[tibbitts]

Keep in mind that at longer focal lengths, depth of field is very limited. If you're doing landscapes, you're often using f13 or f16 to get the depth of field you need, unless you're doing focus stacking in software or something, which doesn't always work with subjects like moving foliage. I don't doubt the Tamron would perform better here too, but at some point diffraction may level the field somewhat.

None of this would apply for applications where you want shallow depth of field, or need a large aperture to allow a fast shutter speed, of course.

[Mr_Radzins]

Keep in mind that at longer focal lengths, depth of field is very limited. If you're doing landscapes, you're often using f13 or f16 to get the depth of field you need, unless you're doing focus stacking in software or something, which doesn't always work with subjects like moving foliage. I don't doubt the Tamron would perform better here too, but at some point diffraction may level the field somewhat.

None of this would apply for applications where you want shallow depth of field, or need a large aperture to allow a fast shutter speed, of course.

Could you please explain of what you mean by limited depth of field at long focal distances, maybe with some kind of an example? It's just that english is not my native language and i'm kind of struggling to understand that precisely. Thanx

[jatrax]

Could you please explain of what you mean by limited depth of field at long focal distances,

Go here: Online Depth of Field Calculator and play around with the calculator. I don't know a better way to show what happens.

[ElJamoquio]

Could you please explain of what you mean by limited depth of field at long focal distances, maybe with some kind of an example? It's just that english is not my native language and i'm kind of struggling to understand that precisely. Thanx

At, say 200mm, subject distance 10m, aperture F/2.8, much less will be in focus than...
20 mm 10m F/2.8

[Mr_Radzins]

Thank you guys! Helpful and important!

[Homo_erectus]

The Tamron is awesome. It's one of my favorite lenses. It is really heavy though. It doubles the weight of my k5ii when it's mounted. It took me a while to adjust to the weight. Still, the lens is awesome :-)

[Mr_Radzins]

The Tamron is awesome. It's one of my favorite lenses. It is really heavy though. It doubles the weight of my k5ii when it's mounted. It took me a while to adjust to the weight. Still, the lens is awesome :-)

It is a cool picture! What animal it is, or, actually, was?

[Homo_erectus]

It is a cool picture! What animal it is, or, actually, was?

It's a Slow Loris skeleton. Slow loris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My 70-200 actually needs to go in for repair because it has some decentering that makes F2.8 unusable. Every shot I take at 2.8 has a sort of glowing blurriness. Initially I thought my bad technique was to blame, or that I was just unable to hold such a heavy lens steady enough to get clean shots, but I sent some pics to tamron support and they asked me to send the lens in so they can fix it for me.

Even with that defect the lens produces fine results from f3.5 up.