I know this doesnt belong, but need help: Tamron 18-200mm.

[jdubb21]

Just purchased one, and am not very happy at all with it. my photos always seem "dreamy", not sharp. i try over and over and over, even with a tripod, and am still not happy with it AT ALL. whether im zooming in or takin a simple portrait, its still has this "dreamy" "bubbly" effect. this is what i found online.


Lenses are designed for exclusive use on digital cameras with smaller-size imagers and inherit all of the benefits of our Di products. These lenses are not designed for conventional cameras and digital cameras with image sensors larger than 24mm x 16mm.


I am using a Canon 20D. should i return??? unless you guys have any tips for me.

[JackProton]

Hyperzooms like the Tamron 18-200mm incorporate many design compromises in order to pack such large focal length range into such a small lens. As a result, these sorts of lenses tend to lack sharpness (that "dreamy" quality as you so poetically called it). This will be particularly evident when the lens is used wide open at its maximum aperture. You should, however, see a fair amount of improvement in sharpness by stopping down the lens to f/8 or even f/11.

I have the old Tamron 28-200mm and the images are quite useable for small-medium prints by f/8. If you find the level of sharpness still doesn't suit your needs even at f/8 then I would suggest trying out the Sigma 17-70mm f/2-4.5 instead.

[tough_dog]

The new Tamron 18-250mm uses different glass and is far superior to the older 18-200. Here's the photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_18250_3563_canon/index.htm

I just bought one for my 20D and took it to Hawaii for two weeks with no other lens. It produced very sharp photos if stopped down just one stop from max aperture, even at 250mm. There's no IS so needs good outdoor light or a tripod at the long end. Otherwise, it served as the perfect travel lens.

[Maxed Out]

nicely worded and yes the sigma 17-70 is very nice

[gasrocks]

I think you would be happier with 2 or 3 zooms in its place. Good quality zooms.

[Tony-S]

Just purchased one, and am not very happy at all with it. my photos always seem "dreamy", not sharp.

Can you post a couple of examples and the EXIF data?

[jdubb21]

Can you post a couple of examples and the EXIF data?




http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/7655/mg4486ab4.jpg




***had already deleted the RAW, cant supply EXIF data. :o

[jdubb21]

another,



http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6466/mg4469copymf3.jpg

[Tony-S]

Well, it doesn't look all that bad. I should have asked you to post a 100% crop of your focal point. Your sensor needs cleaned, but for an 18-200 you have a reasonable image. Here's your EXIF data, btw:

Exif Properties

Aperture Value 6
Color Space 65535
Date Time Original 2007:06:22 18:50:23
Exposure Bias Value 0.67
Exposure Program 4
Exposure Time 0.00625
Flash 16
FNumber 8
Focal Length 42
ISO Speed Ratings 100
Metering Mode 5
Pixel X Dimension 533
Pixel Y Dimension 800
Shutter Speed Value 7.321928

[JackProton]

I agree with Tony-S -- hard to tell without a 100% crop but there's nothing very obviously wrong showing at this size. The background is soft which is to be expected and works very nicely in this shot IMHO. There's also some small motion blurring from wind.

[oldsquawk]

Did you perform any sharpening to the images? Almost all digital images need sharpening to some dgree. Use unsharp mask in Photoshop and see if you like the images better.

[Mark Kemp]

Yep, it looks about as sharp as these hyperzooms get. I have a 28 - 300 Sigma myself and its about the same, give or take a bit for aperture, shake etc.

My Canon L glass eats it for lunch and spits out the bits as far as quality is concerned, but sometimes you just can't afford the size and weight so a bit of compromise is in order.

I don't think there is anything wrong with your lens, the quality is OK, but not fantastic. It seems from your comments that you want fantatstic, if so your gonna need a bigger bag and bigger muscles.

[elguapo]

I wonder how this lens will compare to the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 with OS?

[jdubb21]

Did you perform any sharpening to the images? Almost all digital images need sharpening to some dgree. Use unsharp mask in Photoshop and see if you like the images better.


i did some sharpening, yes. but it was a little too much. i cant get it sharpend to the point where im happy. but thanks everyone for the tips

[mdrtoys]

I had the Tamron for about two years and it produced a lot og great images, but they all needed sharpening.


If you want, PM me and I'll give you the method and settings I used to do so (if you have photoshop or elements)

[jaymrobinson]

I have this lens as well. Stopped down to about f8, this lens is plenty sharp. I find it a little soft on the wide end, however.