///M5

Could be false, but again multiple searches show the same result. Canon 7ft - 229mm 12ft - 208mm 29ft - 201mm

VRII Focal Length on Nikon Dist.; Focal length 1.27m (closest); 128mm 1.4m; 132mm 2m; 147mm 3m; 164mm 5m; 176mm 10m; 186mm

I don't understand your link. The one I showed directly compares the 24-70 on the same Nikon 800e. Tamron beats the Nikkor in every category except giving up .1 stop of light. The Tammy 24-70 tests even better on a less advanced Canon.

Never said they were bad. Just not as good where I need them to be. At least that is what I keep finding over and over. I have been creating the spreadsheet from hell regarding lenses for the past few months stewing over the decision on what long term makes sense for me to do. Realizing you research like I do I figured there was some credibility in the Nikon push so I looked some more...only to find that the ranges I want to be able to shoot it isn't beneficial. The simple lenses may be better on the Nikon, but I have no interest in any of them. After that it is bang for the buck I am looking for and here either Sigma, Canon, Tokina or Tamron almost always win and when you have a Canon you can pick from all 3. My needs however are simple: Prime wide Prime medium-wide for group photos Prime 50 Either 70-200 or a 200 prime & a 85 or 135 prime. The first couple could be replaced by a zoom if I had a full frame, don't see that happening on the crop. Zoom range of 18-35 doesn't buy you enough bokeh on the long end to bother in particular when you can grab 2 primes. Pain to change the lens, but it is a bigger pain to take photos that don't work.

Amusingly even though the Canon is an 8 blade versus the Tamron/Nikon 9 blade the bokeh is subjectively better to me on the Canon. Watching defocused light circles I choose the Tamron however...but that isn't how I'd use it.

I am also seriously bugged by lenses with a lot of chromatic aberration. Destroys all sharpeness and in the worst spot because when you lose the edge detail the rest of the detail really doesn't matter and gets lost in the wash.

I found 134 with a search now Perhaps I didn't google well, but that is rather important for how I'd use the lens and after your preference I searched to find out I am really in a good spot to switch things up if I were ever going to. My dislike is only my current shopping showing me what I want to own. 95% of the time I am limited in my shots it is a glass problem so that is of course where I am researching the most.

Err, what? http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-F28E-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D800E__885_814_1583_814 I realize the Tammy performed worse on the Nikon than the Canon, but not sure how you are reading DXO

That and early release ANY lens i dont want. Firmware upgrades seem to be needed on all ....in particular 3rd party.

I have some 1.5" HPDE that was cheap on Amazon. Bright yellow, lol but it works for baffles great. Easier to hit with the router and less mess as well. Nice and stiff and easy enough to add mass too.

There is a fix ticket. Definitely annoying. Aargh.

I'd be buying the Tammy 70-200 over the Nikkor as well. No brainer.

Reviews show the 24-70 Tamron to kill the Nikkor. Not even close. Same can be said about the full Sigma Art series. Weight may be more, but usually because they actually seem to put optical quality as the priority. I am shocked at the weight of the 50-100 1.8 though as I really was hoping for 2/3 the darn 70-200. That pissed me off.

A 70-200 at 200 2.8 would rock it even more. Although that shot in particular is worse on the Nikon than the Canon 200 as the Nikon suffers from serious FL shrinking at close focus IIRC from my pre-shopping it is less than the 135 making the 70-200 Nikon not much of a portrait lens. Canon still reaches 180mm at that focus

Real excited to take some shots at the game with whitey and see how many i shoot at what focal length.

200 f2.8 primes are cheap!

I really want in body stabilization please. No reason to not have it in the lens and the body.

Ugh. Now i read canon is releasing a mirrorless this year with ef mount. Figures it follows their mantra. Don't be first but be the best

So it is either fuji or canon atm.

Exactly why a teleconveter doesnt change the dof of the lens but the perceived is of a lens that has been multiplied in FL and Fstop by the tc multiplier.

Perceived fov is then related to the sensor. 50mm 2.0 on a full frame would give the same field of view on a sensor cropped to 1/10 the size as a 500mm f20.0. Dof however would still be as a 50mm 2.0 which magically exactyl equates to the same length as the 500m f20.0

Focal length, fov and dof all relate to distance to the target. Nothing normalized naturally

I say ff as that is the defacto standard to help normalize what the reach and light gathering capabilities are

No a lens is a lens you can't change it. Same focal length on any camera same fstop as well. That being said on a crop sensor that lens will seem to have more reach since the sensor only uses less of the lens diameter. Being a smaller sensor it gathers less light too so you need a faster lens to compensate

Reviewing my shots it seems an 18-35 and the 70-200 would serve me well. 50% of my 17-55 shots are at 17, 30% at 55 and 20% in the middle