Imagining things?

[Abitconfused]

I have a Nikon 28-300mm and a Tamron 24-70mm. I use PhotoLab 4 and Camera Raw 13 to process images. It seems to me that images from the Nikon are easier to make sharp and full of color while images from the Tamron require some extra effort in post-production but also seem to have a WOW factor I do not get as often from the Nikon. Am I quite mad?

[xpatUSA]

I have a Nikon 28-300mm and a Tamron 24-70mm. I use PhotoLab 4 and Camera Raw 13 to process images. It seems to me that images from the Nikon are easier to make sharp and full of color while images from the Tamron require some extra effort in post-production but also seem to have a WOW factor I do not get as often from the Nikon. Am I quite mad?

I neither own nor use any of the above, Ed, but I have read that some lenses do have more WOW that others -often to do with contrast curves, aka MTF.

So it may well be that the Nikon has more "poke" at 30 lp/mm whereas the Tamron excels at 10 lp/mm ...

Ergo, you are not mad, IMHO.

[Manfred M]

I have a Nikon 28-300mm and a Tamron 24-70mm. I use PhotoLab 4 and Camera Raw 13 to process images. It seems to me that images from the Nikon are easier to make sharp and full of color while images from the Tamron require some extra effort in post-production but also seem to have a WOW factor I do not get as often from the Nikon. Am I quite mad?

No, not mad at all.

All of the major camera manufacturers, especially their pro lenses, are designed to give a similar look from lens to lens. Things like colour, sharpness, micro-contrast, bokeh are all designed in to be consistent across the line. If you are used to OEM lenses and buy a third party lens, this is to be expected.

I remember in my youth that Zeiss lenses were viewed as having great sharpness but a steely rendition whereas Leica lenses were known for their creamy bokeh and great micro-contrast.

[Stagecoach]

I have a Nikon 28-300mm and a Tamron 24-70mm. I use PhotoLab 4 and Camera Raw 13 to process images. It seems to me that images from the Nikon are easier to make sharp and full of color while images from the Tamron require some extra effort in post-production but also seem to have a WOW factor I do not get as often from the Nikon. Am I quite mad?

Having used both Nikon and Tamron lenses (Tamron far less often now) I really did not notice any difference. Differences in lighting conditions made the results of either manufacturers lens far more significant than any difference noticeable between manufacturers.