Am I being overcritical?

**eccs19** · 05-18-2009, 05:27 PM

I've got a 300mm Tamron F5.6 Adaptall lens. I'm not sure if I'm just expecting to much from this lens or not. I didn't pay much for it, so it's not a big concern, but I'm just wondering if what you see below is what I should expect out of a cheap prime lens. The examples are typical of what I get. Wide open or not, it's usually about the same. 1st shots have PP including sharpening, and the second shots are the same, but 100% cropped.

Damn Brit · 05-18-2009, 05:32 PM

Are you hand holding? If so, try a few shots on a tripod.

asdf · 05-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Don't expect too much from RAW images when pixel peeping (scroll down to "Illustration"):

Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, take a look at DA* 300, f/4, ISO800, K20D, 1/350s, handheld (100% crop, .pef->.png, no unsharp mask or denoise-ing):

**eccs19** · 05-18-2009, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Are you hand holding? If so, try a few shots on a tripod.

Those were hand held, but I've tried tripod, and not that much of a noticeable difference. I mainly find that my 100mm is WAY sharper at 100%. Even my 200mm seems nicer. I'm just not sure if once you start getting to the longer lenses, that it's harder to get sharp shots. (without spending LOTS of money)

**monochrome** · 05-18-2009, 06:49 PM

Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto.

Here's the description of the lens from the Adaptall-2 website.

"Tamron SP 300mm F/5.6 Model 54B: A very good fixed focal length lens with excellent macro capabilities. Lens continuously focuses from infinity to 1:3.3 macro and features a built-in lens hood. Most importantly, this lens features a special "spherical aberration compensator group" (the light blue shaded elements in the above drawing) to remove the focus group's spherical aberration and field curvature when close focusing. A similar optical group is also found in several other SP telephoto lenses which Tamron produced during the 1980s. This lens is worth the price if you need a lens for macro work yet need considerable working distance from the subject for personal safety or other reasons. This lens should have sold better in its day, but few photographers understood or appreciated the benefit of the spherical aberration compensator group used within this lens for close focus work."

Here's the Link Tamron SP Adaptall-2 #54B 300mm f/5.6 Flat Field Tele-Macro

It really isn't the lens you are looking for. Not the one for you. Nope, you want something better.

If you want to swap it for some cash, send me a PM

Raybo · 05-18-2009, 06:56 PM

I have an old Vivitar 400mm f5.6, it works fine for what I use it for (i'm not real fussy).
Here is a quickie I took when I first recieved it, f5.6, iso200, jpeg and hand held.

**eccs19** · 05-19-2009, 04:18 AM

Thanks for the info, but that's actually NOT the lens that I've got. I've got this one...

Google Translate

They are different, mine's not the macro one.

Originally posted by monochrome

Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto.

Here's the description of the lens from the Adaptall-2 website.

"Tamron SP 300mm F/5.6 Model 54B: A very good fixed focal length lens with excellent macro capabilities. Lens continuously focuses from infinity to 1:3.3 macro and features a built-in lens hood. Most importantly, this lens features a special "spherical aberration compensator group" (the light blue shaded elements in the above drawing) to remove the focus group's spherical aberration and field curvature when close focusing. A similar optical group is also found in several other SP telephoto lenses which Tamron produced during the 1980s. This lens is worth the price if you need a lens for macro work yet need considerable working distance from the subject for personal safety or other reasons. This lens should have sold better in its day, but few photographers understood or appreciated the benefit of the spherical aberration compensator group used within this lens for close focus work."

Here's the Link Tamron SP Adaptall-2 #54B 300mm f/5.6 Flat Field Tele-Macro

It really isn't the lens you are looking for. Not the one for you. Nope, you want something better.

If you want to swap it for some cash, send me a PM

Jyrkira · 05-19-2009, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by eccs19

I've got a 300mm Tamron F5.6 Adaptall lens. I'm not sure if I'm just expecting to much from this lens or not. I didn't pay much for it, so it's not a big concern, but I'm just wondering if what you see below is what I should expect out of a cheap prime lens. The examples are typical of what I get. Wide open or not, it's usually about the same. 1st shots have PP including sharpening, and the second shots are the same, but 100% cropped.

For me it looks like the bird is not in focus at the first pucture. Look at the leafs on the right side of the picture. It think the leafs are in focus. Please crop that part too.

dylansalt · 05-19-2009, 05:50 AM

For me, regardless of how well priced, the quality of the output shown here would be unacceptable - especially when output on the long end of kit lens's 18-250, 55-300, 50-200 is way better at similar F stop - imho from what I have seen.

Dyl

GeneV · 05-19-2009, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Jyrkira

For me it looks like the bird is not in focus at the first pucture. Look at the leafs on the right side of the picture. It think the leafs are in focus. Please crop that part too.

That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper.

asdf · 05-19-2009, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper.

The bunny looks in focus, though.

krypticide · 05-19-2009, 08:45 AM

First shot shouldn't count, it's definitely front focused.

**eccs19** · 05-19-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper.

The biggest issue that I find with this lens, is that I seem to have trouble with the focus. I did a few of the bird, each time slightly adjusting to see if that was an issue, and this one was the best of the 5 that I tried. Some were obviously not focused. I'll have another look at the area mentioned, and see, but I don't think it's going to be much better.

roentarre · 05-19-2009, 03:30 PM

I can see that there is a possibility of the lens front focus where the grass before your subjects tend to be sharper. You coudl well have sharpened the image and hence sharpening halos in the foreground just before your intended focus.

Most telephoto lenses with dim maximum aperture tend to share this problem of unsharp image especially in the centre of the framing with accurate focusing.

Since your eyes are able to pick the obvious in the image, it is time to consider the option of better glass to move onto or try to use the best of it.

Remember that your light setting in these two images are not ideal. Hence the results.

**monochrome** · 05-19-2009, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto.

Originally posted by eccs19

Thanks for the info, but that's actually NOT the lens that I've got. I've got this one...

Google Translate

They are different, mine's not the macro one.

Ooops - my bad.

05-18-2009, 05:27 PM	#1
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510	Am I being overcritical? I've got a 300mm Tamron F5.6 Adaptall lens. I'm not sure if I'm just expecting to much from this lens or not. I didn't pay much for it, so it's not a big concern, but I'm just wondering if what you see below is what I should expect out of a cheap prime lens. The examples are typical of what I get. Wide open or not, it's usually about the same. 1st shots have PP including sharpening, and the second shots are the same, but 100% cropped.

05-18-2009, 05:42 PM	#3
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Don't expect too much from RAW images when pixel peeping (scroll down to "Illustration"): Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia However, take a look at DA* 300, f/4, ISO800, K20D, 1/350s, handheld (100% crop, .pef->.png, no unsharp mask or denoise-ing): Last edited by asdf; 05-18-2009 at 05:49 PM.

05-18-2009, 05:32 PM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	Are you hand holding? If so, try a few shots on a tripod.

05-18-2009, 06:38 PM	#4
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510 Original Poster	Originally posted by Damn Brit Are you hand holding? If so, try a few shots on a tripod. Those were hand held, but I've tried tripod, and not that much of a noticeable difference. I mainly find that my 100mm is WAY sharper at 100%. Even my 200mm seems nicer. I'm just not sure if once you start getting to the longer lenses, that it's harder to get sharp shots. (without spending LOTS of money)

05-18-2009, 06:49 PM	#5
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Tamron Adaptall-2 SP Model 54B 300mm f/5.6 Flat-Field Tele-Macro Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto. Here's the description of the lens from the Adaptall-2 website. "Tamron SP 300mm F/5.6 Model 54B: A very good fixed focal length lens with excellent macro capabilities. Lens continuously focuses from infinity to 1:3.3 macro and features a built-in lens hood. Most importantly, this lens features a special "spherical aberration compensator group" (the light blue shaded elements in the above drawing) to remove the focus group's spherical aberration and field curvature when close focusing. A similar optical group is also found in several other SP telephoto lenses which Tamron produced during the 1980s. This lens is worth the price if you need a lens for macro work yet need considerable working distance from the subject for personal safety or other reasons. This lens should have sold better in its day, but few photographers understood or appreciated the benefit of the spherical aberration compensator group used within this lens for close focus work." Here's the Link Tamron SP Adaptall-2 #54B 300mm f/5.6 Flat Field Tele-Macro It really isn't the lens you are looking for. Not the one for you. Nope, you want something better. If you want to swap it for some cash, send me a PM Last edited by monochrome; 05-18-2009 at 07:40 PM.

05-18-2009, 06:56 PM	#6
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	I have an old Vivitar 400mm f5.6, it works fine for what I use it for (i'm not real fussy). Here is a quickie I took when I first recieved it, f5.6, iso200, jpeg and hand held.

05-19-2009, 04:18 AM	#7
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510 Original Poster	Thanks for the info, but that's actually NOT the lens that I've got. I've got this one... Google Translate They are different, mine's not the macro one. Originally posted by monochrome Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto. Here's the description of the lens from the Adaptall-2 website. "Tamron SP 300mm F/5.6 Model 54B: A very good fixed focal length lens with excellent macro capabilities. Lens continuously focuses from infinity to 1:3.3 macro and features a built-in lens hood. Most importantly, this lens features a special "spherical aberration compensator group" (the light blue shaded elements in the above drawing) to remove the focus group's spherical aberration and field curvature when close focusing. A similar optical group is also found in several other SP telephoto lenses which Tamron produced during the 1980s. This lens is worth the price if you need a lens for macro work yet need considerable working distance from the subject for personal safety or other reasons. This lens should have sold better in its day, but few photographers understood or appreciated the benefit of the spherical aberration compensator group used within this lens for close focus work." Here's the Link Tamron SP Adaptall-2 #54B 300mm f/5.6 Flat Field Tele-Macro It really isn't the lens you are looking for. Not the one for you. Nope, you want something better. If you want to swap it for some cash, send me a PM

05-19-2009, 04:58 AM	#8
Jyrkira Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 215	Originally posted by eccs19 I've got a 300mm Tamron F5.6 Adaptall lens. I'm not sure if I'm just expecting to much from this lens or not. I didn't pay much for it, so it's not a big concern, but I'm just wondering if what you see below is what I should expect out of a cheap prime lens. The examples are typical of what I get. Wide open or not, it's usually about the same. 1st shots have PP including sharpening, and the second shots are the same, but 100% cropped. For me it looks like the bird is not in focus at the first pucture. Look at the leafs on the right side of the picture. It think the leafs are in focus. Please crop that part too.

05-19-2009, 05:50 AM	#9
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	For me, regardless of how well priced, the quality of the output shown here would be unacceptable - especially when output on the long end of kit lens's 18-250, 55-300, 50-200 is way better at similar F stop - imho from what I have seen. Dyl

05-19-2009, 07:53 AM	#10
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Jyrkira For me it looks like the bird is not in focus at the first pucture. Look at the leafs on the right side of the picture. It think the leafs are in focus. Please crop that part too. That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper.

05-19-2009, 08:27 AM	#11
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by GeneV That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper. The bunny looks in focus, though.

05-19-2009, 08:45 AM	#12
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	First shot shouldn't count, it's definitely front focused.

05-19-2009, 10:42 AM	#13
eccs19 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lisle, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,510 Original Poster	Originally posted by GeneV That is what stood out to me as well. I don't know how many times that has happened to me--I've wondered about the lens only to notice that there is another area of the photo which is sharper. The biggest issue that I find with this lens, is that I seem to have trouble with the focus. I did a few of the bird, each time slightly adjusting to see if that was an issue, and this one was the best of the 5 that I tried. Some were obviously not focused. I'll have another look at the area mentioned, and see, but I don't think it's going to be much better.

05-19-2009, 03:30 PM	#14
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	I can see that there is a possibility of the lens front focus where the grass before your subjects tend to be sharper. You coudl well have sharpened the image and hence sharpening halos in the foreground just before your intended focus. Most telephoto lenses with dim maximum aperture tend to share this problem of unsharp image especially in the centre of the framing with accurate focusing. Since your eyes are able to pick the obvious in the image, it is time to consider the option of better glass to move onto or try to use the best of it. Remember that your light setting in these two images are not ideal. Hence the results.

05-19-2009, 03:41 PM	#15
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by monochrome Yes and No. It is a fine lens for its intended use - but maybe not for what you want. The lens was really intended as an excellent long macro, with decent performance as a 300mm telephoto. Originally posted by eccs19 Thanks for the info, but that's actually NOT the lens that I've got. I've got this one... Google Translate They are different, mine's not the macro one. Ooops - my bad.