Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Tamron 70-300 VR - PLEASANT SURPRISE!  (Read 4388 times)
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 464


« on: October 20, 2012, 02:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all:
Probably 90% of my work is with wide angle lenses, so I try to use the very best (using Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 18mm and Zeiss 35mm f2). For the rare times I use longer lenses, I purchased a VERY economical lens (had a $100 rebate). It is BETTER than adequate. Here is a low res JPG and low res 100% crop (actual pixels). Even at 300mm and f16, it is surprisingly good. Camera was the D800E VR was "ON".
Best regards
Dave in NJ
Logged
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 464


« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2012, 02:18:44 PM »
ReplyReply

For some reason the full size file did not upload. Here it is
Dave
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2012, 07:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Dave
I was happily surprised with the IQ of my Tamron 24-70 VR
Perhaps Tamron is trying to improve their image?
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Chris Kern
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2012, 11:04:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I purchased a VERY economical lens (had a $100 rebate). It is BETTER than adequate. Here is a low res JPG and low res 100% crop (actual pixels). Even at 300mm and f16, it is surprisingly good. Camera was the D800E VR was "ON".

My reaction is similar.  The build quality is better than I would expect at its price-point—which would be attractive even without the $100 rebate—and the contrast and colors are excellent.  What really surprised me, given my experience with Nikon's VR, is how aggressive and effective Tamron's Vibration Correction is.  I don't have the steadiest of hands, but I've made handheld 300mm shots at shutter speeds as low as 1/200 that showed no evidence of motion blur.  (My usual metric of 1/2x<focal length> is what I used for the attached image, however.)  As you say, a very pleasant surprise.
Logged
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2012, 04:28:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm very pleased with mine. The only thing I know of that's better is Canon's L lens that costs about 3 times as much. I think you'd have to go for primes otherwise.
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062


« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 04:53:00 PM »
ReplyReply

i was hoping for a pleasant surprise when i tested the Tamron against the Canon 70-300 L and 70-200 f4 - unfortunately i found a pretty big difference in center resolution and very big difference at the edges (the Tamron had the asymetrical performance away form the center typical of too many zooms) at longer focal lengths - no pleasant surprise - and bought the 70-200 and 1.4xiii as the 70-300L is not nearly as pleasant to shoot with.

unfortunately Nikon has nothing to compare to the Canon 70-300 L or 70-200 f4
Logged
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 05:05:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sure the the Canon L is better but it's hardly a fair comparison at 3 times the price. One day I may get one but for now I'm very happy with the Tamron. Neither Canon's similarly priced 70-300 or Sigma's seem as good. 70-200 is just too short to fit with my other lenses as well as 70-300.
Logged

joneil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2012, 10:49:17 AM »
ReplyReply

  Canon, Nikon, Tamron, etc, all seem to have a decent low cost 70 to 300mm zooms.  I bought the Nikon one, and wasn't all that happy with it.  It's not a bad lens by any means, it's not bad at all, but at the full 300mm extention I found it a bit soft.  Mileage for others might vary.   I ended up trading it back in, and went back to some of my old Nikkor glass.   I found my old 300mm F4 manual focus Nikkor was sharper, and true no VR, no AF, but I often use a monopod to begin with and it's not all that hard to focus at infinity.  Smiley

    Also I have one of those old 70-210 constant F4 Nikkor zooms that Nikon only made for a couple of years,  I think that was back a good 20 yers now.  Anyhow,  I find it an extremely sharp lens.  No VR, and some people complained the AF on it was too slow compared to other lenses, but when I compared side by side shots - say that lens and my 70-300, both set at 100mm or 200mm for example, the older Nikkor was always seemed to have that better edge, clarity, sharpness, etc.  Again, for others, your mileage may and will vary.  Sometimes arguing over which brand of lens is the "sharpest" is like arguing which brand of ice cream tastes best.  Smiley

    So for me, at the lower level, some of the work I have seen done first hand with Tamron and Sigma lenses, I think they have come a long, long way from years ago.  At the pro level I find the Canon and Nikon lenses still the best overall, especially with zooms.   
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad