Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 May 2014 (Monday) 21:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

This just stinks..

 
this thread is locked
Mike ­ -
Member
31 posts
Joined Jan 2014
Location: West Coast
     
May 26, 2014 21:09 |  #1

If the new Tamron 16-300 lens is as good as the old short lived Tamron 18-250 I have, it should be on everyones short list that's looking for a long zoom.

The reason for the "just stinks" comment..., I have both Canons 35-350L and the 28-300L lenses also.
With either of these three mounted either on my old 50D or my newish SL1, the "old" Tamron 18-250 outshines both of Canons L lenses in sharpness..! I thought I was seeing things, maybe a bit off in viewing my pictures. So I did some non-scientific experiments with both cameras and all three lenses and two computers. All three show nice colors, no I didn't look for purple fringing. But in the center 80 or 85% of the frame...Tamron wins by a landslide.
As far as front or back focus, I don't see anything percepetable in any of my shots so the Microfocus might not be of much help....though I haven't ruled it out.

All I can say is...despite the timeframe of the design and builds, and the money difference in the three...Canon should be ashamed.

And yea...it stinks that I've spent a LOT of money on Canons HIGH END lenses just to be outshined by a 500 dollar (about) third party lens special.

Here's to looking foward to the 16-300 Tamron.

Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
El ­ Pedro
Senior Member
Avatar
708 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Australia
     
May 26, 2014 21:27 |  #2

Your definition of high end glass is what stinks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 436
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
May 26, 2014 21:37 |  #3

Oh Yes ! what a wast of money to have bought 3 lenses witch do the same things !
And you want to buy the 16-300 witch will do exactly the same thing also ?


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 436
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
May 26, 2014 21:38 |  #4

El Pedro wrote in post #16932437 (external link)
Your definition of high end glass is what stinks.

I was hesitating to say that, but yes it's true :lol:


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,920 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 501
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
May 26, 2014 21:45 |  #5

Mike - wrote in post #16932404 (external link)
If the new Tamron 16-300 lens is as good as the old short lived Tamron 18-250 I have, it should be on everyones short list that's looking for a long zoom.

The reason for the "just stinks" comment..., I have both Canons 35-350L and the 28-300L lenses also.
With either of these three mounted either on my old 50D or my newish SL1, the "old" Tamron 18-250 outshines both of Canons L lenses in sharpness..! I thought I was seeing things, maybe a bit off in viewing my pictures. So I did some non-scientific experiments with both cameras and all three lenses and two computers. All three show nice colors, no I didn't look for purple fringing. But in the center 80 or 85% of the frame...Tamron wins by a landslide.
As far as front or back focus, I don't see anything percepetable in any of my shots so the Microfocus might not be of much help....though I haven't ruled it out.

All I can say is...despite the timeframe of the design and builds, and the money difference in the three...Canon should be ashamed.

And yea...it stinks that I've spent a LOT of money on Canons HIGH END lenses just to be outshined by a 500 dollar (about) third party lens special.

Here's to looking foward to the 16-300 Tamron.

Mike

My god, you lug around the 28-300L? At 58oz that thing is a beast!


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,464 posts
Gallery: 1790 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11253
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
May 26, 2014 21:45 |  #6

Heya,

These super zooms are ok.

They're super at convenience. They have fairly good image quality. But they're not superb at anything. They're a generalist super zoom meant to sort of be able to do everything, but not do everything super well. That's the price you pay for massive convenience. I like the idea of the 16-300 lens. But I have zero use for it ultimately, because I don't want 300mm at the same time as 16mm, as 300mm is too short for me, and 16mm on this lens would be really weird mounting filter plate systems on such a long lens. So no worries on my end as I won't be bothered by this lens (I have 4 Tamron lenses spanning 30 years though, they make great stuff).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
May 26, 2014 21:48 |  #7

I don't use superzooms, and all my lenses beat yours "by a landslide" when it comes to sharpness, contrast, color, etc. You should be ashamed for comparing sharpness on all-in-ones! Jk...or am I?


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,712 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 620
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
May 26, 2014 21:59 |  #8

Those Canons were made for full frame cameras, the Tammy only for crops. That's why they can make them so affordable.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,768 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 204
Joined Mar 2008
     
May 26, 2014 22:02 as a reply to  @ jt354's post |  #9

Ya Mike, if your not shooting with the 300L or the 400L then your just not a real photog. You need to change hobbies because obviously you have no skill.


Seriously sometimes I wonder about this forum. The guy buys a lens that works for him and all he gets is a bashing from POTN. Good work guys, keep it up. And if his results are accurate then Canon is overcharging.

Enjoy your lens Mike, glad to hear its a good bargain


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CollegeKid
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
May 26, 2014 22:43 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

I don't get the allure of most L-glass, either. But if I wanted a 16-300 lens, I'd sell my SLRs and get a Panny DMC-FZ200 and be done with it. There is a reason lenses are interchangeable.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paul-t
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: The deep south, that's the deep south of England.
     
May 26, 2014 23:30 |  #11

Was just wondering why you have 3 lens that do nearly the same job? If I was unhappy with the way a lens worked I would sell it on! Having owned a 35-350L for longer than I can remember (many shots printed in mags with this lens) I can only think you have the Friday Afternoon Canon lens! but each to there own, Tamron make some good lens, most are for crop body's , both Canon's you have are for full frame unit's.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,675 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3973
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
May 27, 2014 00:21 |  #12

Mike - wrote in post #16932404 (external link)
If the new Tamron 16-300 lens is as good as the old short lived Tamron 18-250 I have, it should be on everyones short list that's looking for a long zoom.

The reason for the "just stinks" comment..., I have both Canons 35-350L and the 28-300L lenses also.
With either of these three mounted either on my old 50D or my newish SL1, the "old" Tamron 18-250 outshines both of Canons L lenses in sharpness..! I thought I was seeing things, maybe a bit off in viewing my pictures. So I did some non-scientific experiments with both cameras and all three lenses and two computers. All three show nice colors, no I didn't look for purple fringing. But in the center 80 or 85% of the frame...Tamron wins by a landslide.
As far as front or back focus, I don't see anything percepetable in any of my shots so the Microfocus might not be of much help....though I haven't ruled it out.

All I can say is...despite the timeframe of the design and builds, and the money difference in the three...Canon should be ashamed.

And yea...it stinks that I've spent a LOT of money on Canons HIGH END lenses just to be outshined by a 500 dollar (about) third party lens special.

Here's to looking foward to the 16-300 Tamron.

Mike

Why you'd ever want to use a 35-300L or 28-300L on a crop body is beyond me.

maverick75 wrote in post #16932529 (external link)
Those Canons were made for full frame cameras, the Tammy only for crops. That's why they can make them so affordable.

This.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 27, 2014 00:30 |  #13

Hmm, a lot of criticism for the OP and the lenses he has, but not much as to addressing his post!

Who know why he has those three lenses, but his post is about the apparent superior sharpness of the Tamron, so...

Has anyone else had experience shooting with the Tamron and one or both of the Canon "L" zooms he mentioned?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,199 posts
Gallery: 125 photos
Likes: 4483
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 27, 2014 04:14 as a reply to  @ tonylong's post |  #14

I see a bright side.
Sell the 2 Ls if you are happier with the Tamron.
You won't get all your money back obviously but still a fair chunk of cash.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bratkinson
Senior Member
643 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western MA
     
May 27, 2014 05:51 |  #15

I don't know about the SL1, but if memory serves me, the 50D has micro focus adjustment (MFA) capability.

I didn't have MFA on my 60D, which was a very minor consideration of why I upgraded to a 5D3. What I did notice was that by doing MFA of my L lenses on the 5D3 made a visible difference, and none of them were more than +5 or -5.

It's quite possible that while the lenses and the cameras are all within manufacturing tolerance, the L lenses with the 50D combined are out of tolerance, so MFA would correct the issue.


"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." General George S Patton, Jr 1885-1945

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,745 views & 0 likes for this thread
This just stinks..
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dsk26894
787 guests, 350 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.