US price of Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD lens announced: $749

Tamron SP 85mm F:1.8 Di VC USD Model F016 lens
The price of new Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD lens just got announced today: $749. Pre-orders are now open at Adorama and B&H. Shipping is expected to start on March 31st.

Additional information on the new Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD lens can be found here.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Calabros

    did Japanese just find a golden line in pricing? Most of lenses they release these days are around $800, or a bit less or a bit more.

    • Chris

      I have new version of sp90. It’s super fast in focus and I can handheld at 1/8s. I am expecting this 85 to be equally good. Also, Tamron has updated coating and now supports focus adjustment dock. They are asking for a fair price.

    • fanboy fagz

      I hope the 85 1.4 art is priced like that as well.

      • Captain Insane-O

        The 50 is a grand. No way the 85 will be cheaper. I’m hoping they stay around the same price. That 50 art is amazing.

      • Aldo

        lol… I know you giggled when you typed that.

        • fanboy fagz

          I dont see a reason the sigma art cant be “around” $800. the 24/35 1.4 nikons are priced at $2000 and the sigmas sell for $850 . the nikon 85 sells for $1600. wheres the enticement if the art sells for $1200? the 50 art is a shit price cause theres that zeiss otus thing going. its not 2x as good as the nikon. otherwise it would sell for $700. it was on sale multiple times because IMO it wasnt selling well. If they were smart theyd sell it under $900 and break everyone. everyone is waiting for it and if theyre smart, (unlike nikon) theyd sell it in shit loads. thats the lens that will sell. more copies out will bring people to buy their other lenses.

          nikon did a huge mistake with the DF pricing. I remember the teaser vids for the DF. people were going crazy waiting for it. there were so many comments from excitement. everyone wanted it at $2000, then they priced it at $3000 and the camera became a failure overnight. niche camera or whatever the fuck you label it, its not a successful camera sales wise. I was going to get it even though that shit AF system and NO video and I wanted a stills/vid camera. if they arent greedy but smart,thats what theyd do. it will sell like nothing else, bring them a huge amount of OEM converter which will turbo people to buy their other lenses.

          • Aldo

            Art lenses are gaining reputation and in some aspects people swear by them over the nikon versions. The idea behind them is you get at least the same quality of oem if not better… under this logic… as long as the price is lower you are getting ‘more’ for your money. Also when it comes to the 85mm 1.4 nikkor… it has been out for a while… so I would guess the sigma art version will be better. I dont think it will be less than a thousand bucks… unfortunately… being a 1.4…. and I think it will still sell because I dont think nikon will update its 1.4 for a while. I would like to upgrade to 1.4 but I dont think I wanna pay that much either.

            As for the Df I dont think it was such bad pricing, but I still cant understand why they went with that AF system… that alone was more than enough proof that the ‘pure photography’ campaing was complete BS. I think it was thought of to be a premium camera… the features they didnt remove should.have been premium at the very least.

            • Spy Black

              I doubt if Sigma releases an 85 f/1.4 Art that it will be over $1000. The Df would not necessarily be overpriced if it had a better AF system, but as it is it is definitely overpriced.

  • AlphaTed

    Third party lenses are supposed to be cheaper than the OEM counterpart.
    I’ll stick with my Nikon, even though it doesn’t have any stabilization.

    • Proto

      Yup! if its not cheap enough, better to stick with branded lens and future safe. Besides, Nikon 85 1.8 has great reviews.

      • blp

        yeah the nikon 85mm f1.8g is a hell beast of lens 🙂 i dont see any reason why people would choose the tamron one over the nikon one except maybe those who value vc over the price difference between the two lenses. (maybe ca as well since nikon 85mm can have really bad ca sometimes)

      • sickheadache

        I also use the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 G Until Sigma …and I placed my order in several times…produces their own 85mm 1.4 Art. Though I do like the Nikkor..it has gotten rave reviews and didn’t cost and surprise nikon over a grand.

    • Zoron

      announced price $750……retail price might be $650

    • nwcs

      Maybe I missed something… is there a 85 1.8 VR lens Nikon makes? No? Then there’s no counterpart. And where is it written that third party must be cheaper? Someone at Zeiss missed the memo. And the Sigma Art people missed that same memo.

      • Patrick O’Connor

        Your second point is well spoken but folks have always compared stabilized and non-stabilized lenses, treating VR like any other feature (e.g. Nikon 24-70G vs E). Very few people give more than passing notice to the inclusion of VR in the 24-70E

        • nwcs

          It is a feature indeed and it’s hard for anyone, including myself, to place a standardized valuation on features. For example, is VR as a feature weighted higher or lower than nano coating? I suppose it depends on the intended use of the lens.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            True and I, for one, am a huge fan of stabilization (I’m older) but You can compensate for its lack more easily than that of nano coating.

            • jason Keefer

              Weather sealed too….

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I like weather sealing in my “outdoor” lenses but wouldn’t use either 85 in a situation that would benefit from it.

        • outkasted

          especially when the lens does not perform better than the previous lens. The sharpness and from what some state that the image quality tends to be a bit flat.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            I’ve heard differing reports, which is a problem in itself, but it’s irrelevant to my point.
            No two lenses are identical so you need to establish what criteria make them counterparts. Usually, that’s focal length and maximum aperture, all other things separating them and making a comparison possible.

      • Wesley

        $300 for VR. Not worth it.

        • nwcs

          Maybe, maybe not. It may also have other attributes that make it surpass the Nikon. We don’t know since no one has it.

          • jason Keefer

            If it’s anything like the 35/45 SP lenses it’ll be significantly better than the Nikkor. We’ll know soon enough I’m sure.

          • Wesley

            It’s still not worth it to ME at $749. However, Tamron does offer rebates often and the prices do tend to drop in price reasonably quickly.

        • Chris

          D810 folks will love VR. How about the coating and focus speed? My newer SP90 is way faster than 50/1.8G.

        • Justtakethepicture

          …and weather sealing.

      • AlphaT

        My bad, I generalized. A brand should consistently prove it’s worthiness, before they can brag and raise prices accordingly.
        Nikon itself is guilty of this, for example the pricing of the Nikon 1 series.

    • jason Keefer

      No stabilization, no weather sealing and (if it’s par with the 35 & 45) not nearly as sharp…. But sure… The Nikon f1.8 is good at its price point, but it’s not anything like this Tamron.

      • Patrick O’Connor

        Do you have any of the lenses you reference or just going by hearsay? That’s not a dig…just wondering ’cause I need a LOT of hearsay to offset very little actual experience.

        • jason Keefer

          I have the Tamron 35/45, I’ve used and sold the Nikkor 35 f1.8 (far worse than the Tamron) and I’ve owned the 85 f1.8d and used the 1.8G…. If this Tamron is as sharp as its 45 cousin… It’ll be FAR better than the Nikkor G and D.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            Okay. Good to know. Thanks.

          • decentrist

            Actually the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 ED FX lens is very similar optically to the Tamron. If the Tamron 85 is similar to the 45 cousin, it will be as sharp as the 85G, not far better.

            • jason Keefer

              I must disagree. The Tamron 35 is Far superior to the Nikon, which isn’t even close to edge to edge sharp. Personal experience and DxO… I sold the Nikkor because it was poor compared to the Tamron which in many cases is better than the Sigma ART.

            • Konstantinos

              It will be nice to compare apples to apples… Sigma 35/50 Art are far superior than their Canikon counterparts but the 24mm is nothing special. Let’s wait and see…

            • silmasan

              Uhh… The 50s, yes. But the new 35 L II is enough to make me consider getting a 5D just for that lens alone. Overall it’s like a 35mm Otus but with AF, and with defocus quality and transition that’s surprisingly good for this focal length.

            • decentrist

              Yes, on edge sharpness,build,but still similar…I own both

    • Captain Insane-O

      Zeiss is supposed to be cheaper? Cheaper lenses are supposed to be cheaper. High quality means high price regardless of manufacturer.

  • Spy Black

    Maybe it’s just me, but that seems rather pricey for that lens. I don’t really know enough about it tho, it may justify it’s price.

  • blp

    while vc might be a nice cute feature but 749 usd for that lens… damn Tamron, you greedy.

    • preston

      Has VC, weather sealing, pro build quality (compared to Nikon 85/1.8) and supposedly extremely high image quality and yet you expect it to be cheap just because, why exactly? This lens without a doubt costs much more for Tamron to produce than Nikon’s 85/1.8 so it makes no sense for them to try to compete solely on price. Actually, $750 sounds like a bargain for this lens to me. If you want to bring up being greedy then look no further than Nikon’s line of f/1.4 primes! Their 24/1.4 costs DOUBLE that of the equal or better image quality Sigma Art version!

      • blp

        while the nikon one may feel kinda plastiky (if that is even a word), the build quality is still decent enough to last for more than a decade. in terms of image quality, even if the tamron one is going to be sharper than the nikon, the difference will be very minimal since the nikon one is one of the sharpest lenses out there. imho, the only difference between the tamron and the nikon one all goes down to vc and weather sealing and i dont really see the difference between them to cost more than 300 usd.

        • preston

          Ok, but you can say the exact same thing about the Nikon 85/1.4. How much more should that cost, because I mean, the 1.8 version is good enough, right? But that is 1.4 and the Tamron is only 1.8. Yea, and the 1.4 is only 2/3 of a stop faster than 1.8 but the Tamron gives you at least 3 extra stops of image stabilization which is MUCH more practical and useful to me than 1.4 is.

          This is the same pointless argument that people were saying when the new Nikon 300/4 came out. That VR wasn’t worth $800 extra or whatever, which misses the point that it is a completely different lens and that the VR and significantly smaller size (due to unique and very expensive optical design) greatly expands the possibilities.

          • blp

            your argument is invalid here my friend. we are talking about the Nikon 85 f1.8g not the god damn over priced 1.4g. Just cause i said that the tamron is overpriced compare to the 1.8g does not automatically imply that it is overpriced compare to the 1.4g. Also, VC can be overrated sometimes that is why i called it a nice cute feature on one of my comments here. VC can only reduce vibration from the camera itself but not the subject. In most cases when shooting with this lens, you are more likely to shoot a live object rather than a still one which makes vc pretty much useless or less effective as you proclaimed it to be.

            whether or not if vc and weather sealing are worth the extra 300 for you is not my business but for me the extra 300 dollars does not justify for the difference.

            • jason Keefer

              With high pixel count sensors, you need either VR/VC or fast shutter speeds to get critically sharp due to the higher resolution.

              That is why Tamron is going VC. This lens is meant for the current high end and next gen cameras.

            • blp

              not all lenses can benefit from vc equally due to shooting preference and the object you shoot. in the case of the 85mm, it is not going to be as useful.

            • Mike

              VC / VR does nothing for moving, breathing subjects. Unless you are taking portraits of inanimate objects, it is nothing more than a feature.

              The 85/1.8G is the better deal, it is sharper than any of those Tamrons you mentioned.

            • preston

              My argument is invalid? Is that supposed to mean that your opinion is the only “valid” take on the price of the Tamron? And it is perfectly valid to put the price of the Tamron in context. It is better than the Nikon 85/1.8 – therefore it costs more than it. And it still costs $850 LESS than the Nikon 85/1.4.

              I know how VC works, and it’s incredibly useful in certain situations. I consider a “cute” feature to be something that doesn’t add to the usefulness of the lens, like Zeiss changing the depth of field scale to be an LCD screen instead of a manual readout. To equate VR with something like that is ridiculous. You may think it is overrated and that’s fine but if you had this lens and didn’t take advantage of it then you shoot in very narrow conditions indeed.

            • blp

              i really love the assumptions you have made so far about how others think. again, when i said that your argument is invalid it is because you were comparing the tamron to the 1.4g when we were talking sorely about the difference between the 1.8g and the tamron one and whether or not the price difference really worth the extra 300 usd. truth is, vc maybe useful in certain situations but for the particular type of shooting that most people are most likely to do with this particular lens, vc is not going to be very useful. in fact vc is almost, if not, completely useless when dealing with moving objects.

            • preston

              You didn’t mention the Nikon 85/1.8 when you said that Tamron was being greedy with the price in your original post. I’m the one who introduced BOTH the Nikon versions as comparisons for pricing. You don’t get to choose the cheaper of the 2 Nikons to compare to later on and then say my comparison to the expensive version is invalid.

              And no shit VC is useless for moving subjects. Do you only shoot moving subjects with an 85? If you do, then you don’t need VR. I shoot plenty of non-moving subjects as well, which is why I pointed out that it’s silly to assume that everyone shoots the same stuff you do and say VC is not useful on an 85mm.

            • blp

              well, its my bad to assume that people know how to compare things “rationally” and im deeply sorry for the confusion that ive caused to those who don’t even know how to compare an apple to apple. No shit was i comparing the nikon 1.8g to the tamron one. Why in the world would one compare a 1.8 to a 1.4? At this point of time, i really see no point of replying to this as it is not going to lead to anything meaningful. Honestly, i dont give a crap about how you use your 85mm but for the most part, 85mm is made mostly for shooting portraits and rarely for still objects. the minimum focus distance is so bad that you cant even do close up shot with the lens which makes it even rarer for shooting still objects. the angle of view is so tight that it is not very suitable for real life casual shooting as well. Of course there might be situations where you can shoot still objects with the lens but for the most part, it is going to a rare case scenario. 85mm is not a lens that would benefit by a lot from vc as opposed to macro lenses or even 35mm. Not all lenses are made the same and the difference in the focal length and minimum focus distance can play an important role of what type of things that you are most likely to shoot. In conclusion, i dont really see the added features on the tamron to justify the price difference between the two lenses. for the most part, it is because vr is just not as beneficial on this lens.

            • preston

              “Why in the world would I compare a 1.8 to a 1.4?” Pllleeeasssseeee. Because they are both lenses with the same focal length and are designed for the exact same purpose (not macro, for example).

              You have clearly explained why you think the lens is overpriced, which I thank you for. You happen to not value the features that make it more expensive. If you want to have shorter, more “reasonable” discussions then I’d suggest you don’t start them out with “your argument is invalid” when they are anything but.

            • CSIROC

              Your idea of a “moving subject” is drastically different than mine if you think portraiture is “movement”.

              As for comparing things rationally, you aren’t anymore rational than anyone else. You are selectively weighing each spec & feature and choosing other lenses to compare to with those *selected* spec’s and features. If I *select* build quality as being important, and don’t want razor thin depth of field, it would NOT be rational to compare it to the 1.8G.

  • FountainHead

    Too expensive vs. the very well regarded Nikkor.

    • preston

      The Nikkor without VR or weather sealing? You pay for what you get in this case.

      • Aldo

        Assuming it’s as good…

  • longzoom

    If they were able to fight CA with this lens, it will be great, cose 35/45 are suffering a bit.

    • chkchkboom

      CA is probably a trade-off to other optical attributes that they wanted preserved. Correcting for undesired effects like CA or vignetting would also make it pricier and heavier. This thing is already twice the weight to the Nikon. I’ll take the CA!

      • longzoom

        Why not, if you know what you are doing.

        • nwcs

          All lens designs are a compromise of some sort.

    • Albert

      Tamron’s 35 has less CA than the Nikkor.

      • jason Keefer

        Far less…

      • longzoom

        Test on Tam 35 from reliable source (Photozone) clearly shows huge amount of CA.

        • Albert

          I don’t know what ‘huge amount’ means. I do know that in measurements, it has less than the Nikkor 35 f/1.8G and less than the Canon 35 f/2 IS. Personally, I have not had any issues with it, and find it fairly easy to clean (seconds) when it does appear.

          • longzoom

            You should take a look before posting. Amount of CA is absolutely unacceptable, by any means.

            • Albert

              First of all, I actually *own* the lens, as opposed to just talk about it. Second of all, I am not impressed with shots of CA, since most lenses have this issue, especially wide open.

              http://www.lenstip.com/455.5-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_35_mm_f_1.8_Di_VC_USD_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

              “The Canon 2/35 IS had very similar results in this category but its maximum level was a bit higher (i.e. worse). The Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35G fared worse practically at all aperture value for a change. Once again the Sigma A 1.4/35 is the most serious rival of the Tamron – it had results of 0.03-0.06% which were only slightly better depending on the aperture value.”

    • jason Keefer

      The exceptionally well regarded Sigma demonstrates more CA than the Tamron… But internet heroes always mention it in regards to the Tamron but never in regards to the Sigma…. Maybe it’s because you’ve never actually used these lenses?

      • longzoom

        Of course, my friend, I’ve never used new Tam 85. If have I only known you had used all of them, I’d have never posted such the things. So till you are posting direct comparison, I’ll think your post is nasty and ignorant.

  • scott800

    if it allows me to finally ‘handhold’ an 85mm prime for video work, i’m in. I shoot extremely light and only use a viewfinder as a stabilization tool when shooting video handheld. Getting shots with this 85 could eliminate some of my dependence on monopods and tripods for different types of shoots.

    • Eric Calabros

      With DSLR your viewfinder is dark during video recording, and with A7 series you already have IBIS, no need for optical VR. So I didn’t get what you mean.

      • scott800

        I meant to say loupe, like a zfinder. I shoot d750s still/video at the same time.

  • dclivejazz

    Depending on the performance and build quality, it might be worth the price. But it seems expensive for a 1.8, even with VR.

    • AlphaTed

      As for the quality of the image, it’ll be hard to beat the Nikon 85mm.
      I think this lens will benefit those who take videos more, and those who really needs VR/VS/OS. I must admit, I’m getting to close to needing stabilization, and luckily not yet!

      But this thing is heavy, it better be built like a bazooka. I doubt though.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        the tamron chart showed that it was “way” better than the Nikon so it might be woth the upgrade. we will just have to wait for the tests 😉

        • nwcs

          And it’s hard for people to make snap judgments when they haven’t even had this new lens to actually compare against the Nikon.

        • AlphaT

          It’s not standard. MTF charts should only be compared with charts from the same manufacturer. Can’t compare charts from different manufacturers.

      • fanboy fagz

        true, this would be great for videogs but otoh MANY I know sold their 5d3 and C100 in favor of the A7SII which has IBIS. they are slowly selling their lenses as well and going with ART lenses solely.

        If they priced it at 600 and it was MUCH better than the nikonfrom open aperture then yes itd be worth it.

        I have the old POS 85 1,8D and its no slouch. its fast as shit in AF but the G lens is sharper about 2/3 stop till f/4. meaning you have to stop the D lens down another 2/3 stop to get the same sharpness. from f/4 they are both razors. G has nicer bokeh but again, the D is no slouch. I wont upgrade though cause the build is garbage and the AF is slow. cmon sigma great lens at a killer price.

    • Justtakethepicture

      …and weather sealing.

  • It’s Tamron. Price drops quicker than any other brands, it will cost the same or less than the Nikon right after Christmas.

    • nwcs

      That was the old Tamron. That old style thinking hasn’t held up for their SP lenses.

      • fanboy fagz

        yes, youre right. tamron and sigma (tokina didnt get the memo yet) want a chunk of the pot and theyre giving excellent offerings. price wise I think though the tamrons primes are getting a bit snobbish with pricing and the 50 ART is too high as well. it needs to come down to $650 or so. but I admire them for turning the tables around. what an effort. nikon lenses vs the art equivalent lenses are not the same level. this is new era.

        lets not get carried away though. the majority of sigma lenses are still the same old school crap quality but slowly they will update the majority of their lineup. what a sight to see in weddings I shot when I see more and more ART lens users.

        • nwcs

          It’s hard for me to say that they are priced high or not. I’d let the market decide that. Since we haven’t seen the lenses out there and really used (not snap judgment reviews like most camera/lens reviews tend to be) we can’t judge the value. But times have also changed and with the evaporation of the market the prices are going to trend higher for those of us who have been around a while.

          My experience with non-art sigma lenses is that it depends on what you get. Their 105 macro, 70-200, 150-500, and 50-500 lenses are quite good and they have a good reputation for their non-art 50 and 85. Certainly some of their cheap consumer stuff is cheap. Nikon’s cheap consumer stuff is optically pretty good but breaks very easily.

        • Justtakethepicture

          The 50mm Art needs to be $650??

          ahahahaha

    • decentrist

      you’re dreaming

      • Definitely not.
        Tamron introduction prices are always way ahead of the street price, which usually stabilize at 20-40% cheaper after some months.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      it won’t drop under 650$ (in my humble opinion)

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Wow… the Nikon AF85/1.8G is $475 at amazon.com, that extra $275 is all for the VR?

    • It’s probably better built too.

      • Jonathan

        I shoot Canon but generally try and keep abreast of what the various manufacturers are offering, at least at the 10,000 ft level. So I know that Nikon has an 85/1.8 and 1.4, but I don’t know much beyond that. I do know that the Tamron is weather sealed and has a 9-bladed aperture – if those are differentiators between the Nikon branded lenses (in addition to VR) then it may be a worthwhile purchase vs the native lens options. Honestly, I think this lens is more of a competitor to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. The Canon lens is VERY fast to focus, but a tad soft wide open and does suffer from purple fringing between f/1.8-2.2. At f/2.5 and smaller, it performs extremely well although it lacks great color and requires processing to make it really shine (vs the 85mm f/1.2 which is just awesome in the color department). If the Tamron is sharp wide open and doesn’t suffer from purple fringing – making it extremely usable at f/1.8, that adds a stop of light and more shallow depth of field vs the Canon 85/1.8 (which really needs f/2.5 to sing) and users also get stabilization and the rounded 9 bladed aperture (instead of 8 straight aperture blades). For Canon users, this is a pretty big upgrade UNLESS you need ultra fast focusing (the EF 85mm f/1.8 REALLY shines in AF speed – it’s one of Canon’s fastest focusing lenses and is frequently used for sports along with the 100mm f/2 and 135 f/2L).

      • fanboy fagz

        Im certain. the nikon 85 1.8g feels cheap and like a toy. hood is crap, plastic filter threads and slow AF. there were two sales that peter had here for the lens at $400. I wont upgrade. image quality is just abit better than my D but crap build and slow AF. no thanks.

        • decentrist

          The G is excellent at 1.8 where few if any lenses at that price point excel. The G has it over the D in wide open performance,bokeh,color rendition in poor light. You can have your metal filter threads and faster, less precise focus. Image quality trumps build quality here, as they are both relatively inexpensive glass.

          • fanboy fagz

            yes ill take the better build and metal threads and metal hood over that POS build 1.8G anyday. the focus is fast AND ACCURATE little girly. twice as fast. the 1.8d is no slouch. a new lens thats incrementally better comes out and all of a suddem the older gen is the shitiest lens every made. youre more a gear whore than a photographer.

            • decentrist

              you have no idea about me. you know even less about lenses. you’re just a loudmouth bully. the new G is better where it counts….image quality. tell me how many times you’re images have been complimented for your metal threads. Keep your D, it’s a fine lens. It’s old tech and good enough.

    • nwcs

      Brand new lens versus a severs year old one… Build may be different, VC, and maybe they are pricing to the market they want rather than the widget cost plus 10%. You know, like what photographers charge people: pricing to the level of customer they want.

    • preston

      No, it’s not. It has a much more complex optical design with more elements (meaning more cost to them) and a significantly higher build quality with weather sealing. The Nikon 1.8’s feel like plastic toys compared to the Tamron SP line. $750 is perfectly reasonable for this lens.

    • Justtakethepicture

      …and weather sealing. I’ve had a Nikkor f/1.8 G lens (not my 85mm) die on me because of lack of weather sealing. It’s the one thing about Nikon’s f/1.8 G lenses I don’t like.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Exsqueeze me? The lens didn’t fail because of lack of weather sealing, the lens failed because you did stuff with it that you shouldn’t be doing with a lens that’s not weather sealed… What’s next, snorkeling with your D4s and then blaming Nikon that it’s not water-tight?

        • Duncan Dimanche

          what a dumb comment.

          Him being caught by the rain while being outside could cause his 85mm to die on him… so yes weather sealing is super important.

          I’m pretty sure that he didn’t try to purposely beat up his 85mm.

          So please next time do us a favor and refrain yourself from esqueeezing yourself.

        • Justtakethepicture

          What an unadventurous photographer you must be. Sometimes you have no choice but to hope for the best. Oh, and by the way, I’m not complaining about it.

          My cameras and lenses are tools. Like all tools, sometimes they get broken doing the job.

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            Being a d**k would require surgery, no thanks, but by all means call me a c**nt, rather that letting us “know the exact circumstances in which my lens failed.”. Since you didn’t do that and resulted to insulting me instead, I still stand by my presumption that it was, how can I say this politely, “operator error”.

            • Justtakethepicture

              You think you can’t be a d**k because you’re a women? As for being insulting, perhaps you should re-read your reply to me, and have a think about that. I note also you failed to address the main content of my reply, yet again.

              As for your parting shot, what are you on about? I never blamed the lens for it’s failure, I merely indicated (in my original comment) that I wished the f/1.8’s were weather sealed. But hey, let’s not let my actual words get in the way of your spin.

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Your words: “I’ve had a Nikkor f/1.8 G lens (not my 85mm) die on me because of lack of weather sealing” Please do explain how this is “never blamed the lens for it’s failure”

            • Justtakethepicture

              Yeah, I said it died on me because of lack of weather sealing. Where in that sentence do I say it’s the lens fault?

              Stop wasting my time.

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              So… The lens died due to lack of weather sealing, but it’s not your fault and it’s not the lens’ fault. Gotcha…

            • Justtakethepicture

              So… you can’t find where I said it was the lens fault, and resort to sarcasm instead.

              Here’s another one for you… please point out where I said it wasn’t my fault. Don’t worry, it’s a trick question. I never said it wasn’t my fault.

              I guess you’re just spoiling for a argument, but I can’t be bothered to play any more. Maybe you can find someone else to have a pointless argument with.

  • AlphaTed

    Maybe it’s just me, but to me it looks like Tamron’s design now closely resembles Sigma Art lenses rather than Nikon’s?

    • fanboy fagz

      close. they do have that nice smooth clean finish vs nikons textured finish. I dont like that silver trim at all though. but truthfully its an excellent “feature”

      I change lenses very often in wedding on the dance floor in low lighting and the silver to black contrast on the body helps for mounting.

  • Ritvar Krum

    Tamrons pricing start to get out of hand… Overpriced the highly appreciated Nikkor 1.8G – not a smart move… I wonder if Tamron would choose 85 1.4 – then what – a 3000$ ? even though Tamrons last lenses has a touch better optics than Nikkor 15-30 and 35 1.8 wins nikkor equivalents both in prices and optics – Tamron still must win in price category too or else people will lose too much money in resell value. For me reaction to Tamrons 45 1.8 was like: “what??? a 50mm f1.8 in 600$ price category ?? go home Tamron you’re drunk” and with this is the same – price is out of hand, yes it is expected to be supersharp at wide open – so what – it is nothing new from sigma Art line (and as I recall Art line prices are still in tact with reality – so I hope Tamron fails with this one and gets the leason, so Sigma also do not get the funny ideas)

    • nwcs

      That Nikon 1.8 is good (I had one for a year) but VC is very handy and worth a premium. I hope Tamron and Sigma succeed.

      • fanboy fagz

        I hope so too but the prices need to come down. $550, ok, but not $750. it wont go.

        • nwcs

          If they don’t sell any it’ll go down but what if the performance is significantly better than the Nikon’s in actual practice?

          • fanboy fagz

            $550 is what I think it should sell for. it has VC and is better so its worth more than the nikon, lets say $650, but its a 3rd party lens so drop it another 100 at 550. thats a fair price. lets wait and see, im certain its better than the already excellent 85 1.8G but not $750 better.

            • nwcs

              Maybe, although I don’t do the $100 discount for it being third party. But then again I wish Zeiss would discount below Nikon equivalent so I could justify buying it. 🙂

            • fanboy fagz

              the zeiss is really stellar but for my line of work, AF in the fast paced weddings is a must. I had the 84 1.4 AIS and traded that for the AF 85 1.8D. its very hard to use MF with moving subjects and it being 1.4 and very sharp, you dont want to use at times for single subjects, but very difficult.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              fanboy 750$ is what you will pay to get VR, weather sealed better IQ AND probably faster AF.

              So that’s a very decent price

              If you want weather sealed from nikon then you will have to pay 1600$ for it’s 1,4 version.

              So CHEER UP ! and the good news is that NO one will force you to buy it at that price

            • fanboy fagz

              I dont care for weather sealing at all. thanks for your concern mom.

  • Captain Insane-O

    I’ll be purchasing the 90 macro over this. Nikon needs to drop ibis now that a cheap pentax d810 competitor is being released with a ton of features.

    • Nikon will NEVER make a DSLR with IBIS in our life time. Don’t wait around for it.

      • nwcs

        IBIS has its uses but it’s also only effective for a fairly narrow range of focal lengths. Ideal would be having both or something but I don’t think we’ll see it, either. VR is most effective when it can be tuned to the lens’ characteristics.

      • Captain Insane-O

        Never said I was. But they have to follow market trends. BMW was never going to turbo m cars… Now you have no choice. Adapt or die

  • Fandi

    the price should be $450-500.

    • nwcs

      How do you determine that?

    • Duncan Dimanche

      nope it shouldn’t !
      it has better IQ/sharpness that the 500$ priced Nikon 85mm and adds VR…. and in a year or two it will probably be priced at 650$ and yes I would pay that price to get that lens

      • Patrick O’Connor

        How can you judge its IQ? And, more to the point, if it were better, would you be able to see the difference at normal viewing distance (print) or on the typical monitor (internet)?
        VR, of course, is worth something.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          VR AND weather sealed
          (and that last one is HUGE for some people)
          and probable faster AF (hopefully because the Nikon ain’t fast at all)

          On paper as I posted earlier, the IQ chart shows the tamron being significantly higher. Wether you or other people will see the difference that’s an other question but with a 36mpx camera yes I believe that people will see the difference.

          And you know that the sharpness is what people a crazy/stupid about much like higher megapixels in cameras

          IT’s biggest rival will be the Sigma ART in my opinion because of: f1,4 weight and price

          anyway Cheers guys 🙂

      • Konstantinos

        How do you know it’s sharper than the 85 f1.8G? No tests out so far…

        • Duncan Dimanche

          Tamron on the left
          Nikon on the right

          • Konstantinos

            Duncan you shouldn’t compare mtf charts from different manufacturers, they don’t mean much. I would say let’s wait and see what happens. I am also searching for an 85mm

    • Justtakethepicture

      lol

  • nukunukoo

    It’s expected, considering Tamron’s latest have been giving Nikon a run for its monies. The good news here is that Tamron and Sigma prices fall down quite a good bit after six to nine months and are extremely competitively priced after a year.

  • fanboy fagz

    I would have preferred a 1.8 version with no VC and amazing performance for the same price as the nikon. ill wait for the sigma 85 for $850

  • What strikes me is the weight of all those new Sigma and Tamron lenses, Art lenses are really heavy, the 20mm 1.4 is around 1kg, this 85mm VC is double the weight of the Nikon version and nearly as heavy as a 300mm f4 PF! The stabilization is a very welcome addition at 85mm though, the lack of it made me chose the 70-200 2.8 VR over the 85mm in very low light usually … cause I can shoot handhold still portraits at 1/20 where I would make a mess with the 85mm 1.8 at 1/50 🙂

  • Aaron

    I have a Nikon 85 1.4G so I wouldn’t be buying this lens but it has more lens elements, more diaphragm blades, Image Stabilization, and weather sealed over the Nikon 85 1.8G. It will probably produce better results, however, we won’t know until we see some side by side comparisons. I can, however, see the price difference here so I don’t quite understand why people are fussing over the price. Show me a lens with these stats in the 85mm 1.8 range at a lower price point.

  • This will not replace my NIKKOR 85mm 1.4G!! Because SIGMA did replace my 58 1.4G with it’s 50mm!

    • nwcs

      That’s an interesting comparison I’ve been thinking about. The Sigma 50 Art with the 58 1.4. What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of both?

      I wouldn’t expect the Tamron to replace the 85 1.4G. The Nikon 1.8 wouldn’t replace it, either. I have the 1.4G and had the 1.4D even the 1.4D wouldn’t replace the 1.4G for me.

      • In my honest opinion, theSigma 50mm 1.4 ART is significantly sharper (and better?) compared to Nikon 58 1.4G (Mounted on a D810). I was skeptical on purchasing the Sigma at first because it’s a 3rd party brand and I want to keep a good line on NIKKOR glass. But after borrowing from a friend and testing it on my shoot, there’s a big difference in sharpness, especially on sweet f-stops like f/4 and f/8. And even at wide open 1.4, the Nikon 58mm has shown more softness.
        It’s not all bad for Nikon. The bokeh seems “creamier” and seems to reduce more flare.
        Sigma has a tiny bit of speed on AF, but not that bothering in my opinion.
        Lastly, Sigma is huge and heavier – it might be a con if ever you wanna go lightweight.

        • nwcs

          Hmm. I like sharp but ultimate sharpness isn’t my thing. Same with bokeh. Thanks for the comments.

  • Muhammed

    As others have stated, the Nikon 85mm 1.8G is VERY highly regarded. This lens would have to be significantly better to justify the price. None of us can predict the future, but many are anticipating an 85mm 1.4 ART from Sigma. Assuming similar pricing (because they’d have to price lower than Nikon’s 85 1.4) it would become even more difficult to justify the Tamron.

    When it comes down to number of elements and build, it sometimes seems as though Nikon consciously makes a decision to keep weight down. I love my Sigma 35mm ART, but i’d be lying if I said I liked the weight.

    I can’t wait to see the results from this lens but it would have to be stellar to justify the price premium against Nikon’s 1.8G.

    • nwcs

      They don’t have to price lower than Nikon for a 85 1.4 Art. The 50 Art is more than double the Nikon’s price. If the 85 Art is as superb (even though the 1.4G is a very high bar) it could easily be priced above it.

      • Muhammed

        Good point. The Nikon 50mm 1.4G isn’t known for its sharpness, and the Sigma is priced competitively according to it’s performance. The Nikon 85mm 1.8G however has an excellent reputation, and the Nikon 1.4G is well f/1.4. Will be interesting to see the performance from this lens. If price is any indicator, we should be prepared to be blown away. If the performance is stellar, there isn’t any competition with VC/VR today. Will be interesting to see what Sigma has up their sleeve. I’m secretly hoping for a 135mm since we don’t have many great choices on the Nikon side (and the Canon version is nothing short of amazing).

    • Jarret O’Shea

      I think the other potential improvement for Tamron would be AF speed (at least in my experience, the 85 has fairly slow AF.) If the Tamron lens is a) at least as sharp b) has VC and c) has faster AF, then I can seen how the premium is justified. It’s probably not enough to make many people switch, but it might be enough to sway those who don’t have an 85 to go with Tamron over Nikon.

  • Shutterbug

    The VC is definitely worth something, but I doubt this lens is worth $300 more than the Nikon 85/1.8G which is pretty damn amazing for the price.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      NIKON 500$

      Tamron 750$ (VR,weather sealed and higher IQ)

      • purenupe1

        seriously…if you haven’t had or used the lens you need to stop preaching the qualities of its IQ

        • KnightPhoto

          Don’t agree. Based on MTF and track record of the other two Tammy VR primes it looks promising. Admittedly that’s all we have for now and sure we can’t compare MTF across manufacturers, but heck a sharp, weather sealed VR 85mm lens for $750 at intro price seems like a good deal. I see others in this thread pronouncing how good the Sigma 85 Art will be and that isn’t even announced yet 😉

  • Aldo

    VR gives me a slightly smudged look. I have it off most of the time even handheld.

    • nwcs

      Really, that’s how it should be. VR should be a last resort not a default.

      • Huh, I use it when my camera’s on a tripod. Is that not right?

        • jonra01

          No, you are supposed to turn it off when using a tripod. That’s according to Nikon manuals.

        • nwcs

          It is not optimal but sometimes it is the only choice.

        • Gotcha…:-)

          • nwcs

            Not really, I knew you were being facetious. But for the sake of someone who may not I replied like you weren’t.

  • Aaron

    Since when did Nikon Rumors become a trolling website. Read the specs, look at the samples, make your own educated comparisons and buy what is within budget.

  • Justtakethepicture

    Why is everyone forgetting the weather sealing on this lens?

    To get weather sealing on one of Nikon own prime lens you have to step up to the f/1.4’s, priced way above what this lens costs.

    It’s not just “$300 for VR”.

    • fanboy fagz

      nonsense. the 1.8G has weather sealing as well

      • Duncan Dimanche

        really ? you are the only one aware of that weather sealing… Nikon themself are not aware of it ! lol

        NIKON 500$
        Tamron 750$ (VR,weather sealed and higher IQ)

        #worthit

        • Albert

          True, but the very slow AF in the Nikkor to me is its biggest drawback. About a full second to go through the range. This limits its applications.

          • fanboy fagz

            extremely slow. the 1.8d is twice as fast as the 1.8g

        • fanboy fagz

          im certain the IQ will be better. im not certain regarding AF and I dont give a rats ass for sealing. the lens will not sell at $750 but thats my opinion. if you want buy it. I havent made the jump to the 1.8g because for my needs its not good. im not a like sheep and buy it just because its newer than 1.8d. it could be better but Ive shot with the 1.8g. horribly slow. Im patient to wait for the right product.

          I bodybuild and prefer the heft and weight. stabilized better with my cameras.

          Nikon is $475
          tamron is not worth it. and I promise you that in 3 months the price will come down 100 bucks. wait and see. lets hope they fix the ca issue

          • Albert

            Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have the Tamron 35 f/1.8 and it is a winner. Fantastic IQ, close focusing, VC, weather sealing. Amazing lens.

            As to the CA in the Nikkor… I think it is obvious the Tamron will do better than it. Their 35 already has less than all the competition, Nikon or Canon.

            • fanboy fagz

              ca from the nikon? the ca from the tamron is very bad.

            • Albert

              Bad? It has less CA than all 35 lenses.

        • purenupe1

          Are you using the MTF chart as proof of IQ?

      • Albert

        None of Nikkor’s f/1.8G primes have weather sealing.

        • fanboy fagz

          has a gasket on the rear. whats that there for? I shoot the BG outdoors in the winter and summer and couldnt give a rats ass about weather sealing. a lot of people nitpick and im certain a very tiny percentage take their gear out in bad weather.

      • Justtakethepicture

        I own several of Nikon’s f/1.8 G lenses (including the 85mm), and none of them are weather sealed.

        You should probably use Google before shooting your mouth off.

        • fanboy fagz

          the rear gasket is there for no reason. wait. youre that dumb to buy so many G lenses? the crappy plastic lenses with slow AF? maybe you shouldnt have opened your mouth. I wouldnt buy that overpriced garbage.

          • Justtakethepicture

            You think a bayonet gasket constitutes weather sealing? You are a funny guy.

            • fanboy fagz

              no youre right. the gasket doesnt mean a tighter seal against the elements. what was I thinking..silly me. half of my lenses are not weather sealed and I shoot BG all year around. summer winter and we dont location shoots for them in rain in the blistering heat on the beach and have yet to have an issue with needed a sealed lens. weather sealing is overrated.

              those who goto expeditions and shoot in the nonstop rain and snow would benefit from it and even then they use a cover. those NG shooter have a tarp they sit under in the harsh rain. why wouldnt they use it. they dont need to prove anything. if youre “stuck” in the bad weather and need to shoot then so be it but they use tarps because why the need to take a chance. nikon doesnt warrantee against water damage.

              do you shoot in such environments that youd be so brave and take out your gear in heavy rain?

            • Justtakethepicture

              A mount gasket seals the mount. It doesn’t help all the other points of ingress on a lens.

              I use my weather sealed kit without extra protection in the rain, yes. Torrential rain? No, of course not.

            • fanboy fagz

              I shoot couples when its raining lightly but maybe for a minute and I dont worry but I wouldnt take a chance with any lens or camera in the full rain. no matter how weather sealed it is.

              nikon doesnt guarantee its sealed and it wont hold when you go there with your water drenched gear and say “I was shooting in the rain because you said its sealed” they dont give a rats ass and will laugh at you. and people who do go shoot in the rain dont go without any cover. they go prepared. I go with large ziploc bags with me JIC.

              you have to be an idiot (not you ,the person unless thats you) to see it rainig outside and say yea, lets go out and be brave and shoot in the rain because nikon says its weather sealed. try saying that to nikon and see if they dont say to you “the damage will cost $xxxx”

              I go out when its cloudy and take a chance because I prefer shooting the couple outdoors but hope I dont get caught in the rain. but I shoot short and I have ziploc bags JIC. but to go out unprepared..? dumb ass

            • Justtakethepicture

              I’m not in the habit of breaking my gear, but if it gets broke, I replace it. Not sure what your point is to be honest. What does it matter to you what I do with my gear?

            • fanboy fagz

              replace it or repair it? point is, sealing is overrated and worth nothing.

  • purenupe1

    Value is determined by the limit at which consumers will pay for the product…..for me $750 is unreasonable. So I would choose the Nikon 1.8G based on current information.

  • Back to top