Tamron Lenses

Just this week received my first tamron lens and I couldn't be more happy with it. Autofocus is fast and accurate and VC works great. Build quality is very nice as well. I have zero regret switching from my canon 70-200 F4L IS to it, especially when you consider the money savings vs the F2.8 IS II. I'm actually now thinking about saving for the tamron 24-70 VC next because of how happy I am with the performance of my new 70-200 VC.

Tamron is the best value. To my knowledge, it doesn't have the frequency of "bad copy" syndrome as Sigma either. To be honest, the amount of posts I've see about bad cop when the brand sigma comes up made me walk away from the 17-70.

I post full size shots here all the time. You don't have to crop at all to post. What you have to do is limit the file size to 150kb. Lots of software can do that. I have LR4, PSE11 and Picasa 3. All of them can do it. Oh, I also have CS6, but have no idea how to use it. It is way too complicated for me.

Oops! I forgot this was a Tamron thread. I have the 28-75 and like it just fine on the 6D and 60D. I think it is better than the 28-135, although there are times when I wish it had IS, OS, VC, VR, or something!

Right now I don't own a Tamron lens . They were noisy - but more important - felt funny in my hand .

If the new 150-600 is good [By that , I saw nothing wrong with the posted duck shot a little sharpening would not fix - subject is more important than IQ to me .]

I probably have 8-10 canon lenses and 3 Sigmas .

I owned a 70-300 VC before I became hooked on primes. Having tried the 90mm macro, I have to say I've not used a bad Tamron and now want to get hold of their 180mmm macro. If only they produced a 50mm prime too.

I took this shot with the Tamron on a full frame 13MP body - I was, and still am surprised by the cleanliness, colour and sharpness. The VC was also exceptional.

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/cZeC9​s

UKmitch86 wrote in post #16610752
I owned a 70-300 VC before I became hooked on primes. Having tried the 90mm macro, I have to say I've not used a bad Tamron and now want to get hold of their 180mmm macro. If only they produced a 50mm prime too.

I took this shot with the Tamron on a full frame 13MP body - I was, and still am surprised by the cleanliness, colour and sharpness. The VC was also exceptional.

I only have one Tamron lens with VC (and a couple other non-VC ones), and it does an amazing job. VC is definitely one of their strong points.

I have the 17-50 VC. The focus ring is very sticky in it's movement - plastic against plastic, certainly not smooth like my Canon lenses. Anyone else notice this or is it just mine?

I had the legendary 28-75 for ten years and I literally lived on that lens. Absolutely loved it, but when the 24-70 VC came out I grabbed it because these old hands aren't getting any steadier. It took a while to find the optimum AFMA, but once that was dialed in the lens became fantastic.

Since I also have the Canon 70-200 f4L IS, which is also a great lens and the only one (aside from the Sigma 35 f1.4 A) where I have no hesitation about shooting wide open, the question arose in my mind of which lens to use when I need 70 mm. Comparison shots showed that although 70 mm means different things to the lenses at shorter distances - this is normal, focal length is measured at the infinity setting and is reduced as any lens is focused closer - the Tamron is contrastier and a bit brighter at f4.

I bought the Tamron 18-270 and 70-300 while on sale over the holidays. Love the 70-300, but returned the 18-270 as it was not as sharp as my Sigma. A shame, because I prefer the reverse zoom direction.

GingaPics wrote in post #16612331
I have the 17-50 VC. The focus ring is very sticky in it's movement - plastic against plastic, certainly not smooth like my Canon lenses. Anyone else notice this or is it just mine?

Well, I had the non-VC version up until a couple of days ago and mine didn't have that issue. It was a very good lens, hope I don't regret selling it.

I just received my 17-50 non vc a little over a week ago. Blows the doors off the kit in the iq department.

I have the original version of the 18-270 and really like it. It's a little soft at full zoom and wide open, as you would expect of a 15x zoom, but if you close down to f/8 it usually does quite a nice job. It will occasionally miss focus by a bit, but I would say 90% of the time if I do my job, it will do its job. The zoom ring is a bit sticky in the middle of its range, but from what I've read, the newer (PZD) version is better this way, and faster focusing as well.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16592969
I think the problem is the Shutter Speed... you are probably 2 stops below what it should be and the IS (VC?) is doing its job (that's why I said softish, not soft) but at this kind of magnification and this kind of SS, a little bit of subject movement and a little bit of camera movement, minus the VC compensation gets you there.

It's not a bad shot, it just bothered me that it looked slightly softer than I expected. Enjoy the lens (and don't push your luck with the VC...).

I've gotten sharp shots at 1/125 with the 70-300mm VC. The stabilizer in that lens, while annoying, is quite effective. I think the softness you're seeing is a combination of shallow DOF and the lens' limitations at 300mm. Frankly, my copy (and I think this applies to most copies) is just not tack sharp wide open at 300mm, even if I'm shooting a stationary subject at ISO 100 at 1/800 on a tripod. A bit of softness at maximum zoom is expected of a lens in this price range.

Here is one I took with my 18-270 a couple of weeks ago. Click on it for full resolution (cropped, but 100% of the remaining resolution). It only has mild (two clicks) sharpening.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.davidkerber​.com …mals/IMG_6263_f​ullres.JPG

When sharpening in Lightroom, how do you know when to stop as to avoid loss of detail? Is there a trick to know how much is enough without overcooking?