Tamron 70-200 2.8 results

erson83

A while back I asked for opinions on this lens. Being so new, not many were able to provide a first hand thought of it. I photographed a horse show over the weekend with it and couldn't be happier with the results. It was used on a canon 40D on Aperture setting at around 5.6-7.1. The day was not ideal in that it was painfully sunny, so nevermind the tendency to be blown out a bit. The pictures that this thing produced I find to be of great quality. The gallery linked belw is straight out of the camera with very little contrast and brightness help done with the canon software. Please have a look if you like and leave your thoughts on the gallery.

The link is: http://justindickerson.smugmug.com/gallery/5485167_FXb34#335371981_hw8uv

j-bo

My thoughts are that the photo's are very soft. You would think at those F values they would be much sharper. But if you can sell them at $11/4x6, more power to you!

As always, as long as you're happy, that's good enough.

erson83

j-bo wrote:

My thoughts are that the photo's are very soft. You would think at those F values they would be much sharper. But if you can sell them at $11/4x6, more power to you!

As always, as long as you're happy, that's good enough.

Could the softness be releated to the extreme harsh sun? How could i make them sharper?

DJ-S1

What were the shutter speeds you were getting?

erson83

DJ-S1 wrote:

What were the shutter speeds you were getting?

I tried to get at least 500--but sometimes, because oif the 7.1 aperture, it would be around 250-320 range--and the ring was surrounded by trees--beautiful setting, but the harsh sun and then brutal shade made it difficult at times

geospatial_junkie

Photos being soft can absolutely be related to harsh sunlight. However, I have a Tamron 200-500 and it produces softer images as well so I will have to believe it is the lens. This means that you will have to learn proper sharpening technques in post-process stage to overcome this.

Personally, I don't think its a big deal especially if you have photoshop handy?

Are you shooting RAW or JPG? What post-processing did you do? If you are shooting RAW and don't do any sharpening, that you'll get a softer image than if you shot JPG.

erson83

geospatial_junkie wrote:

Photos being soft can absolutely be related to harsh sunlight. However, I have a Tamron 200-500 and it produces softer images as well so I will have to believe it is the lens. This means that you will have to learn proper sharpening technques in post-process stage to overcome this.

Personally, I don't think its a big deal especially if you have photoshop handy?

Are you shooting RAW or JPG? What post-processing did you do? If you are shooting RAW and don't do any sharpening, that you'll get a softer image than if you shot JPG.

raw would have been ideal i agree, however we were offering prints at the show, which meant that we had to change cards every half hour or so and my wife would import them to the computer. Because of this, we had to use large JPEG because my wife said the raw+JPEG was entirely to slow. Guess you gotta take one or the other. The idea of instant profit at the show trumps a hair sharper image in my book. Now, should one of the horse jumpers want to do a private, portrait setting than it's raw all the way!

geospatial_junkie

Well, unless you want to batch process all the photos in a folder and apply a lab sharpening action to them. This'll take a few minutes, but it may help. Or else, you could open the selected photo to print in PS and sharpen right before printing (it takes 10 seconds).

Other than that, I'm afraid your stuck.

DJ-S1

erson83 wrote:

I tried to get at least 500--but sometimes, because oif the 7.1 aperture, it would be around 250-320 range--and the ring was surrounded by trees--beautiful setting, but the harsh sun and then brutal shade made it difficult at times

1/320 should be the minimum acceptable handheld at 200mm (x1.6 = 320 equivalent) based on the old rule of thumb. I would think you might get sharper shots nearer 1/1000th, especially since your subjects are in motion as well.

geospatial_junkie

Shutterspeed needs to be significantly faster for subjects going across the frame than towards.

ou'd be surprised how slow you can go with the shutterspeed when there is something coming towards you.

j-bo

Without a comparison, and if I was looking at buying a Tamron based on the photo's provided, I'd tend to pass. Since the thread started off to me as touting the Tamron as giving "great quality" photo's, I'd have a differing opinion and would purchase another lens.

I'd also have to assume, that if you ran this through NN with some USM, the photo's would look a bit better and more than a "hair sharper".

In the end:

The idea of instant profit at the show trumps a hair sharper image in my book

That's all that matters.

geospatial_junkie

j-bo,

I would tend to agree, its just the price is more than a little dichotomy in price wouldn't you think. Of course we would love the canon or nikon equivalent instead! There is probably close to $500.00 difference.

Personally, I would rather post-process sharpen and save the $500 unless I was making my living on the lens.:D

MJRPHOTO

j-bo wrote:

My thoughts are that the photo's are very soft. You would think at those F values they would be much sharper. But if you can sell them at $11/4x6, more power to you!

As always, as long as you're happy, that's good enough.

The Horse show I went to last year here on Long Island the photogs were charging $35/4x6 and $50/5x7 and $100/8x10. And yes they were selling photo's.

j-bo

MMM... Just depends. $400 initial savings or less if you buy a quality used Canon L.

If someone is buying a lens like this, I'd figure they have selling photo's in mind. If so, to me, quality should win out over initial cost savings. I would also have to see what the end product would like like after PP with the Tamron, and of course, more samples from other folks and differing subjects and not base an opinion on one persons horse show work.

Different strokes!

I think I need to try horse shows if they are sellng at $11/4x6 too!!! Wow.. okay.. let me edit this... at those prices, I'm def. going to look to see when the next show is around my area!

erson83

how about another sample

j-bo wrote:

MMM... Just depends. $400 initial savings or less if you buy a quality used Canon L.

If someone is buying a lens like this, I'd figure they have selling photo's in mind. If so, to me, quality should win out over initial cost savings. I would also have to see what the end product would like like after PP with the Tamron, and of course, more samples from other folks and differing subjects and not base an opinion on one persons horse show work.

Different strokes!

I think I need to try horse shows if they are sellng at $11/4x6 too!!! Wow.. okay.. let me edit this... at those prices, I'm def. going to look to see when the next show is around my area!

Horse Shows are certainly a very good way to make money. However, very hard to get into. It took me knowing somebody to do it.

Moving on, let me just say that the images being soft is most certainly my fault. I have a hard time with the sun being the way it was. ( blistering, and directly overhead) Couple that with an extreme shade from the trees at certain points during the day, and I was all but at a loss as to how to currectly capture the exposure. I know I should have used 2.8, however the prospect of focusing on the rail or another object close to, but not the rider concerned be because of the shallow DOF. Anyway, I will post others as I get them. The following picture posted is from a youth baseball game. Maybe this is a better way to see the quality.--I just posted the baseball pic and the quality does not transfer to the smaller image---maybe it's me!

johng

Another consideration in performance of a lens for sporting purposes is it's focus speed. By all accounts this is where the Tamron faulters in comparison to Canon & Nikon. Sharpness compares very well. That focus capability will impact your number of keepers.

It is why I sold off a very good Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens to buy the Canon. The extra sharpness at 200mm and the improved low light focus of the Canon were for me worth the extra $$.

Build quality is also a consideration for a working pro. I have never seen the Tamron so no idea whatsoever whether the build quality is on par with Canon/Nikon or even Sigma 70-200 2.8. But it is nice to know a lens can be banged, dropped or smacked without falling apart. And depending on the environments you shoot sports in, sooner or later one or all of the above will happen to your lens.

As for the OP I would offer this advice - pick a handful of shots and imbed them. Most people don't want to wade thru an entire gallery - so pick a handful representative of your work.

nobody

erson83 wrote:

Horse Shows are certainly a very good way to make money. However, very hard to get into. It took me knowing somebody to do it.

I think that's true of a lot of things. Any smugmug pro-account holder can show up at a public event and start handing out business cards, shooting photos and putting them up for sale, but if you are not an "official" photographer of the event, or at least helped by the event organizer, known by some of its participants, etc., you will have a difficult time.

erson83 wrote:

Moving on, let me just say that the images being soft is most certainly my fault. I have a hard time with the sun being the way it was. ( blistering, and directly overhead) Couple that with an extreme shade from the trees at certain points during the day, and I was all but at a loss as to how to currectly capture the exposure. I know I should have used 2.8, however the prospect of focusing on the rail or another object close to, but not the rider concerned be because of the shallow DOF. Anyway, I will post others as I get them. The following picture posted is from a youth baseball game. Maybe this is a better way to see the quality.--I just posted the baseball pic and the quality does not transfer to the smaller image---maybe it's me!

Speaking as one on the other side of the fence from you (L glass with an XTi), here's some of my results:

http://enturner.smugmug.com/gallery/5232915_NSmzn#317908859_5Pvhb

Granted, I didn't have same limitations as you had in the horse show, but I did have the problem of large numbers of images being just slightly out of focus (addressed in another thread http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97601 ). I have had some improvement in those areas by using a single focus point on the head and not the center of the body.

The million dollar question about your tamron lense is how well the autofocus performs under low-light conditions when you're forced into high-ISO and its maximum aperture of 2.8. I have the canon 70 - 200 f/4L and also the Tamron 28 - 75 f/2.8. The Tamron lense does well in almost every respect except low-light autofocusing. I wonder if the 70 - 200 version of it has the same issue.

erson83

nobody wrote:

I think that's true of a lot of things. Any smugmug pro-account holder can show up at a public event and start handing out business cards, shooting photos and putting them up for sale, but if you are not an "official" photographer of the event, or at least helped by the event organizer, known by some of its participants, etc., you will have a difficult time.



Speaking as one on the other side of the fence from you (L glass with an XTi), here's some of my results:

http://enturner.smugmug.com/gallery/5232915_NSmzn#317908859_5Pvhb

Granted, I didn't have same limitations as you had in the horse show, but I did have the problem of large numbers of images being just slightly out of focus (addressed in another thread http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97601 ). I have had some improvement in those areas by using a single focus point on the head and not the center of the body.

The million dollar question about your tamron lense is how well the autofocus performs under low-light conditions when you're forced into high-ISO and its maximum aperture of 2.8. I have the canon 70 - 200 f/4L and also the Tamron 28 - 75 f/2.8. The Tamron lense does well in almost every respect except low-light autofocusing. I wonder if the 70 - 200 version of it has the same issue.

I too own the f/4--great piece. I bought the tammy because I am preparing for the fall sports season regarding High schools and such, and will need to shoot during the night. And obviously, the price grabbed me. As for the "official photographer" I was indeed introduced as the photographer of the event, and was put into the official program--that was cool. The reason i did not use the f/4 was because I had a collegue of mine there using it on the rebel XT. (two rings) The build quality of the Tamron is fantastic. The thing is heavy-which I donmt mind, and obviously solid. I have not dropped, banged, or in any other way abused it, but I feel it would do well against normal wear and tear. As for focusing, It does take a hot second to search for where it needs to lock on to, but after that, it focuses quickly when panning, or looking for a subject in a similar location. (perhaps, going from a quarterback to a runningback or such.) basically, after you get in the generall area, I have found it to be just fine. Would I like the 2.8 L...even the IS, absolutly--do I have an extra 2K sittin' around the house?--nope. A credit card..well, that could get interesting!

geospatial_junkie

Taken with a Tamron SP 200-500 (f/11 @ 1/30s, 500mm) lens that has a reputation for being soft. It really is all about the post-processing:



I know its not sports, but the image seems relatively sharp to me with some post-processing. After PP the images and you still find they are soft, I would absolutely agree that you'll need to find an alternative solution to the lens. It really depends how much your time is worth to you.

geospatial_junkie

Another thing to note is if you are shooting your Tamron at a wide aperture, your images may appear soft. My tamron works best at around f/8 I find, but I'm sure every lens is different.

CookieS

Posters main problem with softness is motion you cant shoot jumping and expect crisp sharp focus at 250 shutter speed. over 500 is best also knowing where to focus moving horses jumping is key. not to mention saleability is how good the horse jumps. there are many images in that gallery that should come off. but some very cute moments and a several good jump shots. a better test of the lens would be still subject with workable shutter speed. handheld. also was it single focus or Ai servo? all things to consider. and yeah right, Its a real money maker shooting horse shows all daylong to process images, upload, have them swipe them without paying off your site. ( hope yours are watermarked and protected) when mom and dad and the groom all have their own cameras , so dont want to buy photos when they can get them for free. Or to have some newbie post them for sale behind the offical photogs back. I sure hope people consider all ends . these prices are very well in the relm of horse show photography,as stated on the lower end.

Prime1918

Tamron Lens
I just purchased the lens and it got great reviews

erson83 wrote:

A while back I asked for opinions on this lens. Being so new, not many were able to provide a first hand thought of it. I photographed a horse show over the weekend with it and couldn't be happier with the results. It was used on a canon 40D on Aperture setting at around 5.6-7.1. The day was not ideal in that it was painfully sunny, so nevermind the tendency to be blown out a bit. The pictures that this thing produced I find to be of great quality. The gallery linked belw is straight out of the camera with very little contrast and brightness help done with the canon software. Please have a look if you like and leave your thoughts on the gallery.
I appreciate your review because I just purchased that lens and I, in fact, own a 40D. The reviews in DP Review were very positive.
The link is: http://justindickerson.smugmug.com/gallery/5485167_FXb34#335371981_hw8uv

Shane422

The Tamron 70-200 is a bit slow to autofocus, but when it locks on mine seems sharp. The lens is built really nice as well. My only exception has been the overly large tripod mount. I thought about returning it for the Nikon 80-200, but the 3 ft minimum focus is an advantage over the 6ft minimum focus of the Nikon. I use mine on a Nikon D50, but I did get a chance to use it on a D40 as well, and it seemed a bit snapier on the newer body. Here are a few of my shots with it. I've had it about a month now.

130MM f2.8


Here is a Sports shot at f3.2 120MM, 1/320, ISO800