Tamron 85 f1.8. Are you happy with it?

Does the lens work seamlessly?

Did its AF need to be micro-adjusted? If so did you do it with a camera or you needed to order the dock station?

Are you setisfied with its VR system?

I don't have one, but the Tamron looked very tempting to me, partly because the sample images showed much less visible LoCA than the Nikkor f/1.8. The problem, at least when I last looked, was that it was quite pricey for an f/1.8 lens, and the Sigma f/1.4 Art 85mm has rave reviews while having a relatively small price differential for an f/1.4 vs f/1.8 comparison. No VR, though.

I'll be interested in what those who've used it have to say...

I'm currently trying to decide between the new Tamon 90mm 2.8 macro, the 85mm Tamron 1.8 (£550) and the 85mm ART from Sigma. (£800)

For out-and-out sharpness the Sigma wins, but it's twice the price of the 90mm macro.... with the 85mm inbetween.

The Tarmon is a genuine 1:1 macro but 'only' 2.8 but is a bargain at around £440

Equally VR could be kinda handly for handheld portrait though!

* all prices a 'grey'

I have the pre-VR version of the 90mm f/2.8 macro (with slip clutch). It has significant LoCA (for an f/2.8 lens), but it's respectably sharp; allegedly the Tokina macro in the same range was a little better for LoCA. The VR version of the macro (which came out after I got one) also appears to be better, although I'd got the 150mm Sigma macro for working distance (which also has better LoCA control, and is a better substitute for a 135DC when I don't want my 200 f/2) by then. I'd intended to make the Tamron do double duty as a short (on FX) portrait lens, but found I wanted more isolation and went through a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 (cheap but manual focus is annoying) and Nikkor 85mm AF-S (AF, but LoCA is annoying). so I'll probably substitute the Sigma when I'm feeling rich enough to use something that's not a 70-200 for this kind of thing. The Tamron macro still gets occasional use because it's small and light (although not as much as it would be if it didn't have such a deeply recessed front element), but that's less true of the other lenses we're discussing.

...all of which won't help ruslan much other than to suggest that I didn't find an f/2.8 lens of this focal length to be a sufficient substitute for a true portrait lens. But then, I shoot in places with ugly backgrounds that I want to go away.