[Mechan1k]

Now Jay has to wait in line for one again.
I know water is life-giving ... but when it comes to cameras/lenses ... this is not the case.

---

Last edited by Mechan1k; 10-29-2008 at 01:01 AM.

[heliphoto]

My Tamron 70-200 arrived today from Amazon. I'll post some samples later. Suffice it to say that it's a keeper.

[heliphoto]

Ok... Got out in the back yard to do some very unscientific, hand held shooting with my 70-200. First of all, first impressions... Feels lighter than I thought it might (it helps that I hand hold the BIGMA once in a while). Looks badass (that's good for any non native american english speakers). I wish the tripod mount doubled as a handle like the bigma's mount. Manual focus feels just like my 90mm Tamron macro... very nice and smooth.

I was concerned I'd find some sort of defect as a couple folks claim to have found over at DPR. "Ghosting", softness, buyers remorse,... something, but it looks like I got a good copy. Keep in mind when evaluating a lens like this that according to this DOF calculator, 200mm focused at 3.1ft. at f/2.8 will have a DOF of 0.01ft, so if you look at the macro end, it's easy for things to look soft when they're really just OOF. Even focused at 15ft you only get an inch of DOF. (in actuality you'll get a bit more than this in both cases as the lens isn't a true 200mm unless focused to infinity, but I don't know the real numbers...)

At 2.8, the lens is a bit softer than it becomes when stopped down, but it's still entirely usable to me (samples follow). The real difference is seen in contrast and color rendering with a change in f-stop.

Sample shots... All hand held on a K200D. RAW files converted in Lr with default lightroom sharpening applied (should have remembered to shoot jpegs for standardization, but oh well). Looks like a majority of my shots today were at 200mm, which means I made the right choice vs. the 50-135.

First minute or two, I shot this shelf from about 12 feet 200mm f/2.8 iso 1600 (my house isn't all that bright inside). The lens still did admirably copying Mr. Adams' postcard held by a candle holder. 100% crop follows.

Walked outside and got to try the macro capability... (f/5.6)

100% crop

The ubiquitous turning leaf shot (don't get me wrong, I could shoot leaves all day... look at my avatar). I think the focus in the f/5.6 shot was actually not where the crop is, but that was definately the focus point on the f/2.8 shot so I decided to show the same area. A tripod would certainly help with such things, maybe tomorrow...

f/5.6

100% crop


now at f/2.8

100% crop

A limb about 15ft. away...

f/4

100% crop

f/2.8

100% crop

More samples are here, along with these shots, exif, and full sized originals and I'll keep uploading samples to that gallery until I get bored with it

[ftpaddict]

I hate you all!

[gkopeliadis]

... Suffice it to say that it's a keeper.

Nice! It is news if a lens that we buy is a keeper!
Imagine that happened with all other purchases we make ...

[heliphoto]

Nice! It is news if a lens that we buy is a keeper!
Imagine that happened with all other purchases we make ...

Man you are grumpy (and ftp hates me )... I never intended to return it or anything, but with a $700 purchase, if I had found a problem, I'd have to return it for repair or replacement. I meant keeper as in, "I really like it", you know like, "I went out shooting this afternoon and got a few keepers."

Oh well, sorry you're angry about something, at least I'm happy with my new purchase.

[gkopeliadis]

Man you are grumpy (and ftp hates me )... I never intended to return it or anything, but with a $700 purchase, if I had found a problem, I'd have to return it for repair or replacement. I meant keeper as in, "I really like it", you know like, "I went out shooting this afternoon and got a few keepers."

Oh well, sorry you're angry about something, at least I'm happy with my new purchase.

I'm not angry at you
I'm angry with those lens makers and their poor Quality Control. That kind of QC would be unacceptable to most other consumer (or not) industries.
I'm happy you're happy with your new purchase.
I just wish that I'll be as happy as you are when I get my copy of the lens.

[Peter Zack]

Man you are grumpy (and ftp hates me )... I never intended to return it or anything, but with a $700 purchase, if I had found a problem, I'd have to return it for repair or replacement. I meant keeper as in, "I really like it", you know like, "I went out shooting this afternoon and got a few keepers."

Oh well, sorry you're angry about something, at least I'm happy with my new purchase.

I think you should be. From your pictures and the others, this lens and the Sigma are excellent choices. Now we have this region well covered. I hope Tamron or Sigma will build a 16-50 f2.8 to match and then a 200-500 f4 as well.

I'd be off to the bank for both.

[jsherman999]

Looks awesome, especially those green leaf shots - sparkling contrast & color. Congrats!

Are you using the K20D? If so, try 'bright' setting with jpegs, with 'fine sharpness' set at +2. That should get you very, very nice jpegs with this lens and you can forego raw processing for most situations.

Try to get out and shoot some people at f/3.5, ISO 200 or 400 - my lens seemed to really shine at f/3.5.

My update - I pre-ordered before I found out my lake-dunked copy worked fine and maybe just needed cleaning, so I should have my new copy today - and then maybe my cleaned copy sometime later, so I may be either returning my new copy or selling my lake-dunked copy for a couple hundred more than cleaning cost.


.

[heliphoto]

I'm not angry at you
I'm angry with those lens makers and their poor Quality Control. That kind of QC would be unacceptable to most other consumer (or not) industries.
I'm happy you're happy with your new purchase.
I just wish that I'll be as happy as you are when I get my copy of the lens.

Oh good. I got too little sleep last night :ugh:. Sorry I misread you. I think you'll be happy with it (just don't throw it in a lake).

I think the couple complaints I've seen about this lens on DPR might be in part mis-focused. Slightly oof areas start to show the "ghosts"/halos around edges etc. and DOF is very small at f/2.8 not allowing for much error at all when using AF. Since we don't actually know where the camera is auto focusing (doesn't correspond with red bracket), AF won't represent the performance of the lens (at least on my K200D)

I've come to the realization that my K200d at wide apertures is a manual focus camera. I suppose I should send it to Pentax, and see if they can fix it, but I need the practice anyway, and I'd miss having it around, so until I can get a K20d so that I can adjust the focus (what a concept), I just MF any shot I care about below about f/8.

I think you should be. From your pictures and the others, this lens and the Sigma are excellent choices. Now we have this region well covered. I hope Tamron or Sigma will build a 16-50 f2.8 to match and then a 200-500 f4 as well.

I'd be off to the bank for both.

I agree. For now I've got the Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX DG, so I'm lacking a bit on the wide end (until the fisheye zone), but I can go from 24mm up to 200mm at f/2.8 with good results, and I'm happy about that. I considered the Sigma 70-200, but for me it came down to macro capability, and better bokeh (IMHO) from the Tamron vs. the Sigma. I'd sure love to have the HSM/quick shift (whatever Sigma's term for that is) that I'd get with the Sigma, but weight, price, macro ratio, and bokeh steered me to the Tamron.

Looks awesome, especially those green leaf shots - sparkling contrast & color. Congrats!

Are you using the K20D? If so, try 'bright' setting with jpegs, with 'fine sharpness' set at +2. That should get you very, very nice jpegs with this lens and you can forego raw processing for most situations.

Try to get out and shoot some people at f/3.5, ISO 200 or 400 - my lens seemed to really shine at f/3.5.

My update - I pre-ordered before I found out my lake-dunked copy worked fine and maybe just needed cleaning, so I should have my new copy today - and then maybe my cleaned copy sometime later, so I may be either returning my new copy or selling my lake-dunked copy for a couple hundred more than cleaning cost.

Thanks Jay, I'm shooting with a K200d, but I should shoot jpeg more often... It's just that I screw up often enough on an exposure or something, and RAW let's me save it sometimes, so that's my default. I definitely will be shooting around f/3.5 often. Sounds like a plan with the lake-dunked copy. Someone could get a deal there if you end up selling it.

[TYOsborn]

I just hope hubby doesn't ask.... How much was THAT lens.

Shipping estimate for these items: November 3, 2008 1 "Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens for Pentax and Samsung Digital SLR Cameras"
Electronics; $699.00

Sold by: Amazon.com, LLC

[jsherman999]

.

Well, the replacement that arrived today (Amazon) will work for 2-3 shots, then
stops AF and the camera goes into MF mode. It will stay that way until I unseat
the lens.

So... It goes back. Very disappointing. Now I'll probably hold of on ordering
another until I find out what Tamron service thinks about fixing 'dunkie'.

So it goes...

.

[TYOsborn]

.

Well, the replacement that arrived today (Amazon) will work for 2-3 shots, then
stops AF and the camera goes into MF mode. It will stay that way until I unseat
the lens.

So... It goes back. Very disappointing. Now I'll probably hold of on ordering
another until I find out what Tamron service thinks about fixing 'dunkie'.

So it goes...

.

I can only imagine how disappointed you must have been. Mine is supposed to arrive Tuesday. After agonizing over this purchase, I'm now a bit fearful.

[Ben Hunt]

I really have been wanting to get this lens ... and as usualy Jay ... your images are stunning ... and show what a capable lens this is ... the quality of these images matches my Tamron 90mm ... and I really love that lens.

Now I just have to wait for it to the come to Australia ... i still haven't seen it in shops yet. But after seeing these ... I really need to put some $$$$$ aside get it.

Thank you for that ... I really can't afford it ... but it is about the only AF lens I have been really really wanting.

I've seen it at Paxtons, only prob is theres something like a few months waiting list. Maxwell Au are a bit tight when ordering these and Tamron wont tell them how long they'll be. Gahh! Evil corporations...

Have a good one!

[Clem Nichols]

this lens and the Sigma are excellent choices. Now we have this region well covered. I hope Tamron or Sigma will build a 16-50 f2.8 to match and then a 200-500 f4 as well.

I'd be off to the bank for both.

I've read in this forum and elsewhere the praises many have written about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and also the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Is one or two mm at the wide end going to make that much difference? What am I missing here?

CN