Nikon 40mm 2.8G DX Micro... Really?

[DougC]

You can't be serious...a TAMRON will outperform a Nikon 200mm Micro? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DougC]

Please see the thread on this forum about "glass problems...BIG glass problems". Uh, what brand of lens is that???

[revjvegas]

Give it a rest. Like NO ONE has EVER had a problem EVER with a Nikon or Cannon lens.

Yeah, right.

Still believe in the tooth fairy too? :-)

[shnitz]

You see a lot of that type of sentiment in the car modification business, too. People forget that it's what's inside that determines the quality, not the name plastered on the side. So, you have Civics running around with 20 stickers on the quarter panel, as if that means anything.

Even disregarding price, the Tamron is at least as good, if not better, optically, than the Nikon. Factor in the 50% cost, and it's no contest. Glass problems happen with every manufacturer. Go look at the shots in the Nature and Macro subforums being made with the 180mm. As mentioned here, go look up some objective review websites and look at the resolution figures. I agree with you that Ken Rockwell's a complete idiot, by the way. He'll say whatever it takes, whether it's true or not, to drive visitors to his site. I try to not even mention him, because every time I even type his name in a forum, he's laughing all the way to the bank due to the visits to his page.

[DougC]

Obviously you believe in the tooth fairy if you believe Tamron can hold a candle to Nikon pro level glass. You're like the guy who bad mouths a Mercedes simply because he can't or won't afford one. Please name a few Tamron pros that anyone has ever heard of. Or for that matter, show me a National Geographic cover shot taken with a Tamron or Sigma lens. I don't see a line forming anywhere to become a spokesman for these brands.

[revjvegas]

I'm not going to argue who uses what.
I'm also not going to argue this site and that site's test results regarding one lenses performance versus another.

Your implication seems to be that Nikon & Cannon glass never breaks? Sorry, but that's where I call, with respect, BS.

Just say'n.

[DougC]

Never said a word about Canon or Nikon, just mentioned what happened with the Tamron. Everyone's products have their faults. You see what you want to see and not what I said.

[revjvegas]

Originally Posted by DougC

Never said a word about Canon or Nikon, just mentioned what happened with the Tamron. Everyone's products have their faults. You see what you want to see and not what I said.

Fair enough. My apology. I simply took the wrong interpretation.

That's the problem with this interweb thing instead of having a friendly chat over beers where the conversation is truly interactive.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by DougC

Obviously you believe in the tooth fairy if you believe Tamron can hold a candle to Nikon pro level glass. You're like the guy who bad mouths a Mercedes simply because he can't or won't afford one. Please name a few Tamron pros that anyone has ever heard of. Or for that matter, show me a National Geographic cover shot taken with a Tamron or Sigma lens. I don't see a line forming anywhere to become a spokesman for these brands.

Every brand has standouts and duds in their product line. One could argue that Tamron and Sigma have more duds than Canon and Nikon; but that's not to say Tamron and Sigma don't have some great lenses, or that neither Canon nor Nikon have any duds (even in the pro lineup).

To categorically state that all lenses from Brand A are better than all lenses from Brand B is just silly. You have to look at specific lenses and judge them on their own merits rather than blindly judging on brand name. The fact is both Tamron and Sigma make some fantastic macro lenses that many shooters prefer over Nikon/Canon counterparts regardless of price.

[DougC]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said all Nikons are better than anyone else's. I was referring to the 200 Micro specifically. Nikon is in business to make money and to do this, they MUST move forward. Why do you think this lens hasn't been changed in the last 20 years when almost every other one in their line has? My guess is they see no reason to do so. Add an AF-S motor and Nano coating and what do you gain in the real world? First and foremost, price. Those 2 additions will cost you a total of about $500.00 or more. Secondly, if this really would affect the quality of the lens and make it more attractive and sellable, why haven't they done it?

As for making it more versatile as a 200mm telephoto for general photography, that's just silly. This lens is specifically designed and is optimized for, macro work, NOT portraits and long distance telephoto work. Yes, you can use it for that purpose but that's not what it's designed to do.

As for third party lenses, heck yes there are some good ones out there. Tokina makes GREAT wide angle zooms and if you're lucky enough to get a good copy, Sigma makes some very good super zoom telephotos. I didn't come here to fight but the OP's statements are so typical of the "if I don't want it or like it there's no need for it to exist" crowd, that I just had to throw a bit of fuel on the fire.

I checked out the Lester Dine website and while the Sigma is mentioned, he also recommends and sells Nikon and Canon macros as well. I guess you didn't notice that. Didn't notice a Tamron product there either.

Bottom line, we'll just have to agree to disagree.