DSLRUsers.com

Taken earlier today with my Tamron 70-300mm. I find this lens to be a bit soft, not as sharp as my kit lens, fairly heavily applied sharpening in this image..

Thoughts?

Nice image Spart, don't particularly like the crop tho', it's hard to say much about the seagull because they are photographed a million times each day. The Tamron lens isn't a world beater but adequate, but hey, it's not the lens anyway but the person pressing the shutter...

Max

Hi Spartikus

I have the Tamron as well, and find that it can produce good images and a lot not so good. It's a budget lens, so it's not going to be as good as some, but that doesn't mean it won't produce for you. Some members on this forum have produced some amazing images with the same lens......

This shot, although basic subject, to me shows a sharp main object with a nicely blurred background. I think in that regard it is a winner.

Keep practicing with it, learn its weak areas and strong ones. For me I find it frustrating to shoot sports with it, it hunts for too long to focus.....but as I don't have access to another long lens I can't be sure if it is my Sony technique or just the lens.

Cheers
Deb

Hi Spart. IMHO, nothing wrong with the shot technically. While it might not be as 'crisp' as some taken with the more expensive gear, the exposure is spot on. While I would have tried to include the gull's legs, I think that the shot is good. I have a couple of Tamron lenses, and I am happy with the results I get. I would love to be able to afford a Nikkor long zoom, but I can't. That is why why I have just bought a secondhand Tamron 200-400 f5.6. Some of the shots I have taken with it so far have been good. As has been said, its the person behind the lens that counts.
Regards
Meicw

I agree with most of the above (sharpness etc). One difference in the more expensive equipment IMHO is the quality of the bokeh. It is much more 'smooth'. The bokeh in the seagull image (on my monitor at least), could be better.

For nikon gear, as far as handling goes, the AF-S allows a D70 feel much faster, not to mention quieter with SWM.

For non- zooms: I own a Tamron 90mm Macro and am very happy with it, but after using the Nikon 105 2.8 I can tell you which I'd prefer, even considering price.

I believe that at the end of the day however, the person who buys the rights to my shots or sees them in a magazine would never be able to tell the difference. Only professional photographers will!

I guess in the end one of the biggest deal makers is the resale value of the more expensive equipment. If you take care of it and buy it at the best price, lenses can cost very little at the bottom line.

Hi

That's a good shot of the gull. Nice exposure, sharpness and background bokeh. What more can you ask of the lens? this tamron is a pretty good performer here. if you want more sharpness, use a solid tripod.

regards,

Arthur

spartikus, I agree with all of the above. There is nothing wrong with your shot (except maybe the cropping, and that isn't a lens issue)

The Tamron 70-300 was the first additional lens I bought. For the money, you can't go wrong, it gives decent results at good reach, and the 1:2 macro isn't bad at all. Pretty good for $250 +/-

Obviously, the budget lenses (the Tamron Sigma and Nikon 70-300 s) are not going to perform like lenses costing 10 times as much, but they are very serviceable and provide a good deal of enjoyment while you try and justify spending a great deal more.

cheers for all the excellent comments guys -- it's great to get an opinion other than my girlfriends, who just said "wow, it's a seagull!"

I agree that the bokeh isn't as smooth as some other lenses, but I think my biggest problem is trying to shoot stuff at 300mm without a tripod in low light with high ISO. I took some other shots of a kookaburra the same day, and they were terrible!

I just think I need to do more practice, as I have since found a great deal of shots with the Tamron and they're great!

cheers

spartikus