[Brightcolours]

[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1300250399' post='6849']

Not sure if I'm supposed to be posting links to the competition, or if this is even a valid comparison. But here we go:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=622&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1



Looks like the Tamron edges out the Nikon at 70 mm, but the Nikon clearly does better at 200 mm and 300 mm resolution-wise.

The Nikon does seem to purple-fringe a bit.

[/quote]

That site is the least reliable to get an impression of how a lens performs. Best left out of any discussion.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300281298' post='6870']

That site is the least reliable to get an impression of how a lens performs. Best left out of any discussion.

[/quote]

I find it quite the opposite. While he doesn't post any numbers to compare things, the resolution chart crops give you a good sense of lens familiarity, if you've used that lens before... YMMV.



GTW

[frank]

After reading more reviews on the Nikon 70-300vr, I think I should reconsider it. My overall impression is: in the 70-200 range the IQ is remarkably good; in the 200-300 range the image becomse somewhat softer than in the 70-200 range, but the softness may be less serious on a FX camera than on a DX camera, because of the 1.5 times amplification factor of DX.



Frank

[Steinar1]

It should be the contrary, but you cannot go wrong with the Nikon 70-300!

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300348454' post='6893']

After reading more reviews on the Nikon 70-300vr, I think I should reconsider it. My overall impression is: in the 70-200 range the IQ is remarkably good; in the 200-300 range the image becomse somewhat softer than in the 70-200 range, but the softness may be less serious on a FX camera than on a DX camera, because of the 1.5 times amplification factor of DX.



Frank

[/quote]

And why not the Tamron 70-300 VC? It is sharper and more contrasty. Its 200-300mm range is less soft. If is fine for you to decide on ANY lens, of course, I just do not understand, for the moment, why you seem intent to avoid the Tamron, a lens which offers better IQ at the long end.

[Martin_MM]

Here is the comparison of Nikon 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300. Nikon 28-300 has been added too in the longer ends of its range.



Everything was shot from a tripod, without VR/VC of course.



http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objektivy/Tamron_70_300VC/Tamron_70_300VC.htm



It is in Czech, however, you may get a picture concerning the sharpness. Just to help you with 2 important words for translation: "Střed" = centre "Okraj" = edge.

[frank]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300402559' post='6917']

Here is the comparison of Nikon 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300. Nikon 28-300 has been added too in the longer ends of its range.



Everything was shot from a tripod, without VR/VC of course.



http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objektivy/Tamron_70_300VC/Tamron_70_300VC.htm



It is in Czech, however, you may get a picture concerning the sharpness. Just to help you with 2 important words for translation: "Střed" = centre "Okraj" = edge.

[/quote]



Thank you very much. A very interesting review.



Frank

[frank]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300361981' post='6902']

And why not the Tamron 70-300 VC? It is sharper and more contrasty. Its 200-300mm range is less soft. If is fine for you to decide on ANY lens, of course, I just do not understand, for the moment, why you seem intent to avoid the Tamron, a lens which offers better IQ at the long end.

[/quote]



I do not intend to avoid the Tamron. It is just that from the reviews that I have read so far I am not convinced that the Tamron is better than the Nikon. My overall impression is that they are more or less similar, at this stage.



Frank

[IanCD]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1300402559' post='6917']

Here is the comparison of Nikon 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300. Nikon 28-300 has been added too in the longer ends of its range.



Everything was shot from a tripod, without VR/VC of course.



http://www.makofoto.cz/nikon/objektivy/Tamron_70_300VC/Tamron_70_300VC.htm



It is in Czech, however, you may get a picture concerning the sharpness. Just to help you with 2 important words for translation: "Střed" = centre "Okraj" = edge.

[/quote]

I'm going to have to learn Czech now..! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

As you say, Frank, it's close, though to my eyes the Tamron does look sharper than the Nikon on quite a few of the 300mm shots: maybe check out the budweiser signs and the cafe restaurant sign on the door above the steps in the zipped (downloaded) files.

These are some of the best samples I've seen at that sort of resolution from this lens. Thank you!

Ian

[Martin_MM]

No problem guys, I´m glad you like it.



BTW, one more note to the samples and methodology: The yellow frame around the crops means that it is the sharpest crop according to the reviewer.... Otherwise D3 was used, developed in Capture NX with default settings, saved as JPG with highest quality possible. MLU (tilted mirror) and timer was also used when shot from the tripod... Overall he concludes that Nikon is slightly better (or equal) from 70-200, from 200-300 it is slightly Tamron. For details and your impression, compare the crops yourself, of course :-)