Lens quality difference

dekeyboy

dekeyboy

Messages
1,736
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Tamron 90 DI 2.8 macro lens. Macro aside how much better would the Nikon 85 1.8 be. I am using a Nikon D300.
Thanks
 
The Tamron is pretty sharp already isnt it? if your talking about the newer 85mm 1.8 G I'm guessing the main advanatge would be an extra stop and a third of aperture, greater sharpness below f/4 and faster AF.
 
It seems the Nikon can resolve a lot more detail from these figures, if it's anything to go by? I remember the Canon 85mm 1.8 being a gorgeous lens, especially for portraits and I believe the Nikon is equally as good.



mtf.gif


mtf.png



CREDIT1 CREDIT 2
 
dekeyboy said:
I currently have a Tamron 90 DI 2.8 macro lens. Macro aside how much better would the Nikon 85 1.8 be. I am using a Nikon D300.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Don't worry about sharpness, if that's what you mean by 'better' - both excellent lenses.

The difference is one focuses very close and the other runs to f/1.8. Not the same at thing at all - which one do you want? For normal stuff at normal distances and apertures, they'll be as good as eachother.
 
gman said:
It seems the Nikon can resolve a lot more detail from these figures, if it's anything to go by? I remember the Canon 85mm 1.8 being a gorgeous lens, especially for portraits and I believe the Nikon is equally as good.



mtf.gif


mtf.png



CREDIT1 CREDIT 2
Click to expand...

Those figures come from different cameras so can't be directly compaired.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I think i'll keep the Tamron. What in your opinion would be the next prime to look at, going longer on focal length. Would it be around the 135 mark.
 
gman said:
Here's one on a better camera, still miles away.
Click to expand...

Still the difference between a 10 MP crop D200 and a 24MP FF D3X, to me the Tamron looks to be giving very good performance on those crop sensors by their own standards, at least from F/4 onwards.

I'm not saying the Nikon isnt sharper but to me it looks like it would not show a great improvement over the Tamron outside of f2.8, plus of course the ability to shoot down to f1.8 and faster AF.
 
Last edited:
You'd think they'd use a standard camera as it does make the results a bit of a waste of time then surely? I've been looking at lots of samples of the Tamron vs the Nikon both using the D300 and the 85mm comes across much better, although this could be down to the people using it or my interpretation of a good image lol. From where I was looking it did seem the Tamron users where more focused on flowers etc whereas the Nikon ones where more of portraits.

In my own experience I've never found the third party lenses to be as good, the closest was my Tokina one but each to their own definitely. My Canon 85mm was outstanding, I'm sure the Nikon will be the same?

EDIT: Thought I'd have a look at the Canon 85mm against it here and here using the same camera. Need to wait until end of month for the Nikon results it seems.
 
Last edited:
dekeyboy said:
Thanks for the replies guys. I think i'll keep the Tamron. What in your opinion would be the next prime to look at, going longer on focal length. Would it be around the 135 mark.
Click to expand...

That's a question only you can answer. What do you want to do, and what limitations does your current kit have with that?

Post the answers to those questions.
 
I just fancy a change. And thought i would try some primes. I have no limitations with my current setup. Apart from not having a focal length above 200. I did have a 150-500 but found i was never using it, so i sold it.
 
dekeyboy said:
I just fancy a change. And thought i would try some primes. I have no limitations with my current setup. Apart from not having a focal length above 200. I did have a 150-500 but found i was never using it, so i sold it.
Click to expand...

Ah, GAS. There's no known cure, though it can be fun trying. Expensive though, like the 150-500 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top