Tamron 60/2 review

http://www.ausphotogra​phy.net.au/forum/showt​hread.php?t=40027

If I read this correctly, he is saying that the lens is only f/2 at infinity. Yes? Not good news to me.

Seems so. I'm not too impressed with those head shots considering he set sharpening to 5.

I'm not too impressed either...i mean its sharp, but its not justifying its price to me, especially the revelation that its only f/2 at infinity, which is basically worthless, and means you're just as well off with the Canon f/2.8..Which is cheaper...and has USM..and is built better [I've seen the 60mm f/2 in a store, didnt have time to try it but it looked VERY cheap in the construction area]

Completely off-topic, but man does Tamron make some ugly lenses. I think they must have a "bling department".

Agreed; this doesn't look too impressive compared to the competition.

Brett wrote in post #9191969
Completely off-topic, but man does Tamron make some ugly lenses. I think they must have a "bling department".

Agreed; this doesn't look too impressive compared to the competition.

Actually i honestly think the Tamron 70-200 is a good looking 70-200 lens, But it sucks

And my question is how is AF on a Canon body, I remember i tried the 70-200 on a D300 once and it was fantastic in the store, but the Canon copy on my 30D was complete arse at locking focus on -anything-

They should've bumped the filter size up to 58mm. Who has 55mm filters?

KenjiS wrote in post #9191895
I'm not too impressed either...i mean its sharp, but its not justifying its price to me, especially the revelation that its only f/2 at infinity, which is basically worthless, and means you're just as well off with the Canon f/2.8..Which is cheaper...and has USM..and is built better [I've seen the 60mm f/2 in a store, didnt have time to try it but it looked VERY cheap in the construction area]

I wouldn't say that that, f/2.2 for most situations is still pretty fast and an decrease in aperture value at mfd is normal. If it weren't for the price I think the trade in aperture could be worth the loss of USM. The price though... It's a bit ridiculous honestly.

I was excited for this but found its only for Crop sensors and now this. I'd rather get a 1:2 Macro lens at this speed and reach 1:1 with an extension.

KenjiS wrote in post #9191985
Actually i honestly think the Tamron 70-200 is a good looking 70-200 lens, But it sucks

And my question is how is AF on a Canon body, I remember i tried the 70-200 on a D300 once and it was fantastic in the store, but the Canon copy on my 30D was complete arse at locking focus on -anything-

I tried the 60 f/2 on my 7D while on a trip to B&H.

a) its quite nice looking and feeling, which for me was a revelation because I think most (if not all) other Tamrons are built, look, and feel like tinker toys.

b) the focus of the lens on my 7D was spot on and quite quick (which I was surprised at).

c) comparing the AF of a 30D to a D300 is the problem. The D300 has a MUCH better AF system than the 30D. So it wasn't likely an issue of the Canon copy so much as the Canon 30D being the problem.

d) once I finish this backup thats going... I'll upload one of the shots I took at B&H and a 100% crop (and just to make it a real interesting show, I'll post the shot with SOOC full-size)... trust me... be ready to be impressed. That lens will be in my bag soon... and its nickname will be Bokeh Monster #3. (Bokeh Monster #2 will be the Lensbaby Composer).

gasrocks wrote in post #9191661
http://www.ausphotogra​phy.net.au/forum/showt​hread.php?t=40027

If I read this correctly, he is saying that the lens is only f/2 at infinity. Yes? Not good news to me.

KenjiS wrote in post #9191895
I'm not too impressed either...i mean its sharp, but its not justifying its price to me, especially the revelation that its only f/2 at infinity, which is basically worthless, and means you're just as well off with the Canon f/2.8..Which is cheaper...and has USM..and is built better [I've seen the 60mm f/2 in a store, didnt have time to try it but it looked VERY cheap in the construction area]

lonelyjew wrote in post #9192666
I wouldn't say that that, f/2.2 for most situations is still pretty fast and an decrease in aperture value at mfd is normal. If it weren't for the price I think the trade in aperture could be worth the loss of USM. The price though... It's a bit ridiculous honestly.

Please rethink.

On Nikon this lens reports the effective aperture. It still is F/2 at any distance, but due to enlargement of the image circle at any distance closer than infinity, you get some apparent light loss.

This is exactly the same effect when a lens goes to 1:1, where you lose 2 stops because the area of the image is 4X the size of that at infinity.

Just that this lens reports the effective aperture, rather than the real one, like Nikon macro lenses do too. The reviewer even mentions effective aperture, and that Nikon reports it....

Kind regards, Wim

good one, wim.

thanks for sharing.

nureality wrote in post #9192866
I'll upload one of the shots I took at B&H and a 100% crop (and just to make it a real interesting show, I'll post the shot with SOOC full-size)... trust me... be ready to be impressed. That lens will be in my bag soon... and its nickname will be Bokeh Monster #3. (Bokeh Monster #2 will be the Lensbaby Composer).

COME ON ALREADY! PLEEEEEAAAAAAASEEEE~

wimg wrote in post #9193527
Please rethink.

On Nikon this lens reports the effective aperture. It still is F/2 at any distance, but due to enlargement of the image circle at any distance closer than infinity, you get some apparent light loss.

This is exactly the same effect when a lens goes to 1:1, where you lose 2 stops because the area of the image is 4X the size of that at infinity.

Just that this lens reports the effective aperture, rather than the real one, like Nikon macro lenses do too. The reviewer even mentions effective aperture, and that Nikon reports it....

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for the explanation, I knew that there was light loss with macro lenses when you got in close but I didn't know that the image circle was being increased.

lonelyjew wrote in post #9213028
Thanks for the explanation, I knew that there was light loss with macro lenses when you got in close but I didn't know that the image circle was being increased.

This is the case with any lens, not just macro lenses. The image circle increase, i.e., the magnification factor increase, is the reason for the light loss. With normal lenses it generally doesn't go beyond 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, because they don't focus as close as a macro. The larger the magnification, the larger the image circle becomes, and the more light you lose, relatively speaking. Every doubling of image area causes one to lose a stop in light. This is quite logical, as the light captured by the lens is spread over twice the area, making light intensity twice as small, hence 1 stop less.

Kind regards, Wim