Tamron 28-300 VC

Hinson

I purchased the above lens a couple months ago as a walk-around lens to eliminate having to lug a lot lens on my bike. I was fairly satisfied until about three weeks ago when the zoom mechanism broke. Back to Tamron for repair since I had cut out the code on the box to get rebate. Just got the lens back and am ready to start screaming at the dealer and/or Tamron for a refund. First though, I thought I would run this by you guys.

My problem is shooting at the 300mm end. Today, I shot the following image at 300mm, f/6.3 and 1/500 sec. I expected the image to be sharp since the VC should give me at least one more stop and eliminate any chance of lens movement. As you can see in the below crop, there is slight blur caused by lens movement.

Am I expecting too much? My hands are definitely not as steady as they once were and I like the lens but this aggravates me. Here's the full shot and a 100% crop.

ThatCanonGuy

I don't know how much VC that lens has, but it requires an awful lot of VC to handhold at 300mm...

I'm generally not a fan of superzooms, they give you small apertures and not as good IQ. But this looks to be fine image quality and it's a noce shot, too bad it's blurred.

ziggy53

Is any part of the image sharp? It looks like the neck of the bird has more sharpness.

What was the focus point used?

What was your focus technique?

Hinson

The eye was the focus point and that is also the sharpest area. Focus technique? ...autofocus, point at eye hold the camera as steady as possible and shoot. I told the goose to be 'real still' but he/she/it didn't listen and kept moving around the closer I got. Maybe this ain't too bad considering...

ziggy53

Hinson wrote: »

The eye was the focus point and that is also the sharpest area. Focus technique? ...autofocus, point at eye hold the camera as steady as possible and shoot. I told the goose to be 'real still' but he/she/it didn't listen and kept moving around the closer I got. Maybe this ain't too bad considering...

Did you use the center focus dot only, focus on the eye and then recompose the shot to the shot presented?

ThatCanonGuy

You mean the red focus point was on the eye, or did you use the Ring of Fire? There may be a misunderstanding here. And I'm assuming you had the AF on Single shot. The goose moving probably wouldn't cause blurr at 1/500th.

Icebear

Before you make any judgement of the sharpness of the lens, you need to mount the camera and lens on the beefiest tripod you have (or can beg, borrow, or steal) and really give it a test . Use the self timer, or a remote. Turn off your VR for this test. Believe me, resolution tests are not conducted hand-held.

Hinson

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

You mean the red focus point was on the eye, or did you use the Ring of Fire? There may be a misunderstanding here. And I'm assuming you had the AF on Single shot. The goose moving probably wouldn't cause blurr at 1/500th.

Yes, red focus point was on the eye. But focus doesn't see to be the problem as much as camera movement.

Hinson

Icebear wrote: »

Before you make any judgement of the sharpness of the lens, you need to mount the camera and lens on the beefiest tripod you have (or can beg, borrow, or steal) and really give it a test . Use the self timer, or a remote. Turn off your VR for this test. Believe me, resolution tests are not conducted hand-held.

Agreed. I think I'll try that tomorrow. Previous tests done on this lens when I first received it showed acceptable sharpness and these will probably show the same. I'm just concerned that I spent extra money for the VC version hoping I could handhold at 300 and it doesn't appear that it is going to happen. If I've got to use a tripod then that defeats the purpose of the VC.

I would think that 1/500th plus the extra supposed four stop advantage "http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/technology.asp#VC" would eliminate all camera shake.

Icebear

Try shooting that same shot without the VC, and I think you'll see what you paid for.

Art Scott

I find that my shooting technique cause me to get VR blurred photos....by that I mean I hold th camera nearly as stable as my tripod and that causes the VR to actually blur the image.....
so unless I am shooting in some hard Ks winds I don't VR...and I shoot an extreme amount from a pod any way...so no VR there either..........so make sure it is not the VC actually
causing the blur....and it can.......even with my Konica Minolta's I have to be careful of this.....I first ran into this Phenom. when shooting backstage of an Opera that Wichita State
was putting on...my film images were good my KM A2 images were slightly blurry...so the next day during a tech rehearsal, I turned off the anti-shake and VIOLA much gooder photos.....

time2smile

I'm sorry, but i will answer this way, you are expecting to much. This is a pretty sharp pic for a lens in this category. you will give up some at the long and sort ends for the convenience of just one lens. I have a non VC Tammy 18-200 and i enjoyed using it when i needed to, but compare it to the Tammy 70-200 F2.8 at 200, just not in the same league. I think you are experiencing this with the 300.

Hinson

Icebear wrote: »

Try shooting that same shot without the VC, and I think you'll see what you paid for.

Great Idea. I'll go out today and shoot two identical shots (as close as possible hand-held) and post the difference.

Hinson

Icebear wrote: »

Try shooting that same shot without the VC, and I think you'll see what you paid for.

Art Scott wrote: »

I find that my shooting technique cause me to get VR blurred photos....by that I mean I hold th camera nearly as stable as my tripod and that causes the VR to actually blur the image.....
so unless I am shooting in some hard Ks winds I don't VR...and I shoot an extreme amount from a pod any way...so no VR there either..........so make sure it is not the VC actually
causing the blur....and it can.......even with my Konica Minolta's I have to be careful of this.....I first ran into this Phenom. when shooting backstage of an Opera that Wichita State
was putting on...my film images were good my KM A2 images were slightly blurry...so the next day during a tech rehearsal, I turned off the anti-shake and VIOLA much gooder photos.....

The test I'm doing today (see above post) should pretty much show that. I had never considered that the VC may be actually causing the blur. I shot that while crouched next to a small retaining wall and was braced on the wall. The goose was just on the other side. This was near a boat ramp and the goose/ducks are relatively tame.

Hinson

time2smile wrote: »

I'm sorry, but i will answer this way, you are expecting to much. This is a pretty sharp pic for a lens in this category. you will give up some at the long and sort ends for the convenience of just one lens. I have a non VC Tammy 18-200 and i enjoyed using it when i needed to, but compare it to the Tammy 70-200 F2.8 at 200, just not in the same league. I think you are experiencing this with the 300.

And that's what I'm afraid of. I bought this to use in place of my 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2.8 and 17-40L 4.0. Needless to say, all are tack sharp. I guess I'm spoiled but I still like the convenience of this lens. I still ride my motorcycle and love heading out somewhere I've never been and not having to strap my whole camera bag with lens on the bag.

Hinson

Here we go. And a big thanks to everyone who has commented and offered their opinions. I shot three shots. Hand held with VC on, VC off and tripod using shutter release cable. All images were shot in my office by window light; ISO 1250, 300mm, f6.3, 1/320th sec. The only PP done was white balance and exposure correction. I was surprised at the results. Can you tell which one is which?

Icebear

Hinson wrote: »

Can you tell which one is which?

Well, no. But then again, I don't speak very good Spanish.

ThatCanonGuy

Well, no. But then again, I don't speak very good Spanish.

ThatCanonGuy

No, I can't tell. I think it must have been vc, I don't think hand shake would cause blurr at 1/500th.

I bought this to use in place of my ... 17-40L 4.0

You are gonna sacrifice alot of IQ. I would rather buy a little lens pouch for that and keep it in there. Strap it on your belt.

Hinson

First shot is on tripod no vc, second is hand-held no vc and far right is hand-held vc on. I was surprised that I could not see a discernible difference in the two on the right. The tripod shot (left) does seems sharper to me. Which seems to say that the VC is only going to come in handy on longer exposures. I'll shoot it again and see what happens at 1/125th second. However, these shots tell me that the goose shot above was just a fluke.