[smcook99]

Ok,
I just used a Tamron 70-210 f3.8 I picked up yesterday MF and the f.3.8 is CRISP. So now my kit lens AF/MF and this 20 year old MF is crisp. I'm going to call Tamron tomorrow and send this back again. I hope this doesn't end up costing me another $50 from sending it back and forth another 3 times OR they ask me to send my Camera body. I'm not exactly sure how comfortable I am with my camera A) in the mail or B) them handling it.

[Pentaxor]

Ok,
I just used a Tamron 70-210 f3.8 I picked up yesterday MF and the f.3.8 is CRISP. So now my kit lens AF/MF and this 20 year old MF is crisp. I'm going to call Tamron tomorrow and send this back again. I hope this doesn't end up costing me another $50 from sending it back and forth another 3 times OR they ask me to send my Camera body. I'm not exactly sure how comfortable I am with my camera A) in the mail or B) them handling it.

in canada, avoid UPS as much as possible.

[smcook99]

1 point to Tamron,
They gave me a FedEx account # to pay for return shipping.

[geauxpez]

Excellent -- let's hope that they get it right this time. Although my 2 favorite lenses are Tamron, I have been a bit miffed that they are ignoring Pentax for the 60mm/f2 Macro. Let's see how their service department sizes up. So far they are at -1.

[smcook99]

Ok, this is the 2nd time back from Tamron. Is it me or is it too much to think they should be able to fix this? The focal area is clearly softer on the left 2.8 than the right 5.6

[Marc Sabatella]

If that's a 100% crop, I can't see what you could possible be still complaining abut. Of course a lens is a little softer at f/2.8 than f/5.6. If that's not a 100% crop, then I'd be blaming the closeup lens you apparently used to get it to focus that close.

[Parallax]

The focal area is clearly softer on the left 2.8 than the right 5.6

I would expect it to be.

[harpee]

A friend is offering me a Tamron AF 70-300 F/4-5,6 DI LD Macro 1:2 at a cheaper price. I want to know if it work well with my K2000?

Thanks.

[Pentaxor]

I believe it's better now than before. you just have to contend with shallow DOF at f/2.8. focus area is not that wide compared to a shot done at f/5.6. so careful with the focus.

just start shooting now with more interesting subjects. either taken from close up, midrange or infinity and see how it goes from there. also try using a flash on a few occassions.

[smcook99]

It's not a 100% crop but it's not the raw distance either. That is about 30% of the original picture. The yellow hair in the white circle has a distance from the camera, foreground to background of about 1cm. So DOF could not excuse the softness of that "hair". When I can look on the camera's screen and see softness I know there is a problem.

Please clear up the following though:
Should 2.8 be sharp or not. I've heard testimony of THIS model lens sharp the whole range of the aperture and I've read, as was said three posts up, that I shouldn't expect 2.8 to be as sharp as 5.6

Please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that my lens is erroneously soft.

Thank you

[Pentaxor]

It's not a 100% crop but it's not the raw distance either. That is about 30% of the original picture. The yellow hair in the white circle has a distance from the camera, foreground to background of about 1cm. So DOF could not excuse the softness of that "hair". When I can look on the camera's screen and see softness I know there is a problem.

Please clear up the following though:
Should 2.8 be sharp or not. I've heard testimony of THIS model lens sharp the whole range of the aperture and I've read, as was said three posts up, that I shouldn't expect 2.8 to be as sharp as 5.6

Please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that my lens is erroneously soft.

Thank you

I couldn't give a conclusion to those particular photos. I mean you have to shoot more than that. as for me, I do several types of testing. text, newspaper testing for clarity, DOF and focusing issues, done at varying aperture, exposures and distance. fruit or coin shots at varying lighting conditions and exposure for a more realistic and less boring approach. and last is real world shooting (indoors and outdoors) to finalize and see the performance consistency and viability of the lens.

[Pentaxor]

oh and I dont know what camera you are using but it would help if you shoot via LV mode and magnify it at max to see if the focus area is really in focus as you are setting up the shot. if what you see in the LV is different from what you get, then the lens really have a problem.

[Marc Sabatella]

It's not a 100% crop but it's not the raw distance either. That is about 30% of the original picture.

How about then posting the piture howing the whole frame, as well as a 100% crop?

The yellow hair in the white circle has a distance from the camera, foreground to background of about 1cm.

Huh? Are you saying the hair was only 1cm from the camera? Surely the lens can't focus anywhere *near* that close?

Please clear up the following though:
Should 2.8 be sharp or not.

"Sharp" is a relative term. It should be "pretty sharp" at f/2.8, sure - but not *as* sharp as stopped down. Looking at crops will show the difference, and as far as I can tell, that's exactly what you are seeing here.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that my lens is erroneously soft.

I'd say until you post examples that really make it clear, it's going to be impossible for anyone to say for sure. but right now my money is on the lens being perfectly fine.

[Marc Sabatella]

A friend is offering me a Tamron AF 70-300 F/4-5,6 DI LD Macro 1:2 at a cheaper price. I want to know if it work well with my K2000?

It will if it's the version made for Pentax.

[Jewelltrail]

smcook99:It's not a 100% crop but it's not the raw distance either. That is about 30% of the original picture. The yellow hair in the white circle has a distance from the camera, foreground to background of about 1cm. So DOF could not excuse the softness of that "hair". When I can look on the camera's screen and see softness I know there is a problem.

Mark has made some great points. Also, along with non-cropped shots and %100 crops, you could post shots with EXIF data in tact. Or, tell us the focal length used and the precise distance to the focus point. The closer you get to the subject, the shallower DOF is. There is no way you took the above shots at 1cm from your subject. Are you sure your crops are from the focus point?

smcook99"Please clear up the following though:
Should 2.8 be sharp or not. I've heard testimony of THIS model lens sharp the whole range of the aperture and I've read, as was said three posts up, that I shouldn't expect 2.8 to be as sharp as 5.6

Yes, absolutely, this lens is very sharp wide open--no doubt. Like other lenses though, when you stop down it gets even sharper. But, if you are close to subject, @ 75mm & f 2.8, the DOF will be very, very shallow. Also, if you are closer than the lens' minimum focus distance, there is no way to get sharp pics. I believe the minimum focus distance for this lens is 13 inches, but I'm not sure if that holds throughout the entire zoom range. Be sure to shoot more than 13 inches away from your subject and take crops from the area you focused upon.

smcook99: Please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that my lens is erroneously soft.

We are doing our best to help you, but you need to try harder to help us. Please use our suggestions and we will be sure to do more for you. This is a 2-way process and the better the information you give us, the better the information we'll give you.