The wasp pic was taken within a week of getting my first dslr - about 2 months ago - and the Tamron was part of the package for my 400d. It was a hand-held shot in reasonable light.
The wee girl was an off-the-cuff pic - point and shoot with little regard to settings and white balance all wrong - and only happened because I had dropped my camera (no comments please) and trashed my nifty fifty, so just happened to have the Tamron fitted. It was taken indoors in low light from the window.
After buying the 400d I got a 100-400L and the nifty 50 and although I decided to keep the Tamron for macro stuff, I never really used it at all until I done in the 50mm 1.8.
I have now replaced the nifty fifty with the 50mm 1.4, but am really impressed with some of my Tamron shots - so much so, I intended starting a thread about it to gauge the general feeling about it here. As I've stated, I'm a complete novice so if the pics are complete crap, feel free to say so - but please tell me why!
Incidentaly, I tried a wee comparison test with my Tamron and the 100-400, both on 200mm and identical settings, both on a tripod and the 100-400 only just scraped it on IQ. In saying that, the pics were of crows in a field and didn't require fast AF. I'd like to hear your comment?
Cheers
HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
60d, 400d, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, 24-105mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4, 580ex II, 2 X 430ex II, Bowens 500, cs5