Micro Nikkor 60mm vs Tamron 28-200 XR

[Seachicken]

I just ran a simple test pitting my 60mm Micro Nikkor against my Tamron 28-200mm zoom set to 60mm.

I taped a map to the wall and photographed it with each lens from a tripod at the same position. The lighting was flourescant. Exposure was 1 second at f8 / ISO100 for both. The map was about 3m from the camera, and AF was used to focus. The images below are actual pixels crops from an unsharpened RAW file saved as a jpg quality 9.

I'm surprised how close it is. I expected the Nikkor to give the Tamron a thrashing .. especially in the corners.

http://www.andrewfinch.com/nikkor_vs_tamron.jpg

[jlbishop]

I've been using this lens myself.
I'm realy surprised by the results.
Very happy, got it dirt cheap on Ebay.
It lives on my camera. I use a 17-35 Sigma indoors
with good results. When you use the Tamron you have to be carefull, the lens is to light to use the full zoom without
a tripod. My 70-210 Nikon was a lot steadier because of the extra weight and I didn't really need a tripod.
jim

[Seachicken]

I was hoping to persuade myself that this lens was awful so that I could justify the purchase of one of these neato Nikkor 24-85mm AFS zooms.

But the attempt failed! Damn!! I also looked at the photodo tests of the predecessor of my lens vs the Canon 24-85mm zoom. Not the actual lenses, in question (they weren't tested), but anyway, you'd expect the shorter ranged "Canon" branded zoom to win easily. But on the focal lengths for which the lenses are comparable there was no clear winner. The Tamron Superzoom was sharper at f8, the Canon sharper wide open. The Tamron also seemed to have a lot less distortion.