Where can I find Tamon 70-300mm LD Di macro RAW files

LowVoltage · 01-27-2011, 02:49 PM

I've been reading up on the Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 LD Di macro lately. A common complaint about this lens seems to be rather strong purple fringing in the typical high-contrast situations we all dread. Otherwise, this seems to be a rather good non-pro lens.

I'd like to play around with some RAW files produced with this lens - the camera body probably wouldn't really matter - but I haven't had any success locating such files.

Can anybody point me to a source for Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 LD Di macro RAW files? There is a newer VC (anti-shake) version of this lens, but that is not what I'm looking for, as it seems the optical formula is different.

Again, the camera body/brand isn't critical, though I suppose it would probably be better if the resolutions were in the 12-14MP range since that's closest to my K7.

Thanks in advance, Sherlocks!

enoeske · 01-27-2011, 03:19 PM

I'm at work right now but I will upload one when I get home if nobody else steps up. Personally, I hate the lens. It seems semi-sharp but the purple fringing even stopped down to f/16 is ridiculous.

fotaki · 01-27-2011, 03:56 PM

Sorry I can't help much with the RAW files prob. - surely these will be created in the usual way irrespective of lens used - at least that's what my GX20 does. Suggest you look more closely in the setup menu.

Regarding the PF, I do not have a big problem with this with my copy. I have experienced PF of course but I've found that it largely disappears by about f/8. So, (unlike enoeske) it seems it can be a sample issue. I also use the Tamron AD2 60-300mm (manual) and, to be honest, there's not much difference in IQ between the two lenses. The older lens is sharper at 300 but there's pro's and con's for both.

BTW, there is a good group dedicated to this lens on flickr.

LowVoltage · 01-27-2011, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by fotaki

Sorry I can't help much with the RAW files prob. - surely these will be created in the usual way irrespective of lens used - at least that's what my GX20 does. Suggest you look more closely in the setup menu.

Regarding the PF, I do not have a big problem with this with my copy. I have experienced PF of course but I've found that it largely disappears by about f/8. So, (unlike enoeske) it seems it can be a sample issue. I also use the Tamron AD2 60-300mm (manual) and, to be honest, there's not much difference in IQ between the two lenses. The older lens is sharper at 300 but there's pro's and con's for both.

BTW, (and It's not my normal policy to refer you elsewhere) there is a good group dedicated to this lens on flickr.

Thanks for the reference. I've been on flickr looking at some sample images, which generally seem pleasing.

As you can probably imagine, my purpose for getting some RAW files (or PEFs, so long as they're not JPEGs) is to see what can be done about unusually strong fringing. If it can be corrected well enough then this lens might work for me. I'm keeping my eyes open for any number of well respected xx-300mm lenses that are affordable. Ideally, I'd like to get my hands on an FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 some day. The price and performance seems right, and I can't afford the DA 55-300 unless someone wants to unload the DA L version and I can get the hood for a song - a lot of IFs in this equation.

Anyway, the Tamron seemed like an alternative, but not without its own weaknesses.

**Kammerer** · 01-28-2011, 07:14 AM

I have an older non-Di version of this lens. The coatings are supposed to be different, so I don't know if my example will be useful. Is this unprocessed border crop at f8 a good example of PF? Let me know if you want the full DNG file.

I do agree that this lens is not very sharp, especially above 200mm.

**Ahab** · 01-28-2011, 09:41 AM

I don't have a problem with PF or lack of sharpness with my copy, but then I don't pixel peep. Seems those who have purchased recent versions don't either. I very rarely shoot RAW so can be of no help there.

JeffJS · 01-28-2011, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Kammerer

I have an older non-Di version of this lens. The coatings are supposed to be different, so I don't know if my example will be useful. Is this unprocessed border crop at f8 a good example of PF? Let me know if you want the full DNG file.

I do agree that this lens is not very sharp, especially above 200mm.

The PF hasn't changed much from the non Di version judging from your photo however, the Di version is Much sharper than that. At least Mine was.

Lowvoltage,

I don't have many but if you want to see the RAWs from any of these, let me know which ones and I'll locate and upload them for you..

Show Tamron - a set on Flickr

LowVoltage · 01-28-2011, 02:10 PM

Thanks, everybody, for your comments and offerings of help. I'm going to go ahead and take a pass on experimenting with RAW files from this particular lens.

If I didn't keep my LBA under control I very well may have simply picked up a copy of this Tamron. Fortunately, the more logical part of my brain has convinced me I don't even need this type of lens... for now. Still, if I can find that FA 100-300 I mentioned, I probably would buy it as all the reviews seem to be without major complaints.

yusuf · 01-29-2011, 10:28 AM

You can checkout North East India - My Tawang & Bum La Trip - Company - Founded: May 21 - May 29, 2010 | Facebook, majority of pics using Tamron 70-300 LD Di (rest using sigma 10-20)

BeerBelly · 01-29-2011, 11:43 AM

Hey,

I uploaded a RAW sample at: http://ww.bobr.si/fotke/T70300.DNG
It's shot at f7.1, and there's some PF going on.

End of the day though, I like using this lens.

KxBlaze · 01-29-2011, 09:30 PM

I like this lens. It is very sharp and has great color rendition but like you stated the CA can be a bit out of control. I notice it the most when shooting birds against a cloudy sky. There are a few techniques and PP things you can do to help reduce and in some cases completely remove the CA. The obvious first step it to try and shoot around F8-F10. As for PP I use photoshop and it has a dedicated CA fixing tool that is ok at best. Another forum member showed me a cool trick. You can sample the CA color and de-saturate it which will completely remove the CA but the down side is that it will also de-saturate anything that is the same color as the CA (other ways around that too but too long to explain).

01-27-2011, 02:49 PM	#1
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Where can I find Tamon 70-300mm LD Di macro RAW files I've been reading up on the Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 LD Di macro lately. A common complaint about this lens seems to be rather strong purple fringing in the typical high-contrast situations we all dread. Otherwise, this seems to be a rather good non-pro lens. I'd like to play around with some RAW files produced with this lens - the camera body probably wouldn't really matter - but I haven't had any success locating such files. Can anybody point me to a source for Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 LD Di macro RAW files? There is a newer VC (anti-shake) version of this lens, but that is not what I'm looking for, as it seems the optical formula is different. Again, the camera body/brand isn't critical, though I suppose it would probably be better if the resolutions were in the 12-14MP range since that's closest to my K7. Thanks in advance, Sherlocks!

01-27-2011, 03:56 PM	#3
fotaki Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Greece and UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 309	Sorry I can't help much with the RAW files prob. - surely these will be created in the usual way irrespective of lens used - at least that's what my GX20 does. Suggest you look more closely in the setup menu. Regarding the PF, I do not have a big problem with this with my copy. I have experienced PF of course but I've found that it largely disappears by about f/8. So, (unlike enoeske) it seems it can be a sample issue. I also use the Tamron AD2 60-300mm (manual) and, to be honest, there's not much difference in IQ between the two lenses. The older lens is sharper at 300 but there's pro's and con's for both. BTW, there is a good group dedicated to this lens on flickr. Last edited by fotaki; 01-28-2011 at 09:35 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to save stitched RAW files to a RAW file?	HermanLee	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	07-09-2010 05:51 PM
? about Asking for RAW Files	SOldBear	Photographic Industry and Professionals	35	03-21-2010 12:38 PM
RAW duplicate images - saving as RAW files	jpzk	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	17	02-15-2010 07:01 PM
RAW Files	Charles1	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	03-28-2009 08:20 PM
Does the Photoshop RAW converter work with Pentax RAW Files?	mconder	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	05-15-2008 12:14 PM

01-27-2011, 03:19 PM	#2
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	I'm at work right now but I will upload one when I get home if nobody else steps up. Personally, I hate the lens. It seems semi-sharp but the purple fringing even stopped down to f/16 is ridiculous.

01-27-2011, 11:08 PM	#4
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Originally posted by fotaki Sorry I can't help much with the RAW files prob. - surely these will be created in the usual way irrespective of lens used - at least that's what my GX20 does. Suggest you look more closely in the setup menu. Regarding the PF, I do not have a big problem with this with my copy. I have experienced PF of course but I've found that it largely disappears by about f/8. So, (unlike enoeske) it seems it can be a sample issue. I also use the Tamron AD2 60-300mm (manual) and, to be honest, there's not much difference in IQ between the two lenses. The older lens is sharper at 300 but there's pro's and con's for both. BTW, (and It's not my normal policy to refer you elsewhere) there is a good group dedicated to this lens on flickr. Thanks for the reference. I've been on flickr looking at some sample images, which generally seem pleasing. As you can probably imagine, my purpose for getting some RAW files (or PEFs, so long as they're not JPEGs) is to see what can be done about unusually strong fringing. If it can be corrected well enough then this lens might work for me. I'm keeping my eyes open for any number of well respected xx-300mm lenses that are affordable. Ideally, I'd like to get my hands on an FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 some day. The price and performance seems right, and I can't afford the DA 55-300 unless someone wants to unload the DA L version and I can get the hood for a song - a lot of IFs in this equation. Anyway, the Tamron seemed like an alternative, but not without its own weaknesses.

01-28-2011, 09:41 AM	#6
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	I don't have a problem with PF or lack of sharpness with my copy, but then I don't pixel peep. Seems those who have purchased recent versions don't either. I very rarely shoot RAW so can be of no help there.

01-28-2011, 11:05 AM	#7
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Kammerer I have an older non-Di version of this lens. The coatings are supposed to be different, so I don't know if my example will be useful. Is this unprocessed border crop at f8 a good example of PF? Let me know if you want the full DNG file. I do agree that this lens is not very sharp, especially above 200mm. The PF hasn't changed much from the non Di version judging from your photo however, the Di version is Much sharper than that. At least Mine was. Lowvoltage, I don't have many but if you want to see the RAWs from any of these, let me know which ones and I'll locate and upload them for you.. Show Tamron - a set on Flickr

01-28-2011, 02:10 PM	#8
LowVoltage Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Mount Joy, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 544 Original Poster	Thanks, everybody, for your comments and offerings of help. I'm going to go ahead and take a pass on experimenting with RAW files from this particular lens. If I didn't keep my LBA under control I very well may have simply picked up a copy of this Tamron. Fortunately, the more logical part of my brain has convinced me I don't even need this type of lens... for now. Still, if I can find that FA 100-300 I mentioned, I probably would buy it as all the reviews seem to be without major complaints.

01-29-2011, 10:28 AM	#9
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	You can checkout North East India - My Tawang & Bum La Trip - Company - Founded: May 21 - May 29, 2010 \| Facebook, majority of pics using Tamron 70-300 LD Di (rest using sigma 10-20)

01-29-2011, 11:43 AM	#10
BeerBelly Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 139	Hey, I uploaded a RAW sample at: http://ww.bobr.si/fotke/T70300.DNG It's shot at f7.1, and there's some PF going on. End of the day though, I like using this lens.

01-29-2011, 09:30 PM	#11
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	I like this lens. It is very sharp and has great color rendition but like you stated the CA can be a bit out of control. I notice it the most when shooting birds against a cloudy sky. There are a few techniques and PP things you can do to help reduce and in some cases completely remove the CA. The obvious first step it to try and shoot around F8-F10. As for PP I use photoshop and it has a dedicated CA fixing tool that is ok at best. Another forum member showed me a cool trick. You can sample the CA color and de-saturate it which will completely remove the CA but the down side is that it will also de-saturate anything that is the same color as the CA (other ways around that too but too long to explain).