Al Giordano wrote:Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD ($1,299.00)"A DxOMark Overall Score of 29 ranks the Tamron 1st for image quality on professional standard zooms, just pushing the own brand Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AD into second with 28 points, and is well ahead of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM with 23.The Tamron offers better sharpness overall, scoring 17 P-Mpix, compared to 15 P-Mpix for the Nikon, good performance at f/2.8 and boasts significantly better chromatic aberration results, too.What’s more with a $1299 price tag it’s a whooping $600 cheaper than the own brand alternative making it superb value for money for Nikon shooters."HI!My 24-70 cost $1200 more than the Tamron, if you factor in the $600 that I spent dealing with the now notorious 24-70 stiff zoom ring problem where Nikon denied warranty coverage to myself and many others based on "impact damage".Flickr Thread on 24-70 problemsNikon 24-70 Stiff Zoom Ring ProblemRB

Al Giordano wrote:The Nano coating is a really good point.  What exactly is this process and why does it distinguish itself apart from the competitors?  All lens vendors tout their respective coatings.  Why is Nikon's any better?Al,As I understand it, the Nano Coating process for photographic lenses was something of an accidental discovery for Nikon.  It came from their industrial precision instrument division, where it had been developed to improve the accuracy of stepper lenses used to project the light that etches integrated circuits.They don't use it on every element in a given lens design--it's not a replacement for Nikon's "super integrated coating" as a general way to control the glass-air barrier at every point in the system.   (So, it's not exactly comparable to Zeiss's T* coating, for example.)  Instead, they usually use it on only one side of one internal element, to cut internal reflections within the system.As I understand it, it works by actually "roughening" the lens surface at a scale smaller than the light's wavelength, so that when the light hits the lens surface there's actually a fine, randomly-dispersed mix of coating and air--rather than just the light hitting a wholly different (hard) substance with a different refractive index.   It's as though it "eases" the light into the lens.You can read more about it from Nikon, here:http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/20/And man, what a difference it makes.  Some people in this thread insist that no one would be able to tell the difference between a projection that benefits from Nano Crystal Coating (Nikon) and one that doesn't (Tamron), but the difference is actually pretty obvious.  Resistance to veiling flare is the easiest way to scientifically measure it; but even where veiling flare isn't obvious, there's a color and contrast benefit that's superb.Now, whether that benefit is "worth" the extra asking price is another and wholly subjective question--an issue worth discussing (more usefully, with examples rather than anecdote).M.

I've shot with one. It was a nice, but certainly not world class. Sharp - yea, sure, not that hard to do these days. Nice AF too. Contrast characteristics were a bit flat to be honest - not a lot of dimensional sense and a touch flat on the microcontrast side of things - kind of a reasonably sharp, reasonably smooth, but ultimately uninvolving, slightly dull presentation compared to better glass.  Shot side by side with the Nikon 24-70 and you'd pick the Nikon shot every time if the subject/lighting conditions were such that a full range of tones and colors were present (meaning, real world with light bouncing around everywhere vs a test chart in a studio). Still, a viable lens for those on a budget assuming Tamron builds the things a bit better than the first runs, which I hear were absolutely horrible. It was a better lens than I expected though, and given I really have never liked anything Tamron has ever made, that's a plus.-m

My understanding of how the DXO marks work is that they reflect the best performance of the lens at all focal lengths and apertures.  (Sorry, I can't recall the link right now, likely an article by Thom Hogan or Roger Cicala.)  Thus you may have high marks for a lens because is stellar at a certain focal length even though it sucks at other focal lengths.  If so, this makes the DOX mark for zooms less meaningful than the DCO mark for primes.  As ot Nikon v Tamron, no dog in that fight....

Good post. I like that you brought up that a lens can be good and usable on its own even if it is not the absolute best out there.I also completely and wholeheartedly agree on your discussion of the coatings. I've been through a pretty heavy period of lens evaluation and acquisition/replacement during the year I've had my D800E. In the past year, I've evaluated the Tamron 24-70 in this discussion, the Zeiss 21/2.8, 28/2, and 35/2 primes, the Nikon 70-200/4, 28/1.8G, and the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. After that period of evaluation some purchases and sales were made and my current kit is the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200/2.8G VR-II Nikon zooms (the Tamron in this discussion lost out to the Nikon in my evaluation period), and my prime kit is what has changed the most and I'm currently shooting the 21/2.8 Zeiss, 24/1.4G Nikkor, 28/1.8G Nikkor, 35/1.4 Sigma, 50/1.8G Nikkor, 85/1.8G Nikkor and the big 200/2G VR-I.What I've found in this year of evaluation is that while sharpness alone can at times make or break a lens decision - the Sigma 35/1.4 is a clear example of this - it's simply sharper than all other 35mm options I've looked at and I sold my 35/1.4G Nikkor after evaluation, but more often than not it's the contrast characteristic of lenses that separate the really great stuff from the plain old everyday "very good" and "good" stuff. And here, for me, it's a two brand race in terms of Nikon mount: Nikon G lenses with the N coating, and Zeiss. The combination of N coating along with the usual Nikon SIC coating makes for tremendous presence and clarity, and while you may not see the difference in every scene, I absolutely can say that if you find yourself in a scene with lots of light and tone, say a field of wildflowers cross lit with a low angle sun in front of a waterfall or mountain, you'll see the difference - at any aperture. It's in these types of situations where the better Nikon and the better Zeiss glass earn their keep. Shoot a monochromatic scene or a cloudy day at F/5.6, or a test chart, and you probably won't. Even as good as the Sigma is (and it's a tremendous lens), I think the *contrast* signature of the 28/1.8G is actually better - there is more of a subjective visual "weight" to the shadows and darker tones and darker colors with the Nikon, even if perhaps the 28/1.8G doesn't quite match the Sigmas absolute sharpness potential (although this is not a given; at closer-than-test chart distances the 28/1.8G is actually about as sharp as it gets and sharper than the Sigma - a surprise finding I stumbled onto lately). Flare resistance of any Nikon G prime with N coating is vastly better than the Sigma, and flare doesn't just mean the sun coming straight into the frame either. Not saying the Sigma isn't great - it truly is - they really did a fine, fine job of correcting the color abberations and keeping it sharp, but it's not perfect. You add a Zeiss T* coating to the Sigma and it probably would be perfect. Point being, what I've always found with any of the traditional value third party offerings, and certainly the case with the Tamron 24-70 in this discussion, is that the presentation (rendering), while possibly very sharp, is just not as involving in some real life scenes. It's the coatings in my opinion. And that's why it's rare for me to get excited about non Nikon or non Zeiss glass. I've shot about everything, and the same tendencies of the third party glass keep showing themselves, over and over.It's not in any way that these third party lenses are worthless just because I don't like them as much; for a budget point they are absolutely and certainly viable tools, but in my vast experience they simply are not quite as good as the top end stuff from the major players, for the reasons described above.-m

MarkJH wrote:Al Giordano wrote:The Nano coating is a really good point.  What exactly is this process and why does it distinguish itself apart from the competitors?  All lens vendors tout their respective coatings.  Why is Nikon's any better?Al,As I understand it, the Nano Coating process for photographic lenses was something of an accidental discovery for Nikon.  It came from their industrial precision instrument division, where it had been developed to improve the accuracy of stepper lenses used to project the light that etches integrated circuits.They don't use it on every element in a given lens design--it's not a replacement for Nikon's "super integrated coating" as a general way to control the glass-air barrier at every point in the system.   (So, it's not exactly comparable to Zeiss's T* coating, for example.)  Instead, they usually use it on only one side of one internal element, to cut internal reflections within the system.As I understand it, it works by actually "roughening" the lens surface at a scale smaller than the light's wavelength, so that when the light hits the lens surface there's actually a fine, randomly-dispersed mix of coating and air--rather than just the light hitting a wholly different (hard) substance with a different refractive index.   It's as though it "eases" the light into the lens.You can read more about it from Nikon, here:http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/20/And man, what a difference it makes.  Some people in this thread insist that no one would be able to tell the difference between a projection that benefits from Nano Crystal Coating (Nikon) and one that doesn't (Tamron), but the difference is actually pretty obvious.  Resistance to veiling flare is the easiest way to scientifically measure it; but even where veiling flare isn't obvious, there's a color and contrast benefit that's superb.Now, whether that benefit is "worth" the extra asking price is another and wholly subjective question--an issue worth discussing (more usefully, with examples rather than anecdote).M.The example of nano coating on the Nikon website is very impressive. However, that example shows a stack of glass with 26 out of 28 surfaces that are coated. I don't see how that can be extrapolated to 1 out of 34 surfaces or however many there are on a complex zoom.We would have to compare two identical lenses - one lens with nano coating as it is used in production lenses (i.e. one surface) and one without. The only lenses I can think of which we could compare are the AF-S 200/2 VR and VRII lenses which I believe are otherwise identical, optically at least. If someone could show that the VRII is better than the VR version of that lens, we would have proof that the nano coating does as it is applied in production lenses have a benefit.Otherwise we are comparing different lenses and we cannot just attribute different performance to the Nano coating. It may be a result of the design differences.The nano coating for example is certainly not eliminating the veiling flare in the new AF-S 80-400:the AF-S 80-400 is very susceptible if the lens hood is not used

this image somehow disappeared from the post above

anotherMike wrote:I've shot with one. It was a nice, but certainly not world class. Sharp - yea, sure, not that hard to do these days. Nice AF too. Contrast characteristics were a bit flat to be honest - not a lot of dimensional sense and a touch flat on the microcontrast side of things - kind of a reasonably sharp, reasonably smooth, but ultimately uninvolving, slightly dull presentation compared to better glass.  Shot side by side with the Nikon 24-70 and you'd pick the Nikon shot every time if the subject/lighting conditions were such that a full range of tones and colors were present (meaning, real world with light bouncing around everywhere vs a test chart in a studio). Still, a viable lens for those on a budget assuming Tamron builds the things a bit better than the first runs, which I hear were absolutely horrible. It was a better lens than I expected though, and given I really have never liked anything Tamron has ever made, that's a plus.-mHI Mike!Your impressions are always very much appreciated. I'm not aware of any of your impressions or advice being  anything but right on, at least with my own, less experienced, experiences!I've only had one Tamron lens, a 200-400  that I bought 15 years ago. It was my only "long lens" for quite a while , and helped me learn the value of stopping down and having plenty of light to shoot in!Years later, I was astonished at how much better the 200-400VR was, when I finally got mine in 2004.One Tamron lens that folk's seem to continually rave about, is the 90 Macro. I'm not sure that I've heard much bad about it. Then again, many macro's are among the "sharpest" lenses from their respective manufacturers...Best Regards,RB

When you consider everything, build quality, optical quality, the VC, Price, the 6 year Warranty, and the excellent customer service if you have to use the warranty,  Tamron has the over all best 24-70mm f/2.8 currently on the market.And that's the truth.Unless you can convince yourself that a bit of onion bokeh is a deal killer!Robert

anotherMike wrote:I've shot with one. It was a nice, but certainly not world class. Sharp - yea, sure, not that hard to do these days. Nice AF too. Contrast characteristics were a bit flat to be honest - not a lot of dimensional sense and a touch flat on the microcontrast side of things - kind of a reasonably sharp, reasonably smooth, but ultimately uninvolving, slightly dull presentation compared to better glass.  Shot side by side with the Nikon 24-70 and you'd pick the Nikon shot every time if the subject/lighting conditions were such that a full range of tones and colors were present (meaning, real world with light bouncing around everywhere vs a test chart in a studio). Still, a viable lens for those on a budget assuming Tamron builds the things a bit better than the first runs, which I hear were absolutely horrible. It was a better lens than I expected though, and given I really have never liked anything Tamron has ever made, that's a plus.-mI'm sorry, but some of us have also shot with the lens, and equally telling are the MANY sample comparisons between various versions.The Tamron had a clear advantage over my Nikon 24-70 wide open at 70mm. At around 35mm the Nikon had a slight edge and the Nikon handled a bit better, or maybe I'm more used to it.But the rendering of the lenses is so absurdly close that the PP results will be identical. Anyone who doubts this can simply try one or check the sample pics. Micro contrast on the Nikon was no advantage because the Tamron was sharper after 60mm. Not that there was much difference in contrast anyway.The Tamron is certainly a world class lens capable of top notch results, assuming you have a top notch person using it. For a wedding shooter or any pro event work involving video the Tamron crushes the Nikon as the VC comes into serious play. And I won't even mention the other benefits of the VC system for still work as we all know what that is.Tamron has, I'm sorry to say, better support for their products. If I get a lemon I'll exchange it and if it breaks I know Tamron is great with service. If my Nikon breaks I know I may be in for a war.If Nikon wants to be a leader in the lens arena and stay there, they're going to have to step up their game even more. It's clear that 3rd party designers are very serious about their products and the list of lenses that match or best Nikon and Canon entries is growing.Robert

Al Giordano wrote:I think the reliability and durability concerns is a huge factor in lens consideration.  I think Sigma has really stepped up their game in this regard.  And I would also give Tamron the benefit of doubt with recent lenses as the big three are competing head on for quality and value.I wish someone would do an analysis of the big three lens makers quality, reliability, and performance; in addition to all the great articles on sharpness, vignetting, CA, etc.This is my second Tamron lens, the first one the 18-50 f 2.8 DX lens for my D300s  I had problems with the focus on the LHS and now the same thing happened to this 24-70 f 2.8 but on the RHS.I got it back late yesterday from Tamron after it took 4 weeks to wait for the lens alignment and I'm eagerly waiting to test the lens out today.I wish these companies would have a better quality control and least test products before they put them on the market, gee you pay enough for them.After getting a D600 with oil/dust problems (I can fix myself) and now another lens with problems I'm turned off buying anymore new gear as the quality isn't as good as it was 10 years ago.Here's a few photos t took in a hurry yesterday with failing late Autumn sun, I think the blurriness on the RHS has been fixed (fingers crossed).Do these look sharp enough throughout the whole frame, I edited these in ACR minimal adjustment and basic sharpening light.f 8f 2.8Another shot at f 2.8

Shotcents wrote:When you consider everything, build quality, optical quality, the VC, Price, the 6 year Warranty, and the excellent customer service if you have to use the warranty,  Tamron has the over all best 24-70mm f/2.8 currently on the market.And that's the truth.Unless you can convince yourself that a bit of onion bokeh is a deal killer!RobertOnion bokeh is scene dependent and can be fixed easily with the adjustment brush in LR any way.http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron24-70mm/discuss/72157631605614517/It should be noted that the new canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has onion bokeh too.  Though not quite as severe.

Shotcents wrote:anotherMike wrote:I've shot with one. It was a nice, but certainly not world class. Sharp - yea, sure, not that hard to do these days. Nice AF too. Contrast characteristics were a bit flat to be honest - not a lot of dimensional sense and a touch flat on the microcontrast side of things - kind of a reasonably sharp, reasonably smooth, but ultimately uninvolving, slightly dull presentation compared to better glass.  Shot side by side with the Nikon 24-70 and you'd pick the Nikon shot every time if the subject/lighting conditions were such that a full range of tones and colors were present (meaning, real world with light bouncing around everywhere vs a test chart in a studio). Still, a viable lens for those on a budget assuming Tamron builds the things a bit better than the first runs, which I hear were absolutely horrible. It was a better lens than I expected though, and given I really have never liked anything Tamron has ever made, that's a plus.-mI'm sorry, but some of us have also shot with the lens, and equally telling are the MANY sample comparisons between various versions.The Tamron had a clear advantage over my Nikon 24-70 wide open at 70mm. At around 35mm the Nikon had a slight edge and the Nikon handled a bit better, or maybe I'm more used to it.But the rendering of the lenses is so absurdly close that the PP results will be identical. Anyone who doubts this can simply try one or check the sample pics. Micro contrast on the Nikon was no advantage because the Tamron was sharper after 60mm. Not that there was much difference in contrast anyway.The Tamron is certainly a world class lens capable of top notch results, assuming you have a top notch person using it. For a wedding shooter or any pro event work involving video the Tamron crushes the Nikon as the VC comes into serious play. And I won't even mention the other benefits of the VC system for still work as we all know what that is.Tamron has, I'm sorry to say, better support for their products. If I get a lemon I'll exchange it and if it breaks I know Tamron is great with service. If my Nikon breaks I know I may be in for a war.If Nikon wants to be a leader in the lens arena and stay there, they're going to have to step up their game even more. It's clear that 3rd party designers are very serious about their products and the list of lenses that match or best Nikon and Canon entries is growing.RobertExactly.  All this talk about micro contrast and what not is just and attempt to justify the choice of paying more for the Nikon lens.  Just look at images on flickr or any photo sharing site from both lenses.  You can't tell the differnce unless there is onion bokeh in the image. People are seeing what they want to see so they can feel better about spending more for the Nikon.  Many people have been wanting a stabilized, pro quality, 24-70mm f/2.8  for years and now that it exists they are resiting it just because Tamron is written on the lens barrel instead of Nikon/Canon.

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly DXO looks fairly dodgy to me in terms of reliability, well before this result. Apparently the results of the 70-200 2.8 VRII were late because they kept on getting bad samples, suggesting they had some approximate results in mind and until they found a lens that produced them kept rechecking (because they knew their credibility was at stake). My problem with that is with less well reputed lenses they probably didn't bother, so sample variation would be much more of a deal. They also have a tendency to make sweeping conclusions based on 0.1 variation is some lens or another that is completely within the bounds of sample variation (they are not exactly testing 20 of each lens either, more like 1), but, hey, their business model is based on getting us to read it so why not.Anyway onto this particular announcement. Looking at the page where they compare the Tamron, Nikon and Sigma 24-70, I'd like to draw your attention to a comparison between the Sigma and Nikon numbers. Why? Because I have a lot of experience in statistics and have spotted something that interests me. So, going point by point. Sharpness, Sigma 'wins' by 1 of their mysterious perceptual megapixels. Transmission, Nikon wins by 0.1 T-stop. Distortion is equal. Vignetting is a Sigma win by 0.1EV. Chromatic aberration is a Sigma win by 4 units (out of 26/30). Bear with me. The *only* variable where Nikon won was transmission by 0.1 T-stop, sigma won on all the others (including sharpness) with one draw. So you would expect the Sigma score to be slightly higher than the Nikon. No, Sigma scores *23* and Nikon scores *28*. At this stage I can reliably say that something stinks in the mathematics of DXO mark, or else they are including other variables in their final score that they don't tell us about. Either way, it really damages any credibility they try and gain by looking scientific and giving us so many numbers. Numbers are great except when they don't give the full picture, or more likely here they are just wrong.So APART from DXO being to my reckoning a bit of entertaining but largely unreliable mush, you have the fact that the Tamron is a new lens, the Nikon is 2007. Just from this I would expect the sharpness and features at least to slightly favour Tamron, but the build quality and maybe microcontrast to favour the higher quality but significantly older Nikon. The best 24-70 2.8 at the moment is the Canon, simply because its the newest high-quality offering. When Nikon replace theirs, I expect it will be pushing the canon for quality and a significant chunk better (and more expensive) than these DXO tested 24-70s.In the meantime, a potential purchaser would do better to listen to experienced pros who have used the lenses to what they think the advantages are for different circumstances, rather than DXO mark who look like they can't handle a simple excel spreadsheet for creating some of these numbers. The fact they put up then took down D800E results for some lenses after they were found to be much higher than the other scores stinks both of a badly worked out weighting system for scoring the lenses that vastly favours that small amount of extra sharpness at lower F ratings and of 'political' pressure from one of other of the big players (which could be nikon trying to stop people thinking the D800E is much "better" than the much higher selling D800).It sounds perfectly conceivable that the tamron is slightly sharper than the nikon, but generally you get what you pay for, and at the end of its life cycle that nikon may be overpriced but it will have benefits the much cheaper tamron doesn't (I see some very experienced photographers earlier in the thread discussing these and being ignored by others holding up DXO scores as the holy shrine of final judgement). You generally don't get a lens that is better at everything for far less money, there is usually some compromise (apart from in my beloved Sigma 35mm 1.4 of course - kidding).

Josh152 wrote:Shotcents wrote:When you consider everything, build quality, optical quality, the VC, Price, the 6 year Warranty, and the excellent customer service if you have to use the warranty,  Tamron has the over all best 24-70mm f/2.8 currently on the market.And that's the truth.Unless you can convince yourself that a bit of onion bokeh is a deal killer!RobertOnion bokeh is scene dependent and can be fixed easily with the adjustment brush in LR any way.http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron24-70mm/discuss/72157631605614517/It should be noted that the new canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has onion bokeh too.  Though not quite as severe.have fun with that brush if you shoot a wedding or something with a lot olied focused lights in the background.

Hi Mike,Very interesting and astute comments.  I was wondering if you have used Leica lenses (I have not), and how you find they compare with Zeiss and Nikon.  I don't know of Leica touting special coatings, although somehow Leica glass is priced much higher than any of the best offerings by Zeiss and Nikon.Thanks!

I had brief experience with Leica rangefinder glass in the 70's. NICE stuff. There are serious advantages to designing wide angle lenses in particular for a rangefinder versus having to do it with an SLR/DSLR. Unfortunately, these days their bodies are so beyond affordability and I tend to prefer SLR/DSLR (mirror based) bodies since I want to see what the lens is actually seeing relative to just staring at an EVF or looking through a rangefinder. So unfortunately I don't have current experience. Leica is obviously extremely well known optically and they probably aren't going to brag much about anything special they are doing coating wise - anyone knows a Leica lens is going to be made from expensive, high quality glass types, be very good, and cost a lot.Sorry not to be of much help on that one...-mps: Speaking of glass from the old, old days, in my view some of the really nice stuff from that 70's and early 80's era came from Minolta (that old Rokkor X glass was truly special in terms of rendering) and Olympus, who always have had some very, very serious lens designers on staff. If Olympus had gone with an FX full frame OM-1 type body that was modern DSLR digital with an advanced AF system and done their lenses like they always have done, I'm pretty certain I'd be a dual system shooter (Nikon and Olympus) today. I have no interest in 4/3 or micro-4/3 however, so Olympus isn't in my future...

Placation101 wrote:Josh152 wrote:Shotcents wrote:When you consider everything, build quality, optical quality, the VC, Price, the 6 year Warranty, and the excellent customer service if you have to use the warranty,  Tamron has the over all best 24-70mm f/2.8 currently on the market.And that's the truth.Unless you can convince yourself that a bit of onion bokeh is a deal killer!RobertOnion bokeh is scene dependent and can be fixed easily with the adjustment brush in LR any way.http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron24-70mm/discuss/72157631605614517/It should be noted that the new canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has onion bokeh too.  Though not quite as severe.have fun with that brush if you shoot a wedding or something with a lot olied focused lights in the background.Yikes, I was thinking the same thing.  "Fixing" internal bokeh patterns with the LR brush sounds, to me, like thedefinitionof a post-shoot slog.  There is some cray-cray in this thread, tonight.I don't mean that as a pro-Nikkor comment, by the way.  Screw Nikon for all I care.  Tamron precious Tamron, rah rah rah.  But "easily" brushing out crappy bokeh patterns?  That,Josh152, isnuts.  Seriously nuts.  You've got 500 wedding frames and an album design to deliver in a week and you're gonna "easily" bush out circle by circle of onion bokeh?  I mean, if it took a minute a frame (which, honestly, seems kinda quick for precision work), you'd be looking at more thaneight hoursof bokeh brushing.   By god, ninth circle of hell, there's your new working definition.(This is why whenever people in these threads talk about "pro" this or that like they're the second coming of Joe McNally, I want to smack them upside the head.)Anyway, speaking impartially (I'm more of a 35 & 85 prime girl than a 24-70 shooter), I wouldgladlypay more for a lens that didn't beg that kind of post work.  A lot more.  I mean, dude, I think you just sold everyone in this thread on the Nikkor!mira

..DXO being to my reckoning a bit of entertaining but largely unreliable mush..It’s good to fill up the empty space at NR when no news though. Dxomark stretched their ambition  too far and it isn’t working with their lens take as I see it.Good points except that the Tamron is no match for Nikkor for landscape. I am another one of those who tested them side by side. It’s a fine lens, absolutely. I was almost certain of buying one and had no problems proclaiming it’s sharper than Nikkor based on samples I saw on this board. When I put them side by side (and shooting with the Canon version was run alongside) I was ready to keep both if their strengths proved a sensible split which is often the case in closely matched comparisons. To be clear – it’d be an ideal scenario as we'd find use for two lenses. The Tamron wasn’t better even at 24mm. Never could it approach the Nikkor's border sharpness for usual landscape distances. It was keeping up impressively with the Nikkor’s centre, no denying. This case turned out to be a quick one, the Nikon lens impressed me to the point of losing any interest in trying a second copy of the Tamron. The Tamron’s VC bonus wasn’t what we were looking for primarily. The lens was a close race with the Nikkor except borders, same for the Canon. Wide open was largely a wash, Nikkor a little better at 24, the Tamron a little better at 70 (not at f4 though) except at 50mm where the Nikkor swept the Tamron away wide open. My own conclusion about the Tamron is that the VC and the resolution it is capable apart from extreme periphery of the frame makes it an equal choice to Nikkor where that border is not a critical priority. A strong option for handheld use with its VC and very good f2.8 at the long end.As for dxomark. My flight is due shortly and so is our two weeks hike in laurel forest thus will have no time to argue. I’ll just say that I have a great respect for that French site overall except for their lens section. There is number of unusually good to excellent general approaches and evaluations regarding resolution and its perception related to sensor pixel densities in general but there are too many bugs in their concrete findings regarding lens sharpness. One of the recent ones springs to mind from Canon testing, the Zeiss Distagon 21 – "The only real shortcoming is the Sharpness score, which at 13P-Mpix, appears to be on the low-side for a prime."It’s a bizarre statement. I know for a fact the lens is top notch performer very close to 14-24 for example (say it other way round, too) and that in no way the Nikkor 20/2.8 D can keep up with its borders/corners yet they score the lens sharpness higher than the Distagon. Just for one single example. I feel their writing style is insecure but their typical would-be confident style which they use to sort out the world of lenses nicely and neatly impresses only utterly clueless or those with inclination to follow 'document and authority' without ever be able to see below the surface or a wider perspective. And of course it's a good material for forum arguments when it comes useful as an argument, or when it is used against your claim as an argument - you love it and hate it depending on which side of the bed you slept today. A win-win situation I can give to dxomark lenses. At the end of the day the attention is all what it is about.

I like all of this...very entertaining.I prefer not to have onion bokeh, though let's be honest; it's not ruining any photos or really hurting a job. No one but a gear head even notices it. If it matters to YOU, don't get the Tamron. If you need VC and a bit of a sharper IQ at 70mm, don't get the Nikon. No big whoop.The optical qualities of the two lenses are both excellent. The Nikon is MAYBE better here and there and the Tamron a bit better there and here, by neither lens will ruin a shot if you have some skill and talent. BOTH are capable of great photography. Most samples I see look EXACTLY alike, so let's all quit with the mythical nonsense about how the Nikon renders this and the Tamron renders peanut butter.The Tamron has VC and costs less. I like the handling of the Nikon a bit better. I like the VC and IQ of the Tamron at 70mm a bit better.The "you get what you pay for" mantra is DEAD.My Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 is a SUPERIOR optic to the Nikon 16-35mm, and the Tokina is, hands down the second best UWA zoom in the world after the 14-24. My Tamron 70-300 VC is superior to the Nikon 70-300vr lenses I had. Sigma now has primes that are besting Nikon and Canon for less money. This is the BUSINESS MODEL they are working on and it's been done before in many arenas.I like it when Nikon has a lens that is the best, like my 70-200 VRII. But I also like it when a motivated designer does even better and charges the same or less!Robert