New lens...Tamron 70-200 f/2.8...comments please!

Hey Folks,
Sorry I've been away for the last couple of weeks...been kind of staggered by how slow my PC was running and I wasn't getting a lot done. Well, my lawyers check FINALLY came in so in addition to a new guitar, I also got myself a new PC and a new lens!

I'll spare ya'll on the details of the guitar (although she's a beauty), but I built myself a brand new Intel Duo Quad Core w/2 gigs of RAM, 160 gig hdd and a 250 gig hdd...all for $500 (and they said it couldn't be done! Woo-hoo!). I also got myself one of those new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

Now I have to say here that for $700, this lens is S-W-E-E-T! For a Tamron it actually focuses pretty fast and contrary to the reviews, this one at least is really quiet. As far as the IQ goes, I'll let everyone judge for themselves here. I haven't had time (building the new PC and all) to give the lens a full test yet, but I was able to get out to the local dog park yesterday and give it a pretty good workout.

Please note: Except for some light RAW processing, a crop and resizing, these images are unprocessed. In fact, the -ONLY- adjustments I made to these images other than the crop and resize were clarity, vibrance and saturation in RAW (I didn't even sharpen them in RAW). This is the way these shots came right off the camera!

These are really quality shots. I like the first and the last the best because they seem to show some character in the dogs. The second one is a really sharp shot, but is kind of boring in my opinion. I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 EF USM and absolutely love it, but am still a novice so I really need the experience to get something that other people will like too! Everything is sharp, now it's about composition for me. I think every shot is great with my new lens. Perhaps I should have gone with the cheaper Tamron, because these are amazing and I'm sure it will be awhile before I can tell any difference (if there is any!).

concatonate wrote in post #6268384
These are really quality shots. I like the first and the last the best because they seem to show some character in the dogs. The second one is a really sharp shot, but is kind of boring in my opinion. I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 EF USM and absolutely love it, but am still a novice so I really need the experience to get something that other people will like too! Everything is sharp, now it's about composition for me. I think every shot is great with my new lens. Perhaps I should have gone with the cheaper Tamron, because these are amazing and I'm sure it will be awhile before I can tell any difference (if there is any!).

I had looked at the Canon...as I did have some money (now long gone), I wanted to consider all my options. While I'm sure the Canon does focus faster, according to the reviews at least, as far as QC goes, the Tamron is quite comparable to the Canon and in fact is supposed to be better than the Canon in regards to lens distortion and such (barrel distortion, pincusion, etc). I'm sure there are folks on this board who will scream at this, but I couldn't see paying $400 more for a lens that if anything, was going to produce inferior images.

What has really impressed me about this lens is how fast and accurately it actually does focus. Tamrons are, generally speaking, slower focusing lenses...at least my other "cheap" Tamron's certainly are. This thing really isn't that bad at all. I got a couple of shots yesterday "on the fly" as a dog was moving past me that I never would have gotten with my lower end Tam's. Tamrons are also supposed to be notoriously noisy as well (although not nearly as bad as my low end Sigmas), but while it's not "dead silent", it's again a very quiet lens to be sure. All around it really is a good pro quality lens and I'm quite impressed with it. I'm hoping to get out to one of the zoos this week and then I'll give it a real workout and we'll see how it does.

Anyways, thanks for the comments on the images! I certainly agree that 1 and 4 here are my fav's as well because of the expressions. Normally I do try to get a bit more expression from my "models" but as I said above, I'm still kind of wrestling with the new gear and such...just trying to point this heavy-@ss chunck of machinery straight and all! LOL!!! I just wanted to see how well the new lens was going to do and wasn't really as worried as I normally am about "cute". In other words, I was working more with the gear yesterday than I was with the critters themselves.

Peace,
Jim

Here's a thought relative to "sharpness".

Take one of the best of the series and cut out a little patch of the image that is representative of its most "in focus" region and give us a full detail, 100% crop of that area - say 200 px x 200 px. Then we can see for ourselves whether it's really as sharp as it should be or not.

Although it is quite common to assume that using the RAW converter defaults means that the image has not been "processed", meaning sharpened, etc., that is really not a correct interpretation of what happens in RAW converter software. Also, without knowing which particular RAW converter was used, it is impossible to make a qualitative statement about the way that the image looks when accepting the default values.

Different RAW converters use different algorithms to create a human recognizable image and each has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. All RAW converters automatically apply gamma correction to the linear capture in order to get an image that matches the logarithmic response of human vision (and film). Also, all converted images have some degree of sharpness that is highly dependent upon the algorithm even if the user controls for sharpening are set to zero. Some RAW converters such as DPP apply a considerable amount of processing in which the default settings will yield an output image that is essentially the equivalent of the in-camera best quality JPG image and doesn't give the user much latitude in modifying those values.

bill boehme wrote in post #6277178
Although it is quite common to assume that using the RAW converter defaults means that the image has not been "processed", meaning sharpened, etc., that is really not a correct interpretation of what happens in RAW converter software. Also, without knowing which particular RAW converter was used, it is impossible to make a qualitative statement about the way that the image looks when accepting the default values.

Different RAW converters use different algorithms to create a human recognizable image and each has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. All RAW converters automatically apply gamma correction to the linear capture in order to get an image that matches the logarithmic response of human vision (and film). Also, all converted images have some degree of sharpness that is highly dependent upon the algorithm even if the user controls for sharpening are set to zero. Some RAW converters such as DPP apply a considerable amount of processing in which the default settings will yield an output image that is essentially the equivalent of the in-camera best quality JPG image and doesn't give the user much latitude in modifying those values.

Shame you didn't actually read what I had there Bill but since you didn't, here it is again...

"The RAW files were processed in Adobe RAW and then cropped and resized in PS CS3."

I do appreciate what it is you are trying to say here, and honestly I do not know just how much sharpening Adobe RAW actually applies to the file without any user adjustments, although it certainly doesn't seem to be much. What I do know however is that in most cases I usually do have to apply some degree of sharpening, either via RAW or in Photoshop itself...and I did none of that here. In either case I'm quite happy with the lens. I've gotten very decent results with my cheap lenses (at least so I've been told), so I think it's safe to say the I should be able to do even better with this new Tamron.

Maybe its due to compression here, but except for the second shot, they all look quite soft to me?

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6268817
Here's a thought relative to "sharpness".

Take one of the best of the series and cut out a little patch of the image that is representative of its most "in focus" region and give us a full detail, 100% crop of that area - say 200 px x 200 px. Then we can see for ourselves whether it's really as sharp as it should be or not.

Hey Robert,
Ok...I have to admit that I never really got the whole 100% crop thing...not really sure how to judge that as a percentage specifically, but here's what I came up with...

Here's the original un-cropped image with the settings I mentioned in my first post (processed in Adobe RAW for those who didn't catch it, with only minor adjustments to clarity, vibrance and saturation...everythin​g else was default)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6268064
.........Please note: Except for some light RAW processing, a crop and resizing, these images are unprocessed...........

Or, perhaps, I did read what you wrote.

They are either processed or they aren't. My point WRT RAW files is that there really is not any such thing as unprocessed. And there are many ways to demosaic a RAW file each of which will yield different results.

BTW, using the ACR defaults is not recommended by Adobe Press manuals -- it is just an arbitrary starting point that is somewhere roughly in the middle of all of the various cameras that ACR supports.

Whatever.

For the sake of accuracy however I guess I should have said "these images didn't undergo my usual degree of processing in Photoshop". So yes...you're right bill...they -were- processed. So please....tell me...how exactly do I post the original, unaltered CR2 files here on POTN for your specific review without processing them at all? As far as I know, with these forums and the websites that I post my images too, only jpgs will be viewable and not the CR2's.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to "split hairs" here...I thought I had made it clear what I had done.

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6279677
Hey Robert,
Ok...I have to admit that I never really got the whole 100% crop thing...not really sure how to judge that as a percentage specifically, but here's what I came up with...

Here's the original un-cropped image with the settings I mentioned in my first post (processed in Adobe RAW for those who didn't catch it, with only minor adjustments to clarity, vibrance and saturation...everythin​g else was default)
...
...
I really don't know if this is a "100% crop" or not...I've really never thought about cropping in terms of percentages, but clearly in the crop here there -is- some softness. However considering the amount that I cropped this image, I think it's fair to say that most lenses are going to show some degree of similar attributes...and from what I've seen here on POTN, this does seem to be true. I would add however that even with this much of a crop, the image would, for me at least, still be quite usable and could still be sharpened fairly easily in PS and would certainly make a decent 8x10 print (ok...8x12 in this case because it's a 4x6 format).

In fact, just for the sake of comparison, here's the same crop with a little sharpening applied...
...

I could even do a little selective sharpening here as well...make the eye pop a little more etc.. Certainly the nose is still soft, but that's more from DOF than anything I think. I know there's some folks who might feel this still isn't "sharp enough", but again for my needs and uses and considering the cost of the lens, this is plenty sharp and again would make a very decent print in my opinion.

All things considered...first day out shooting with a brand new lens, wrestling with the weight of this new rig while shooting hand held (at f/5.6, 200mm 1/800 sec), the cost of this lens compared with the competition ($100 less than the Sigma and $400 less than the Canon L), etc., again I can't complain at all about this new Tamron. I really think it's going to serve me quite well for many years to come.

Peace,
Jim

This is where I usually throw in the towel and refer to my canned explanation of "Full detail, 100% crop", which is a misnomer, because I wanted to stick with the name "100% crop", which had been the accepted term on POTN for a long time before I joined. So, I modified that by adding the expression "Full detail", which I think is a better description of what it's all about.

**************100% Crop**************
See my tutorial on making a 100% Crop with Full Detail, somewhere in the following thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …thread.php?t=34​606&page=2

Here is another, simpler way - Courtesy of Bobster:
A more controlled way of posting a 100% crop -
Select the marquee tool - then in the options palette select Style->Fixed Size - key in 200 px X 200 px.
Click with the marquee tool anywhere in your image, and drag this around the screen as with a normal marquee.
Use Image -> Crop to complete the process.