Nikon or Tamron

[ruifo]

Nikon and Tamron are filing patents for lenses together... Just like Nikon/Sony/Toshiba have their agreements for sensors, Nikon/Tamron have their agreements for lenses too.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-10&edit-text=

Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent application for a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens plus Nikon's patent for honeycomb sensor with subpixels in between | Nikon Rumors

While we don't see it so visible, these guys have been working together without too much noise about it.

 

[Braineack]

Only in passing using other people's equipment; not when I was really shopping/comparing, the Nikons priced me out of the market.

But I knew going in the Tamron 24-70 had onion bokeh but also VC. I was already, off-the-bat, willing to trade bokeh for the VC feature, plus I liked that it was smaller and lighter.

When peepin' the 70-200 I found the Nikon has smoother transition to oof areas. But there was no way I was going to afford one and the Tamron offered me incredible value for what Im getting out of it.

 

[Ted Evans]

Some people are fortunate where money is no object for them and I am happy for them. When I was working and first began photography way back when the Dead Sea was just sick, I bought all Nikon lens, about a dozen of them and mostly because of the name. Not as a status or prestige but because like name brand tools, you can count on them being good quality without testing them. Although off brand can be as good, there is not always that dependability. I can remember when most would not think of buying a Japanese car if they could afford American but that is not the case today and their resale is better than most American cars. I had the money to buy the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vrII but I made a practical decision. I could buy the Nikon or, I could buy the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, the Tamron 150-600 and only needed a few more dollars to buy an Induro gimble head. It was a no brainier for me which I would get the most satisfaction from. If I was blessed, like some, I would have still gotten the Tamron 70-200 but would have bought the Nikon 200-400 and 600 in place of the 150-600 and hope that I would not do it in a way to make others aware that they only bought Tamron because that was all they could afford. Just my opinion and not approved by management.

 

[DandL]

I'd be all over the Tamron 24-70 but the onion bokeh kills the deal for me. I'd buy the Nikon, but as soon as I do, they will announce a VR version.

 

[Braineack]

how often are you shooting things with bokeh balls in the BG?

I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all

 

[goodguy]

I'd buy the Nikon, but as soon as I do, they will announce a VR version.

VR is always nice but for this range is not a must, I use my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G at a speed as low as 1/30 (not often), also I doubt if Nikon will actually stick VR into its next generation lens when ever it will come out.

I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all

Totally agree!

 

[coastalconn]

I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?

Tamron... Nikon doesn't make a 150-600

 

[Seventen]

If you have not seen this 4 part video series, it is good to see how the Tamron compares to Nikon and Canon. I only linked the 4th part as gives the results but the other 3 parts are worth a look.
Also a few years ago there was a Sigma vs Tamron (Macro version) vs Nikon VRII which was also a good series.

 

[bigal1000]

how often are you shooting things with bokeh balls in the BG?

I'd rather have onion balls than no 24-70 at all

How about blue balls !!

 

[MSnowy]

I have a couple Tamrons and they are ok lenses for the money. If you had a choice without money being a factor which would you choose? Nikon or Tamron?

Tamron... Nikon doesn't make a 150-600

Ha ha. I'm still no sure about the Tamron 150-600. I like it for its cost and weight but not sure about its sharpness. I still find myself using the Nikon 70-200 vrii and the 500mm with and without 1.4 tc most of the time. Maybe when the weather gets better I'll get better results. I've been shooting late day in low light most of the time.

 

[jaomul]

Nikon and Tamron are filing patents for lenses together... Just like Nikon/Sony/Toshiba have their agreements for sensors, Nikon/Tamron have their agreements for lenses too.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-10&edit-text=

Nikon and Tamron filed a joint patent application for a 200-500mm f/4.5-5.6 lens plus Nikon's patent for honeycomb sensor with subpixels in between | Nikon Rumors

While we don't see it so visible, these guys have been working together without too much noise about it.

I'm kind of happyish to hear Tamron and Nikon my be working together. Yesterday I bought a Tamron 90mm vc lens. I had kind of thought I'd only go Nikon but money talked.

I have had a little bad luck on my d7100 with third party lenses. I assume Nikon update things to make it awkward for third party to keep up. I searched for ages to get a Tokina 50-135f2.8 because I loved that lens on Canon. When I got it for Nikon no way would it focus, even with mfd set at its limit. I recently bought a sigma 50-150 only to find it needed a factory firmware update to operate in live view.

Some third party lenses are great, but I'd be concerned as to their lasting ability if one upgrades camera going fwd. Nikon lenses should not have that issue

 

[ruifo]

^^
That's why we hear about Nikon incompatibilities with Sigma's and Tokina's lenses, but not with Tamron's...

Sigma, I must say, came up with a smart solution, the docking station for you to update the lens firmware without send them for service (here).

 

[Braineack]

Ha ha. I'm still no sure about the Tamron 150-600. I like it for its cost and weight but not sure about its sharpness. I still find myself using the Nikon 70-200 vrii and the 500mm with and without 1.4 tc most of the time. Maybe when the weather gets better I'll get better results. I've been shooting late day in low light most of the time.

you're talking about using $9300 worth of lenses vs. $1000.

the Tamron is sharp enough considering it's $8000 less than that combo. Even if it was covered in vaseline.

The Nikon seems to be to be optically, as expected, superior:

The tamron isn't quite as good wide open at 600mm, but that's still not shabby. But you also lose that 1 1/3 stops of light at 500mm. [Tamron would be at f/6]

 

[Ted Evans]

Tamron 150-600 – Nikon D7100

The only alteration of this image was to resize to 2400x1600 and from NEF to JPEG. Considering it was taken by a rank armature using a camera and lens that are less than two months old with a total cost of less than $2k, I am not sure that 8 to 12K would result in 4 to 6 times more quality, at least for this shooter. Without Tamron making this lens available at an affordable price, I would never have this image. For the real potential of this lens, I would suggest looking at the images by Costalconn with the Tamron lens.

ƒ/6.3
600.0 mm
1/400
ISO Speed - 200
Metering Mode - Spot
Exposure Mode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio - 1.33
Focal Length (35mm format) - 1200 mm
Scene Capture Type - Standard
Gain Control - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Soft
Approximate Focus Distance - 6.68

 

[sm4him]

Very nice for an early effort!

And for the record: Viewing Coastal's photos to see the "potential" of the Tammy lens isn't really quite fair, as I still maintain that Kris could use a Cola bottle for a lens and still get incredible results!!
But yeah, that Tamron is an extremely nice piece of glass.

I suspect you'll be thrilled with your acquisition!