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

jackbullet · 08-10-2009, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by shane33

i use the sigma 1.4x on the Tamron 70-200 it works ok no dramas just the usual af hunt but it does work

Shane, are you sure you haven't made a typing error??? Because my Sigma 1.4 teleconverter doesn't even fit my Tamron....doesn't even come close!!!...???

shane33 · 08-10-2009, 07:20 PM

sorry about the shitty pic was to lazy to get out other camera this is diff to other tc disscussed but it works for me

Mechan1k · 08-15-2009, 11:15 PM

I wish i had the cash for one of these.
I have a Tammy x1.4 TC to go with as well.

Jackbullet ... got more shots of the FPV on the previous page????

jackbullet · 08-16-2009, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Mechan1k

I wish i had the cash for one of these.
I have a Tammy x1.4 TC to go with as well.

Jackbullet ... got more shots of the FPV on the previous page????

Just this one...

Attached Images

shane33 · 08-16-2009, 03:24 PM

do you guys think this lens of mine is good at focas been looking at a few shots heres one straight outa the camera and i was 200 mteres away at 122mm what do you guys think

Flickr: More detail about IMGP1482

happyant · 09-07-2009, 05:10 AM

I still feel my images are a little soft at f2.8:

here is one i took this morning, 130mm f2.8

Also i did a test with and without my Kenko Pro1D UV filter i bought off ebay,, interesting results, both at 200mm f.28

With

Without

(click for larger image)

What do you guys think?

ivoire · 09-07-2009, 09:57 AM

130-135mm is this lens weakest focal length. I'd lose the filter

**Ash** · 09-07-2009, 01:58 PM

The Pro1D filters shouldn't affect your results all that much, but yes, it's been documented that 135mm is the Tammy's weak point. So shooting wide open and at MFD there will show the lens's absolute weakest point - I guess if you really want to shoot up close like that a dedicated macro would be better...

Although happyant, the snake's head on the left does appear in decently good focus on that crop.

shane33 · 09-07-2009, 10:30 PM

Kenko Pro1D UV filter

thats the same filter i have on my tammy i might try it without it

**Ash** · 09-27-2009, 02:04 AM

Now to go on with the saga of this lens - I have gone for another with B&H, which has turned out to have the same problem arising at just about the same time as the first one I bought from them.

Just awaiting advice as to whether I can have this lens repaired this time rather than just returned...

photogerald · 10-08-2009, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by jackbullet

Shane, are you sure you haven't made a typing error??? Because my Sigma 1.4 teleconverter doesn't even fit my Tamron....doesn't even come close!!!...???

By "doesn't fit" do you mean that the rear element of the Tamron would impact with the front element of the Sigma TC?

Looking at the photos from the DPReview review of the Tamron 70-200, it looks like the rear element is slightly recessed from the mount. However, their review sample was an EF mount (Canon EOS), which has a shorter registration distance than PK (44.0mm vs. 45.46mm). So in PK mount the rear element of the Tamron may in fact be flush with or go beyond the mount. If so, then it may not be possible to use the Sigma 1.4x TC. Could owners of the Tamron confirm if the rear element is recessed? By the way, we're only dealing with a difference of 1.46mm here.

I'd be very interested in knowing this myself, as I just picked up this converter and am currently deciding between the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 zooms.

By the way, the Sigma TC works fine with my FA*200 (the rear element on this lens is *very* recessed), however it does not report the adjusted focal length to the body - my K20D still thinks it's 200mm. Though the SR is not optimal, it still helps.

photogerald · 10-09-2009, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by raider

Hi Ash. I don't quite understand when u say the Sigma TC will only work with the older sigma 70-200 without HSM. The Tamron 70-200 has no HSM and is a screw driven lens. Won't this work with the sigma TC or the sigma TC has different contacts and such which prevent the Tamron from being recognized?

Yes. I quite like my Tamron 70-200 but it is a huge lens to carry around. That is the only weakness I would say.

The Sigma 1.4x APO EX TC lacks the "power zoom" contacts required for Sigma HSM and Pentax SDM. However, if you're using it with a lens with body-driven (screwdriver) AF, then focus should be fine.

However, there is also a physical limitation with this TC - since the front element of the TC is flush with the mount, it can only be used with lenses that have a recessed rear element. I'm not sure if the Tamron 70-200 is compatible, and we seem to be getting conflicting answers from owners here. Hopefully we'll be able to get this cleared up soon.

And as I just mentioned, this TC also does not adjust the focal length that's reported to the body - it simply passes thru the focal length that the lens reports. So your SR will not be optimal (although it will still help).

photogerald · 10-09-2009, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Ash

You're right Andi, and I haven't posted 100% crops - a little lazy at the moment, or maybe just exhausted...

I'm just keen to know, from anyone who may know, under what conditions would such a lens produce a hazy image when used wide open?

While I don't own this lens, and I also am unable to view the photos you linked to, I can offer some general comments and ideas which may help.

Firstly, a slight misfocus can often result in a "hazy" appearance. Have you checked to see if this lens is BF/FF with your body? Also, it could well be that the AF unit is simply not precise enough for the thin DOF at 200mm and f2.8. I have found that AF is often an "approximation", and to be absolutely certain I switch to MF. However, as you know it's hard to MF with the stock screen, but this is where LiveView (magnified view) can help, even with the blocky pixels (hint: look for contrast changes).

Also, what you're observing could be due to lens flare. In a long zoom such as this with close to 20 elements, there is a greater chance that flare/reflections will take their toll. You could try using a more "aggressive" lens hood.

Finally, what are you comparing these to? In this age of digital it's so easy for us to make comparisons - perhaps we are simply expecting too much of these long zooms?

**Ash** · 10-10-2009, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by photogerald

While I don't own this lens, and I also am unable to view the photos you linked to, I can offer some general comments and ideas which may help.

Firstly, a slight misfocus can often result in a "hazy" appearance. Have you checked to see if this lens is BF/FF with your body? Also, it could well be that the AF unit is simply not precise enough for the thin DOF at 200mm and f2.8. I have found that AF is often an "approximation", and to be absolutely certain I switch to MF. However, as you know it's hard to MF with the stock screen, but this is where LiveView (magnified view) can help, even with the blocky pixels (hint: look for contrast changes).

Also, what you're observing could be due to lens flare. In a long zoom such as this with close to 20 elements, there is a greater chance that flare/reflections will take their toll. You could try using a more "aggressive" lens hood.

Finally, what are you comparing these to? In this age of digital it's so easy for us to make comparisons - perhaps we are simply expecting too much of these long zooms?

Focusing was checked prior to me testing - all was well.
Real life photos wide open at 200mm would clearly make focusing difficult, but even in my magazine/newspaper tests of this lens, wide open only created this haze when focusing near minimum focusing distance. But no flare - none of my shots where anywhere near shooting into the sun/light source.

This also occurred with a Sigma 70-200 HSM I had for a brief while, but it was significantly more pronounced - but it also had sharpness issues, so I did send it back. I've compared the Tamron and Sigma in another thread, but comparisons are not necessary if it is clear the lens has obvious deficiencies.

Expecting too much? Not sure about that. Both manufacturers pride themselves on the fact that their 70-200s have near macro abilities... handy but clearly falls short for 'macro' work given the image softness.

photogerald · 10-11-2009, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Focusing was checked prior to me testing - all was well.
Real life photos wide open at 200mm would clearly make focusing difficult, but even in my magazine/newspaper tests of this lens, wide open only created this haze when focusing near minimum focusing distance. But no flare - none of my shots where anywhere near shooting into the sun/light source.

This also occurred with a Sigma 70-200 HSM I had for a brief while, but it was significantly more pronounced - but it also had sharpness issues, so I did send it back. I've compared the Tamron and Sigma in another thread, but comparisons are not necessary if it is clear the lens has obvious deficiencies.

Expecting too much? Not sure about that. Both manufacturers pride themselves on the fact that their 70-200s have near macro abilities... handy but clearly falls short for 'macro' work given the image softness.

I think we have their respective marketing departments to thank for this...

So what's the final conclusion - design limitation or bad sample(s)?

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

08-10-2009, 04:42 PM	#31
jackbullet Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 57	Originally posted by shane33 i use the sigma 1.4x on the Tamron 70-200 it works ok no dramas just the usual af hunt but it does work Shane, are you sure you haven't made a typing error??? Because my Sigma 1.4 teleconverter doesn't even fit my Tamron....doesn't even come close!!!...???

08-10-2009, 07:20 PM	#32
shane33 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 51	sorry about the shitty pic was to lazy to get out other camera this is diff to other tc disscussed but it works for me

08-15-2009, 11:15 PM	#33
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	I wish i had the cash for one of these. I have a Tammy x1.4 TC to go with as well. Jackbullet ... got more shots of the FPV on the previous page????

08-16-2009, 03:45 AM	#34
jackbullet Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 57	Originally posted by Mechan1k I wish i had the cash for one of these. I have a Tammy x1.4 TC to go with as well. Jackbullet ... got more shots of the FPV on the previous page???? Just this one... Attached Images

08-16-2009, 03:24 PM	#35
shane33 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 51	do you guys think this lens of mine is good at focas been looking at a few shots heres one straight outa the camera and i was 200 mteres away at 122mm what do you guys think Flickr: More detail about IMGP1482

09-07-2009, 05:10 AM	#36
happyant Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North NSW, Australia Posts: 76	I still feel my images are a little soft at f2.8: here is one i took this morning, 130mm f2.8 Also i did a test with and without my Kenko Pro1D UV filter i bought off ebay,, interesting results, both at 200mm f.28 With Without (click for larger image) What do you guys think?

09-07-2009, 09:57 AM	#37
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	130-135mm is this lens weakest focal length. I'd lose the filter

09-07-2009, 01:58 PM	#38
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	The Pro1D filters shouldn't affect your results all that much, but yes, it's been documented that 135mm is the Tammy's weak point. So shooting wide open and at MFD there will show the lens's absolute weakest point - I guess if you really want to shoot up close like that a dedicated macro would be better... Although happyant, the snake's head on the left does appear in decently good focus on that crop.

09-07-2009, 10:30 PM	#39
shane33 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 51	Kenko Pro1D UV filter thats the same filter i have on my tammy i might try it without it

09-27-2009, 02:04 AM	#40
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Now to go on with the saga of this lens - I have gone for another with B&H, which has turned out to have the same problem arising at just about the same time as the first one I bought from them. Just awaiting advice as to whether I can have this lens repaired this time rather than just returned...

10-08-2009, 11:57 PM	#41
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by jackbullet Shane, are you sure you haven't made a typing error??? Because my Sigma 1.4 teleconverter doesn't even fit my Tamron....doesn't even come close!!!...??? By "doesn't fit" do you mean that the rear element of the Tamron would impact with the front element of the Sigma TC? Looking at the photos from the DPReview review of the Tamron 70-200, it looks like the rear element is slightly recessed from the mount. However, their review sample was an EF mount (Canon EOS), which has a shorter registration distance than PK (44.0mm vs. 45.46mm). So in PK mount the rear element of the Tamron may in fact be flush with or go beyond the mount. If so, then it may not be possible to use the Sigma 1.4x TC. Could owners of the Tamron confirm if the rear element is recessed? By the way, we're only dealing with a difference of 1.46mm here. I'd be very interested in knowing this myself, as I just picked up this converter and am currently deciding between the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 zooms. By the way, the Sigma TC works fine with my FA200 (the rear element on this lens is very* recessed), however it does not report the adjusted focal length to the body - my K20D still thinks it's 200mm. Though the SR is not optimal, it still helps.

10-09-2009, 12:05 AM	#42
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by raider Hi Ash. I don't quite understand when u say the Sigma TC will only work with the older sigma 70-200 without HSM. The Tamron 70-200 has no HSM and is a screw driven lens. Won't this work with the sigma TC or the sigma TC has different contacts and such which prevent the Tamron from being recognized? Yes. I quite like my Tamron 70-200 but it is a huge lens to carry around. That is the only weakness I would say. The Sigma 1.4x APO EX TC lacks the "power zoom" contacts required for Sigma HSM and Pentax SDM. However, if you're using it with a lens with body-driven (screwdriver) AF, then focus should be fine. However, there is also a physical limitation with this TC - since the front element of the TC is flush with the mount, it can only be used with lenses that have a recessed rear element. I'm not sure if the Tamron 70-200 is compatible, and we seem to be getting conflicting answers from owners here. Hopefully we'll be able to get this cleared up soon. And as I just mentioned, this TC also does not adjust the focal length that's reported to the body - it simply passes thru the focal length that the lens reports. So your SR will not be optimal (although it will still help).

10-09-2009, 01:29 AM	#43
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by Ash You're right Andi, and I haven't posted 100% crops - a little lazy at the moment, or maybe just exhausted... I'm just keen to know, from anyone who may know, under what conditions would such a lens produce a hazy image when used wide open? While I don't own this lens, and I also am unable to view the photos you linked to, I can offer some general comments and ideas which may help. Firstly, a slight misfocus can often result in a "hazy" appearance. Have you checked to see if this lens is BF/FF with your body? Also, it could well be that the AF unit is simply not precise enough for the thin DOF at 200mm and f2.8. I have found that AF is often an "approximation", and to be absolutely certain I switch to MF. However, as you know it's hard to MF with the stock screen, but this is where LiveView (magnified view) can help, even with the blocky pixels (hint: look for contrast changes). Also, what you're observing could be due to lens flare. In a long zoom such as this with close to 20 elements, there is a greater chance that flare/reflections will take their toll. You could try using a more "aggressive" lens hood. Finally, what are you comparing these to? In this age of digital it's so easy for us to make comparisons - perhaps we are simply expecting too much of these long zooms?

10-10-2009, 04:56 AM	#44
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Originally posted by photogerald While I don't own this lens, and I also am unable to view the photos you linked to, I can offer some general comments and ideas which may help. Firstly, a slight misfocus can often result in a "hazy" appearance. Have you checked to see if this lens is BF/FF with your body? Also, it could well be that the AF unit is simply not precise enough for the thin DOF at 200mm and f2.8. I have found that AF is often an "approximation", and to be absolutely certain I switch to MF. However, as you know it's hard to MF with the stock screen, but this is where LiveView (magnified view) can help, even with the blocky pixels (hint: look for contrast changes). Also, what you're observing could be due to lens flare. In a long zoom such as this with close to 20 elements, there is a greater chance that flare/reflections will take their toll. You could try using a more "aggressive" lens hood. Finally, what are you comparing these to? In this age of digital it's so easy for us to make comparisons - perhaps we are simply expecting too much of these long zooms? Focusing was checked prior to me testing - all was well. Real life photos wide open at 200mm would clearly make focusing difficult, but even in my magazine/newspaper tests of this lens, wide open only created this haze when focusing near minimum focusing distance. But no flare - none of my shots where anywhere near shooting into the sun/light source. This also occurred with a Sigma 70-200 HSM I had for a brief while, but it was significantly more pronounced - but it also had sharpness issues, so I did send it back. I've compared the Tamron and Sigma in another thread, but comparisons are not necessary if it is clear the lens has obvious deficiencies. Expecting too much? Not sure about that. Both manufacturers pride themselves on the fact that their 70-200s have near macro abilities... handy but clearly falls short for 'macro' work given the image softness.

10-11-2009, 11:06 PM	#45
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by Ash Focusing was checked prior to me testing - all was well. Real life photos wide open at 200mm would clearly make focusing difficult, but even in my magazine/newspaper tests of this lens, wide open only created this haze when focusing near minimum focusing distance. But no flare - none of my shots where anywhere near shooting into the sun/light source. This also occurred with a Sigma 70-200 HSM I had for a brief while, but it was significantly more pronounced - but it also had sharpness issues, so I did send it back. I've compared the Tamron and Sigma in another thread, but comparisons are not necessary if it is clear the lens has obvious deficiencies. Expecting too much? Not sure about that. Both manufacturers pride themselves on the fact that their 70-200s have near macro abilities... handy but clearly falls short for 'macro' work given the image softness. I think we have their respective marketing departments to thank for this... So what's the final conclusion - design limitation or bad sample(s)?