Request for images from Tamron 70-200 at f/2.8

**Ash** · 08-07-2009, 01:38 AM

G'day all.

I'm interested in seeing some images, both low light and in sunlight, from this monster of a lens taken wide open.

A few users here had reported softness there, and others say it's razor sharp - not mentioning under what conditions such results were achieved.

I've recently acquired one myself from B&H and have had mixed results wide open as shown below (none cropped, so evident softness would only be more obvious in larger/cropped versions). I should add that once taken to f/4 and above, the poorer results virtually disappear:

*NB: not intended to be a scientific study in the performance of this lens*
*Real life trial only - all taken with AWB setting, with Tv no slower than 1/FL and ISO<800 with K20D...*
*Please also excuse the boring subjects in these images*

200mm f/2.8

130mm f/2.8 (supposedly the Achilles' heel of the Tammy)

200mm at f/2.8

160mm at f/2.8

200mm at f/2.8

130mm at f/2.8

200mm at f/2.8

TIA.

happyant · 08-07-2009, 04:32 AM

Here are some of my first shots with the lens,, i can get some better ones tomorrow

I am still investigating a possible front focus issue with mine though

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25048308@N04/3744264457/in/set-72157621646894349/

180mm F2.8

200mm F2.8

70mm F2.8

200mm F2.8

200 F2.8

180mm F2.8

daacon · 08-07-2009, 05:43 AM

I recently purchased a used one. Not many shots wide open , but here are a couple on the short end of the FL.

Click on image for larger view

Camera: Pentax K20D
Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
Exposure: 0.00
ISO Speed: 400

Camera: Pentax K20D
Exposure: 0.022 sec (1/45)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
Exposure: +0.85
ISO Speed: 400

**Ash** · 08-07-2009, 07:56 AM

Thanks for these contributions.
My 200mm f/2.8 captures seem to feature a hazy softness that both of yours do not seem to exhibit.
Anyone also want to comment on whether their Tammy 70-200 has given them similar hazy f/2.8 images?

raz-0 · 08-07-2009, 09:29 AM

mine gets a littel soft in the 130-140mm area at 2.8, and is sharper everywhere else. Your 130mm images seem sharper which differs from my experience. Mostly, though your pics seem to be gettng the focus you want at 130, and focusing on something slightly different at 200, and appear taken at a distance where you wind up with razor thin DOF anyway.

Case in point the flower pics at 130mm have the stamen in focus, which also is close enough that the edge of a leaf is in focus too. The 200mm shot has a petal just slightly forward of that in focus, and a much smaller portion of a leaf.

On the bookshelf pics, clinical epidemiology is sharp in both. Just the greater DOF at 130mm gets you many more spines in good focus it seems.

jsherman999 · 08-07-2009, 09:57 AM

.

You may have a slight bit of FF with that lens - have you tried AF adjust yet?

These were taken at 133mm, f/2.8 - the lens's "weakest" FL and aperture combo:

Crop:

**Ash** · 08-07-2009, 01:53 PM

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Thanks for those. Beautiful colour and sharpness.
Your lens seems to be perfect.
I'll endeavour more real life shots like these to investigate if there is a problem with my own one.

Yes, I've done the focus test on it to find the slightest of FF, which I have adjusted, but will have to retest this again some time again today.
Thanks again.

**Ash** · 08-07-2009, 02:02 PM

May I also ask for some of your 200mm f/2.8 images for comparison as well?
That would be great.
Thanks.

Andi Lo · 08-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Thanks for those. Beautiful colour and sharpness.
Your lens seems to be perfect.
I'll endeavour more real life shots like these to investigate if there is a problem with my own one.

Then again all of Gus's lenses seem to be perfect... lol

But yeah compared to what I've seen from the lens yours is a bit hazy

happyant · 08-07-2009, 04:54 PM

is it worth sending the lens back for calibration if it is front focusing?

I took a shot of a bird yesterday and the bird is out of focus but the leaves in front of it are in focus,, will find the shot soon its on my other computer

and · 08-07-2009, 09:18 PM

Remember that the focal length is long and the lens is heavy so you can easilly get softness just from handling problems. I have been using a monopod with mine.

Igilligan · 08-07-2009, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Then again all of Gus's lenses seem to be perfect... lol

But yeah compared to what I've seen from the lens yours is a bit hazy

Hey how did my name get pulled into an AF lens thread...??? Without any Russian names??? This can't be right!

I think the real issue here is that you can not trust Jay's photo examples as he is 'SATAN' He could stick an ash tray in front of his
camera body and get better photos than I ever could.

His sandpapered 50 and Lake Dunked Tamron 70-200 photos showed the world we were dealing with unearthy skills...

I have stopped looking at Jay's photos because it always ends up costing me money... 8^)

happyant · 08-07-2009, 09:52 PM

A few more,

all at 200mm f2.8

How do they look sharpness wise?

Igilligan · 08-07-2009, 10:31 PM

They still look a bit soft to me... How does the original size file look to you? You may be softening up in downsizing.

Can you link to an original size file?

happyant · 08-07-2009, 11:09 PM

http://home.exetel.com.au/jj/_IGP2688.DNG

http://home.exetel.com.au/jj/_IGP2697.DNG

08-07-2009, 01:38 AM	#1
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Request for images from Tamron 70-200 at f/2.8 G'day all. I'm interested in seeing some images, both low light and in sunlight, from this monster of a lens taken wide open. A few users here had reported softness there, and others say it's razor sharp - not mentioning under what conditions such results were achieved. I've recently acquired one myself from B&H and have had mixed results wide open as shown below (none cropped, so evident softness would only be more obvious in larger/cropped versions). I should add that once taken to f/4 and above, the poorer results virtually disappear: NB: not intended to be a scientific study in the performance of this lens Real life trial only - all taken with AWB setting, with Tv no slower than 1/FL and ISO<800 with K20D... Please also excuse the boring subjects in these images 200mm f/2.8 130mm f/2.8 (supposedly the Achilles' heel of the Tammy) 200mm at f/2.8 160mm at f/2.8 200mm at f/2.8 130mm at f/2.8 200mm at f/2.8 TIA.

08-07-2009, 04:32 AM	#2
happyant Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North NSW, Australia Posts: 76	Here are some of my first shots with the lens,, i can get some better ones tomorrow I am still investigating a possible front focus issue with mine though http://www.flickr.com/photos/25048308@N04/3744264457/in/set-72157621646894349/ 180mm F2.8 200mm F2.8 70mm F2.8 200mm F2.8 200mm F2.8 200 F2.8 180mm F2.8 Last edited by happyant; 08-07-2009 at 04:42 AM.

08-07-2009, 09:44 PM	#12
Igilligan Guest	Ummmhhh Originally posted by Andi Lo Then again all of Gus's lenses seem to be perfect... lol But yeah compared to what I've seen from the lens yours is a bit hazy Hey how did my name get pulled into an AF lens thread...??? Without any Russian names??? This can't be right! I think the real issue here is that you can not trust Jay's photo examples as he is 'SATAN' He could stick an ash tray in front of his camera body and get better photos than I ever could. His sandpapered 50 and Lake Dunked Tamron 70-200 photos showed the world we were dealing with unearthy skills... I have stopped looking at Jay's photos because it always ends up costing me money... 8^) Last edited by Igilligan; 08-07-2009 at 09:49 PM.

08-07-2009, 11:09 PM	#15
happyant Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North NSW, Australia Posts: 76	http://home.exetel.com.au/jj/_IGP2688.DNG http://home.exetel.com.au/jj/_IGP2697.DNG Last edited by happyant; 08-07-2009 at 11:46 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A variety of images with FA* 200/4 Macro (no bugs) - VLF competition images	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	28	08-22-2008 07:28 PM
Request for a Tamron 28-75 shot	Katsura	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-21-2007 03:27 AM
Some flower shots with a tamron 18-200 (large images)	rhermans	Post Your Photos!	3	07-08-2007 01:50 AM

08-07-2009, 05:43 AM	#3
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	I recently purchased a used one. Not many shots wide open , but here are a couple on the short end of the FL. Click on image for larger view Camera: Pentax K20D Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30) Aperture: f/2.8 Focal Length: 70 mm Exposure: 0.00 ISO Speed: 400 Camera: Pentax K20D Exposure: 0.022 sec (1/45) Aperture: f/2.8 Focal Length: 70 mm Exposure: +0.85 ISO Speed: 400

08-07-2009, 07:56 AM	#4
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Thanks for these contributions. My 200mm f/2.8 captures seem to feature a hazy softness that both of yours do not seem to exhibit. Anyone also want to comment on whether their Tammy 70-200 has given them similar hazy f/2.8 images?

08-07-2009, 09:29 AM	#5
raz-0 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 470	mine gets a littel soft in the 130-140mm area at 2.8, and is sharper everywhere else. Your 130mm images seem sharper which differs from my experience. Mostly, though your pics seem to be gettng the focus you want at 130, and focusing on something slightly different at 200, and appear taken at a distance where you wind up with razor thin DOF anyway. Case in point the flower pics at 130mm have the stamen in focus, which also is close enough that the edge of a leaf is in focus too. The 200mm shot has a petal just slightly forward of that in focus, and a much smaller portion of a leaf. On the bookshelf pics, clinical epidemiology is sharp in both. Just the greater DOF at 130mm gets you many more spines in good focus it seems.

08-07-2009, 09:57 AM	#6
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. You may have a slight bit of FF with that lens - have you tried AF adjust yet? These were taken at 133mm, f/2.8 - the lens's "weakest" FL and aperture combo: Crop:

08-07-2009, 01:53 PM	#7
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Now THAT'S what I'm talking about. Thanks for those. Beautiful colour and sharpness. Your lens seems to be perfect. I'll endeavour more real life shots like these to investigate if there is a problem with my own one. Yes, I've done the focus test on it to find the slightest of FF, which I have adjusted, but will have to retest this again some time again today. Thanks again.

08-07-2009, 02:02 PM	#8
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	May I also ask for some of your 200mm f/2.8 images for comparison as well? That would be great. Thanks.

08-07-2009, 02:03 PM	#9
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Ash Now THAT'S what I'm talking about. Thanks for those. Beautiful colour and sharpness. Your lens seems to be perfect. I'll endeavour more real life shots like these to investigate if there is a problem with my own one. Then again all of Gus's lenses seem to be perfect... lol But yeah compared to what I've seen from the lens yours is a bit hazy

08-07-2009, 04:54 PM	#10
happyant Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North NSW, Australia Posts: 76	is it worth sending the lens back for calibration if it is front focusing? I took a shot of a bird yesterday and the bird is out of focus but the leaves in front of it are in focus,, will find the shot soon its on my other computer

08-07-2009, 09:18 PM	#11
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Remember that the focal length is long and the lens is heavy so you can easilly get softness just from handling problems. I have been using a monopod with mine.

08-07-2009, 09:52 PM	#13
happyant Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North NSW, Australia Posts: 76	A few more, all at 200mm f2.8 How do they look sharpness wise?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2009, 10:31 PM	#14
Igilligan Guest	They still look a bit soft to me... How does the original size file look to you? You may be softening up in downsizing. Can you link to an original size file?