Not sure why the lens would ever front focus. Missing focus makes sense on a moving object as it probably does focus slower than a fast prime. My focus experience has been good but not at the level (for moving objects) as a 1.8 or 1.4 lens. Never the less - it seems very respectable.
mudlake wrote:
You’ll be happy you spent the money! 🙂
I’m heading to Yellowstone in a month and figure this will be my primary lens. I’ll only break out the 200-600 when the wildlife show up.
Just got back from Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton - 17-28, 28-200 and 200-600 (with 1.4TC) worked very well. Made an effort to use the 28-200 as much as I could. I tried to keep my SS at 160 or faster at longer FL because of the lack of OSS.
This combination worked very well at those locations with my A7RIII.
caplanner wrote:
Just got back from Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton - 17-28, 28-200 and 200-600 (with 1.4TC) worked very well. Made an effort to use the 28-200 as much as I could. I tried to keep my SS at 160 or faster at longer FL because of the lack of OSS.
This combination worked very well at those locations with my A7RIII.
Nice! You have my exact kit. Looking forward to my trip.
caplanner wrote:
Just got back from Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton - 17-28, 28-200 and 200-600 (with 1.4TC) worked very well. Made an effort to use the 28-200 as much as I could. I tried to keep my SS at 160 or faster at longer FL because of the lack of OSS.
This combination worked very well at those locations with my A7RIII.
My exact kit too, well I did carry a Milky Way lens as well but found the Tam1728 just fine for my level of Milky Way work.
I needed an overhead shot and my Sony system is less weight compared to the Fuji. This Tamron lens is versatile.
Before 20200906_Food1039 by Vishi A, on Flickr
Fires are still burning creating these sci-fi movie like sunsets. Livermore valley with mount Diablo in the back. 20200907_Livermore_0016 by Vishi A, on Flickr
