Opinions of my Tamron 70-300 effort..

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Opinions of my Tamron 70-300 effort..

Postby spartikus on Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:34 pm

Image

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?
Chris
photoblog
User avatar
spartikus
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: Perth, W.A. - dee-seventy

Postby ozimax on Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:15 pm

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 :)
President, A.A.A.A.A (Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Canon EOS R6, RF 24-105 F4, RF 70-200 F4, RF 35mm F1.8, RF 16mm F2.8
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
User avatar
ozimax
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5289
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:58 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW

Postby HappyFotographer on Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:49 am

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
"Sometimes when you are sad Poko, it's good to hug the monkey."
User avatar
HappyFotographer
Member
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:58 pm
Location: Mnt Riverview Blue Mountains - Nikon D70

Postby meicw on Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:04 pm

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
meicw
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Melbourne (Reservoir), Canon 5D

Postby Heath Bennett on Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:22 pm

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.
HB
User avatar
Heath Bennett
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: Morisset/Bonnells Bay

Hi

Postby yeocsa on Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:36 pm

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
yeocsa
Senior Member
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Greg B on Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:46 pm

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. :D
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby spartikus on Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:38 pm

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
Chris
photoblog
User avatar
spartikus
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: Perth, W.A. - dee-seventy


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques