes a design flaw that is less excusable. I don't know anyone would would not prefer the sharper lens at this level. It is designed for reach and the Tamron has better quality at the long end.

Customer always right while he pay bills. I downgraded too from 80-200 AF-D because its bulkiness. 80-200 had same well-known problems as 70-300 - it lacks contrast at close distanse.

Well done? Thank you. But you're still missing the point as the shots of the man in the hat are designed for something specific

Where I can see all sequence?

The most important question is this: Could I have done the same shots with my old 70-300vr lenses? And the answer is YES, but with a bit less sharpness and contrast. I could have also shot the Nikon at 270mm, then cropped, but that also reduces quality.

Same for my bird shots. I never

And frankly, so far as I can see, the Tamron sharpness and rendering (via micro-contrast) is superior even well under 300mm.

It is common sense now. Nobody argued against.

May I present the dreaded eye crops (over 100%) again showing rendering better than the Nikon.

Sure nikon required f/7.1 and 270mm for such acutiness.

But I shoot portraits at 2-3 meters with fl 90-150 and there, again, nikkor behaves better wide open. (or say not worse tha

Thank you, sir and the same for you!


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow