This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
p.3 #1Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Here in the UK the Tamron is on pre-order for less that one quarter the price of the new Canon L.
Less than one quarter.
Not 3/4, or 1/2, but less than 1/4. I have to keep saying it because I can't believe it.
I am going to put this lens on my Christmas list!
Less than one quarter.
Not 3/4, or 1/2, but less than 1/4. I have to keep saying it because I can't believe it.
I am going to put this lens on my Christmas list!
Nov 08, 2010 at 11:01 AM
p.3 #2Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
gwaww wrote:
Hello, I thought I would give a heads up on this lens. There are 2 rebates available on this lens when purchased from National Camera Exchange in Mpls totalling 80 usd. Until 11/20. It is indeed an excellent lens.
I can't even find the lens on their site, can you provide more info?
Call them 763-546-6831
Hello, I thought I would give a heads up on this lens. There are 2 rebates available on this lens when purchased from National Camera Exchange in Mpls totalling 80 usd. Until 11/20. It is indeed an excellent lens.
I can't even find the lens on their site, can you provide more info?
Call them 763-546-6831
Nov 08, 2010 at 11:05 AM
p.3 #3Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Yakim Peled wrote:
How did you find USD's accuracy and speed when compared to ring USM lenses? I have both 300/4 IS and 55-250 IS and think this one will make for a nice replacement.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
It's faster than non-ring USM but not as fast as most Canon ring-USM lenses. Accuracy seems to be pretty good unless the lighting is poor, and then, for whatever reason it seems to become noticeably worse than say a 70-200 f/4 (maybe since lots of it is f/5 and up?).
How did you find USD's accuracy and speed when compared to ring USM lenses? I have both 300/4 IS and 55-250 IS and think this one will make for a nice replacement.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
It's faster than non-ring USM but not as fast as most Canon ring-USM lenses. Accuracy seems to be pretty good unless the lighting is poor, and then, for whatever reason it seems to become noticeably worse than say a 70-200 f/4 (maybe since lots of it is f/5 and up?).
Nov 08, 2010 at 01:13 PM
p.3 #4Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
michael49 wrote:
Damn, those samples look fantastic! I own the Tamron 28-75 and although its focus not as fast or silent as Canon USM its an incredibly sharp lens; sharper and much lighter than my 24-105 (which I consider to be sharp lens).
Keep in mind that ANY lens looks mad sharp when you show like a 1/2MP image
.
It's not bad, but I wouldn't rate it as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, etc. The focusing is much faster than with the Tamron 28-75 though (which has the slowest AF I have ever encountered actually so this lens has much faster AF). QUieter AF than the 28-75 and much quieter than the Tamron 17-50 and quieter than the Canon 70-300 IS but oddly it DOES make noise unlike all the Canon ring-USM AF lenses, there is a bit of a scraping noise whenever it AF, so it is not 100% silent like the Canon ring AF. OTOH once the IS gets going it seems to be much quieter than the 70-200 f/4 IS and aside from a few oddities may even perform better.
So far the micro-contrast sharpness doesn't appear to be waht I had expected though. I'm almost afraid that the 70-200+TC might do as well, nevermind the bare lens on either copy I've tried.
Damn, those samples look fantastic! I own the Tamron 28-75 and although its focus not as fast or silent as Canon USM its an incredibly sharp lens; sharper and much lighter than my 24-105 (which I consider to be sharp lens).
Keep in mind that ANY lens looks mad sharp when you show like a 1/2MP image
.It's not bad, but I wouldn't rate it as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or Canon 70-200 f/4 IS, etc. The focusing is much faster than with the Tamron 28-75 though (which has the slowest AF I have ever encountered actually so this lens has much faster AF). QUieter AF than the 28-75 and much quieter than the Tamron 17-50 and quieter than the Canon 70-300 IS but oddly it DOES make noise unlike all the Canon ring-USM AF lenses, there is a bit of a scraping noise whenever it AF, so it is not 100% silent like the Canon ring AF. OTOH once the IS gets going it seems to be much quieter than the 70-200 f/4 IS and aside from a few oddities may even perform better.
So far the micro-contrast sharpness doesn't appear to be waht I had expected though. I'm almost afraid that the 70-200+TC might do as well, nevermind the bare lens on either copy I've tried.
Nov 08, 2010 at 01:22 PM
p.3 #5Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Wow. I was considering the 100-400L or new Sigma 50-500. But at what I'm seeing and hearing, I might go with this and put the money saved towards a 400/5.6L.
This lens looks very promising.
Chris, the shot of the water fountain, was that handheld? Those are insane numbers you took that at if it is.
Is the lens hood included?
This lens looks very promising.
Chris, the shot of the water fountain, was that handheld? Those are insane numbers you took that at if it is.
Is the lens hood included?
Nov 08, 2010 at 01:30 PM
p.3 #7Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Aaron D wrote:
Wow. I was considering the 100-400L or new Sigma 50-500. But at what I'm seeing and hearing, I might go with this and put the money saved towards a 400/5.6L.
This lens looks very promising.
Chris, the shot of the water fountain, was that handheld? Those are insane numbers you took that at if it is.
Is the lens hood included?
It was handheld, but I was sitting with my elbow on my knee. The VC works very, very well... Hood is included.
Wow. I was considering the 100-400L or new Sigma 50-500. But at what I'm seeing and hearing, I might go with this and put the money saved towards a 400/5.6L.
This lens looks very promising.
Chris, the shot of the water fountain, was that handheld? Those are insane numbers you took that at if it is.
Is the lens hood included?
It was handheld, but I was sitting with my elbow on my knee. The VC works very, very well... Hood is included.
Nov 08, 2010 at 09:58 PM
p.3 #8Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
ChrisDM wrote:
It was handheld, but I was sitting with my elbow on my knee. The VC works very, very well... Hood is included.
Impressive. I struggle to get a steady shot with my 28/2.8 opened all the way at 400 ISO at 1/4 sometimes.
I guess it does work "very, very well".
It was handheld, but I was sitting with my elbow on my knee. The VC works very, very well... Hood is included.
Impressive. I struggle to get a steady shot with my 28/2.8 opened all the way at 400 ISO at 1/4 sometimes.
I guess it does work "very, very well".
Nov 09, 2010 at 01:06 AM
p.3 #9Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
skibum5 wrote:
Happy shooting,
Yakim.It's faster than non-ring USM but not as fast as most Canon ring-USM lenses. Accuracy seems to be pretty good unless the lighting is poor, and then, for whatever reason it seems to become noticeably worse than say a 70-200 f/4 (maybe since lots of it is f/5 and up?).
Good to know. Thanks. And yes, I guess this is the reason.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim Peled wrote
How did you find USD's accuracy and speed when compared to ring USM lenses? I have both 300/4 IS and 55-250 IS and think this one will make for a nice replacement.Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Good to know. Thanks. And yes, I guess this is the reason.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 09, 2010 at 02:27 AM
p.3 #10Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
sparadise wrote:
I had pre-ordered one from Amazon and I think it is the best lens that Tamron has ever made. The focusing is excellent even without a limiter.Quiet and VC is better than IS. I also like the weight. Here is a sample pic with a Mark IV . Had to use fill flash.
As far as Tamron lenses go, I liked my Tamron 180 more. It was super-sharp and light for its size The 70-300 is a nice lens, but it definitely has limitations. If they stick this VC and USD in their 70-200 though, that will be a real winner.
I had pre-ordered one from Amazon and I think it is the best lens that Tamron has ever made. The focusing is excellent even without a limiter.Quiet and VC is better than IS. I also like the weight. Here is a sample pic with a Mark IV . Had to use fill flash.
As far as Tamron lenses go, I liked my Tamron 180 more. It was super-sharp and light for its size The 70-300 is a nice lens, but it definitely has limitations. If they stick this VC and USD in their 70-200 though, that will be a real winner.
Nov 10, 2010 at 08:08 AM
p.3 #11Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
The Tammy got a rather weak IQ review at Pop Photo, especially at the long end (& Pop tends to go easy on its reviews). The IS results seemed impressive at 4 stops.
Nov 10, 2010 at 11:45 AM
p.3 #12Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Chris, can you post some 100% crops from the corners and center of WO shots? TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 11, 2010 at 03:04 AM
p.3 #13Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Chris
My tamron came yesterday. All I can say is for 383.00 shipped it is one awesome lens. IS is amazing. To hand hold 300mm at 1/30 shutter is great for my shakey hands. I need more testing but so far its sharp at 300mm.
My tamron came yesterday. All I can say is for 383.00 shipped it is one awesome lens. IS is amazing. To hand hold 300mm at 1/30 shutter is great for my shakey hands. I need more testing but so far its sharp at 300mm.
Nov 11, 2010 at 06:47 AM
p.3 #14Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Good to hear Steve.
Yakim, I would be happy to do that but I haven't shot anything that has corners in focus yet. When shooting telephoto, I usually reserve corners for blurry OOF to isolate/accentuate my subject. The exception is landscape photography and I haven't had a chance to take this one on a landscape trip yet. Regarding "test photos", I am opposed to them on principle. There are too many beautiful things in this world to photograph to waste time taking pictures of brick walls or newspapers.
Yakim, I would be happy to do that but I haven't shot anything that has corners in focus yet. When shooting telephoto, I usually reserve corners for blurry OOF to isolate/accentuate my subject. The exception is landscape photography and I haven't had a chance to take this one on a landscape trip yet. Regarding "test photos", I am opposed to them on principle. There are too many beautiful things in this world to photograph to waste time taking pictures of brick walls or newspapers.
Nov 11, 2010 at 09:16 AM
p.3 #15Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Then shoot something beautiful and place it in the corner.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 11, 2010 at 09:23 AM
p.3 #16Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
ChrisDM wrote:
Regarding "test photos", I am opposed to them on principle. There are too many beautiful things in this world to photograph to waste time taking pictures of brick walls or newspapers.
More than fair enough and I certainly get your point, nothing wrong with it in the least, BUT at the same time it then makes no sense to post images at postage stamp size and brag about how sharp they are (when even a coke bottle looks sharp at 1/16th of a MP and you don't even necessarily know yourself if it performs any better or worse than other lens in the class)
anyway it is a really awesomely cool photo though (the sphinx moth, i'm shocked they are still out though, you must be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy far south) and the bokeh obviously looks very good for this class of lens.
Regarding "test photos", I am opposed to them on principle. There are too many beautiful things in this world to photograph to waste time taking pictures of brick walls or newspapers.
More than fair enough and I certainly get your point, nothing wrong with it in the least, BUT at the same time it then makes no sense to post images at postage stamp size and brag about how sharp they are
(when even a coke bottle looks sharp at 1/16th of a MP and you don't even necessarily know yourself if it performs any better or worse than other lens in the class)anyway it is a really awesomely cool photo though (the sphinx moth, i'm shocked they are still out though, you must be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy far south) and the bokeh obviously looks very good for this class of lens.
Nov 11, 2010 at 12:16 PM
p.3 #17Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
I have access to this lens (Nikon version), the VC sounds reminds me of Canon 18-135mm IS but it works very well somewhat amazing.
No sharpening at all (on both pictures) not even the CS5 default sharpening. Shooting distance 5.18 feet.
Full image:
Crop 100%:
No sharpening at all (on both pictures) not even the CS5 default sharpening. Shooting distance 5.18 feet
.Full image:
 |
||
| http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1254/5167961692_ff68b0b491_b.jpg | ||
|
Crop 100%:
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5167961704_90f7508296_b.jpg | ||
|
Nov 11, 2010 at 03:13 PM
p.3 #18Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Thanks a lot.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 14, 2010 at 02:40 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.3 #19Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Now it's done: I'll be looking for this lens when it hits the stores here. The price premium is going to be ridiculous though... 
Nov 14, 2010 at 05:53 AM
p.3 #20Just got my Tamron 70-300 VC...
Snopchenko wrote:
Now it's done: I'll be looking for this lens when it hits the stores here. The price premium is going to be ridiculous though...
Think I'm sold too. Gonna have to wait til January to pick one up though. It's gonna replace my 55-250IS.
Now it's done: I'll be looking for this lens when it hits the stores here. The price premium is going to be ridiculous though...
Think I'm sold too. Gonna have to wait til January to pick one up though. It's gonna replace my 55-250IS.
Nov 14, 2010 at 07:21 PM