I usually do stop it down a bit, but I haven't noticed it being soft. Most my pictures on smugmug were taken with the Tamron.
bebud Member 111 posts Joined Mar 2009 Location: Palm Beach More info | I usually do stop it down a bit, but I haven't noticed it being soft. Most my pictures on smugmug were taken with the Tamron. 7d ,6d,10-22,70-200 f4, 24 f2 is,Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Tamron 90mm macro,Tamron 18-270
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BillRagosta Senior Member  323 posts Joined Jun 2012 Location: Pennsylvania More info | Jul 20, 2012 18:24 | #17 I have all three of the lenses mentioned and while I don't see much difference in IQ, I THINK that I actually get slightly sharper photos with the Tamron than the two Canon lenses. If it were the other way around, it might be a hard choice between which lens to keep and use but in this case, I recently put my 55-250 up for sale on this site. The Tamron is really light and compact for a superzoom and overall, I like it very much. Canon 60D, Canon 30D with grip, EF 70-300 IS USM, Tokina AT-X Pro 100 f/2.8 macro, EF 100-400 1:4.5-5.6L, EF-S 15-85 IS USM, Sigma 50 f2.8 macro EX, 430 EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mwsilver Goldmember More info | Jul 20, 2012 21:03 | #18 bebud wrote in post #14746337  I usually do stop it down a bit, but I haven't noticed it being soft. Most my pictures on smugmug were taken with the Tamron. Sorry to disagree, but out of curiosity, I downloaded around 10 of your shots at their original size and viewed them at 100% on my 23 inch HD monitor. While I really love your composition, in general the downloaded files were mostly soft. For some, like your ethereal B&W landscapes, the softness works to your advantage. Its seems like many, but not all, of the shots I downloaded were taken at around F5.0. One of your baseball shots, IMG6806 was downloaded as a 10.3 mb jpeg file. It was shot at f.8, 1/256 sec, and ISO 640. Viewing it on my monitor in Lightroom 4 at 100%, the original size, shows general softness across the image, including the players in the center. When its reduced in size to fit the screen the softness is less noticeable, which, perhaps, is why you never noticed it. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bebud Member 111 posts Joined Mar 2009 Location: Palm Beach More info | Jul 21, 2012 11:47 | #19 mwsilver wrote in post #14747160 Sorry to disagree, but out of curiosity, I downloaded around 10 of your shots at their original size and viewed them at 100% on my 23 inch HD monitor. While I really love your composition, in general the downloaded files were mostly soft. For some, like your ethereal B&W landscapes, the softness works to your advantage. Its seems like many, but not all, of the shots I downloaded were taken at around F5.0. One of your baseball shots, IMG6806 was downloaded as a 10.3 mb jpeg file. It was shot at f.8, 1/256 sec, and ISO 640. Viewing it on my monitor in Lightroom 4 at 100%, the original size, shows general softness across the image, including the players in the center. When its reduced in size to fit the screen the softness is less noticeable, which, perhaps, is why you never noticed it. uuummmm.....so whats your point? This is why I never post on this forum..... 7d ,6d,10-22,70-200 f4, 24 f2 is,Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Tamron 90mm macro,Tamron 18-270
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 21, 2012 12:16 | #20 bebud wrote in post #14748953 uuummmm.....so whats your point? This is why I never post on this forum..... It's why I don't pixel-peep... Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mwsilver Goldmember More info | Jul 21, 2012 14:14 | #21 ga bebud wrote in post #14748953 uuummmm.....so whats your point? This is why I never post on this forum..... My point was that the Tamron 18-270 tends to be soft. You said your copy wasn't and I was curious so I took a look. I love your work. This was not meant as a criticism but merely an observation regarding the limitations of this lens. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mwsilver Goldmember More info | Jul 21, 2012 14:16 | #22 archer1960 wrote in post #14749039 It's why I don't pixel-peep... I wasn't pixel peeping. The images were soft. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dngphoto Senior Member  384 posts Joined Nov 2011 More info | Aug 03, 2012 10:46 | #23  I like this lens quite a bit, very quiet AF, good elements and build, yes it is limited in IQ but it serves a huge purpose for a walkaround and a good video lens as well Sean - dngphoto&film 5dii Gripped / Σ 50 1.4 / Canon 28-135 USM / Σ 12-24 HSM
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2766 guests, 152 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
