SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I'm not sure that it's the same lens or has the same situation, but at least one model of Nikon 70-200 has the same field of view   at 200mm as the Canon 70-200 has when it's at 130mm

Search on "focus breathing."

Herman Surkis wrote:
Tamron has the best customer service in the business.

And some Tamron lenses actually are reviewed as better than camera native.

Tamron has the best service in the business, without any competitiors.

I sold photo gear for 15 years (just left this year) , and throughout that time Tamron has ALWAYS supported their warranties the best, gotten product back the fastest, and with the fewest amount of send-backs - by a very wide margin.  If I were to give Tamron an A rating, I would have to give everyone else (OEM included) a C at best - that's how big the difference is.

That said.  In initial, out-of-the-box quality, I'd only rank Tamron number one for their price.  Very rarely will an OEM company make a better product for around the same cost ... but if you can pay/write off the the extra money, the Tamron is rarely the best choice.  There have certainly been a few times (the 35 and 45 f/1.8s come to mind), but usually they're 98% the quality at 65% the price.  I've owned a lot of Tamron gear, and been very happy with it ... but my main lenses have always been OEM when I can afford; paying so much more for that extra 2% makes sense when you use the lens constantly, but it's just money left on the table when you don't.

Shot By Adam wrote:
I have a D5 and a D800 (soon to be getting a D850 to replace it) so we're in similar boats. I use the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 and I used to use the equivalent lens from Tamron so I'm probably best suited to answer this for you.


etc...

Have you actually used the new version tho? I would have to say its very good, its focus is better than the nikon 200-500mm that they stuck a crap focus motor in. But as I said it depends on demands of the person using it. I shoot sports and used to speed of a 400mm and being able to suddenly grab the 70-200mm and instantly acquire focus, track and shoot subject. The nikon can keep up while the tamron struggles, so for me I need the nikon but probably 80% of people don't need that performance.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Am I the only person that's not a fan of Tamron?
Pruchased a 28-70something lens a few years ago and after moderate use, it broke.
Tamron said it wasn't covered under their warranty because it was abused.  (Define abused?)

The second one, same story.  Less than a couple of years old purchased second hand.
They wanted me to send in the receipt to prove it's under 6 years old.  The serial number should easily prove that it is.

Sadly, my favorite third party lens (Tokina) is fairly difficult to find in the USA.  Their products are built for heavy duty use.
Tamron is "if you lightly tap the thing against something you better hope it still works".

Tamron have gotten a lot better since the 28-70 came out though.

JadedWriter wrote:

Tamron have gotten a lot better since the 28-70 came out though.

If you're talking the 28-75 f/2.8, that lens is from the 90s.  It was "updated" for Nikon a few years ago, but that just means they gave it an AF motor and took off the aperture ring.

It was a great lens for a long time, and could be had CHEAP.  I mean, like $350 when the Nikon version was $1300.  And holy crap, was that lens worth $350.  I worked at a camera shop at the time, and literally every enthusiast employee owned that lens.  But when the 17-50 f/2.8 came out at $500 and didn't get the traction they wanted (because people were still buying 28-75s) , they upped the price to match.

So still a good picture taker if you bought it after 2009 or so, but not the best cost/quality ratio on that particular item.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Sadly, my favorite third party lens (Tokina) is fairly difficult to find in the USA.

I'm a big fan of Tokina too. I have their 16-28mm f/2.8 lens and it's a fantastic alternative to the 14-24 from Nikon, which costs 3 times as much. The build quality of the lens is outstanding and it most certainly delivers in the quality of imagery as well. I highly recommend Tokina as a 3rd party lens.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Am I the only person that's not a fan of Tamron?
Pruchased a 28-70something lens a few years ago and after moderate use, it broke.
Tamron said it wasn't covered under their warranty because it was abused.  (Define abused?)

The second one, same story.  Less than a couple of years old purchased second hand.
They wanted me to send in the receipt to prove it's under 6 years old.  The serial number should easily prove that it is.

Sadly, my favorite third party lens (Tokina) is fairly difficult to find in the USA.  Their products are built for heavy duty use.
Tamron is "if you lightly tap the thing against something you better hope it still works".

I am also a big fan of Tokina, and if you think they are hard to find in the USA, try Canada. At the moment I have an old 28-75 sitting on my D750. Works like a charm, except for the flare, but that was a problem from day 1. However I now use the flare for effect.

Have an old Tamron 400mm manual everything. Has no business being that sharp for a lens that cost me $50 used. I use rarely, but do use it with my "I neglected to trade in" D100 for risky situations. I camera and lens get destroyed, I would not cry that much.

My 70-200 VR is my most used lens. Having a hard time justifying the cost of moving up to a VRIII.
I am now a hobbyist, so none of this stuff is tax deductible, nor does it make me money.

Shot By Adam wrote:

I'm a big fan of Tokina too. I have their 16-28mm f/2.8 lens and it's a fantastic alternative to the 14-24 from Nikon, which costs 3 times as much. The build quality of the lens is outstanding and it most certainly delivers in the quality of imagery as well. I highly recommend Tokina as a 3rd party lens.

Yep, lovely lens.
I have the 12-24. Amazing, but DX. Use it on FX and DX backup. Crop vignetting on FX and it make a nice 18-35. Rarely need wider any more. (want is a whole other issue).

Carefully selected third party is often just as good at a much lesser cost. OEM usually, but not always, has a better build.

My problem with Tokina is lack of selection, and focus is generally a little slower than OEM, but IQ is usually as good, and may surpass OEM.

Herman Surkis wrote:

I am also a big fan of Tokina, and if you think they are hard to find in the USA, try Canada. At the moment I have an old 28-75 sitting on my D750. Works like a charm, except for the flare, but that was a problem from day 1. However I now use the flare for effect.

Have an old Tamron 400mm manual everything. Has no business being that sharp for a lens that cost me $50 used. I use rarely, but do use it with my "I neglected to trade in" D100 for risky situations. I camera and lens get destroyed, I would not cry that much.

My 70-200 VR is my most used lens. Having a hard time justifying the cost of moving up to a VRIII.
I am now a hobbyist, so none of this stuff is tax deductible, nor does it make me money.

I don't know if I'd go to a VRIII (I am cheap, after all) , but if that lens is a VRI, I'd check out Tamron's 70-200 VC GII.  Or the GI, if anybody still has it - the MSRP isn't that different, so a lot of people have marked the GIs down a lot to move them out.

On a crop sensor (even a good one) , I liked the Nikon slightly better than the Tamron - though I should point out that the GII wasn't out yet when I did my comparisons - that's a recent lens.  On a FF, the difference in edge sharpness was night and day, to say the least; the VRI isn't good at all.  It's not LensBaby bad, but if you're shooting at f/8 your edges are still f/4 sharp, tops.

Then again, different strokes.  I could see how, for a certain style of photo, that would actually be a feature.

My experience with most of the the newest versions of flagship lenses from just about everybody is that the coatings are the main improvement, and that they're all noticeably (though not hugely) sharper wide open; stopped down, I don't see a ton of differences.

Then again ... glass is glass, and the youngest of these designs is ten years old - Nikon's is pushing 30.  Stopped down and given a scene with absolutely zero chance for lens flare, they're all incredible.  Once you get up into the flagship line, you're not really paying for more potential - you're paying for speed, and consistency in situations, settings, and QC.  At f/8 and with a perfect scene, my MF Minolta 50mm f/2 is almost as good as my Leica version, and is worth roughly 1/60th as much.  But as soon as I go outside on a overcast day, the difference becomes larger.  Even if you want to play the "Leica is overpriced" card, it's still worth about 1/40th a similar used Zeiss from the last several years.

So you pick your battles.  As I said before, I buy the best I can afford for stuff I use constantly ... otherwise, good enough is good enough.  After all .... between social media and computer-controlled design and production, not a single major manufacturer makes any bad products.  Imagine the crappiest (non-kit) lens you can think of .... and I can promise you that 25 years ago, a lot of people would have been willing to go into debt to own it.