Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD

Down sampled version looks fine but in actual size, i think this is not a sharp photo although sharpening. I see too much noise and vibration.

sandeepsaman wrote in post #16159960
This is for those who complains about Tamron at 200mm f2.8 is soft.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/9​375422367/
IMG_0915 by sandeepsaman, on Flickr

Center crop looks very good this time but i think there is some sharpening. Am i wrong?

NewCreation wrote in post #16160111
I must add that some of the photos I have added have shown user error. So I apologize to any who may have taken it as equipment issues. Here is a shot a 200mm 2.8 (and a close crop).

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

logi22 wrote in post #16161036
Center crop looks very good this time but i think there is some sharpening. Am i wrong?

Well I shoot RAW so I processed through DPP at default settings (which is a slight unsharp mask), which with the anti-aliasing filter on my 60d is expected.

why pictures are always about sharpness?
A nice picture should have a good composition,color rendition and better bokeh.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/9​400045860/

sandeepsaman wrote in post #16165662
why pictures are always about sharpness?
A nice picture should have a good composition,color rendition and better bokeh.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/9​400045860/
IMG_1209 by sandeepsaman, on Flickr

I agree. However, the questions about sharpness in this thread allowed me to learn that I was experiencing some definite user error...which is good. I liked the shots I had posted and still do, even though they didn't stand up to pixel peeping. I did learn that as razor thin dof, I cannot focus and then recompose effectively. Good to learn but didn't make me want to throw away the shot in question.

Peacock- I am the only male species who is beautiful than my female.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/9​376345017/

I totally agree with you. A good cam and lens can only help photographer to take great pictures but after spending lots of money i expect high performance from equipment. I' m an istock contributor and i never sent the files without any corretion. For example if i had have a zeiss 135mm lens and took excellent pictures at wide open, istock would reject all the photos due to Ca. Before uploading, i have to follow the steps i described above. If you want to earn money from stock photography and buy better equipment you should not not skip the correction steps. I always shoot raw because when you shoot jpg you have some limitations. Sharpness is important for me as much as color rendition. Sharpness and color rendition are important factors for the quality of a lens. Anybody can take great photos with a simple cam and feel happy Pixel peepers always look for taking photos with top quality and good lighting. I think i am one of them

sandeepsaman wrote in post #16165662
why pictures are always about sharpness?
A nice picture should have a good composition,color rendition and better bokeh.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/sandeepsaman/9​400045860/
IMG_1209 by sandeepsaman, on Flickr

sandeepsaman wrote in post #16165662
why pictures are always about sharpness?
A nice picture should have a good composition,color rendition and better bokeh.r

Define nice. If nice means expensive(somebody willing to pay), then world's most expensive photos rarely have any of those qualities you describe. http://en.wikipedia.or​g …ost_expensive_p​hotographs

If nice means technical pleasing, then sharpness does matter. If nice means evoking emotion then color rendition does not matter and neither does "good" composition. If nice means reproduction ready then color rendition matters.

Varuas- Tamron VC lens is not cheap,I paid 1499$.No doubt i will expect more details and great result from this lens,that is why i bought it.In most of reviews it has been clearly mentioned that at 200mm f2.8 the lens is not comparable to Canon IS II.How ever at 175mm at f2.8 is really sharp.
I can say build quality,VC and autofocus are near to Canon IS II.
"Nice" word definition differs from individually . The things that you think are nice ,maybe i don't like or vice versa.