Finally...Tamron beats Nikon

Started Mar 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shotcents
Senior MemberPosts: 3,905Gear list
Like?
Re: Finally...Tamron beats Nikon
In reply to krikman, Mar 29, 2013

krikman wrote:

Shotcents wrote:

Uhhh, actually they're not. The optics of a smartphone lack the resolution to come even close. I really can't even imagine what you're talking about. I've got a Galaxy Note 2 sitting here and I know first-hand it's resolution/sharpness limits. It's not even CLOSE to a DSLR.

That was my joke. The truth lies somewhere between, because soft portraits most of the time more pleasured by models. Softness and detalisation are differend kinds.

But there is more in lens than simply sharpness.

That's true, but poor sharpness can ruin an otherwise good photo completely. Poor bokeh is very subjective and I've seen many important photos taken where bokeh was poor.

All I've said was that except focal plane sharpness Tamron have unsuitable features, so can't fit everybody's need. It looks better in tests but have some flaws.

Again, the one feature most people look for in a 70-300 is a sharp long end. We all know, with it's slow optics, that the bokeh will falter at times and that rendering will be lesser than with top level zooms and primes. You use a 70-300 with such compromises understood. But the Nikon's fault at the long end denotes a design flaw that is less excusable. I don't know anyone would would not prefer the sharper lens at this level. It is designed for reach and the Tamron has better quality at the long end.

Now our discussion tends to occassional portrait style. As for my taste the photos you show here aren't best you field portraits. Well done, but no more than.

Well done? Thank you. But you're still missing the point as the shots of the man in the hat are designed for something specific.

Sharp enough photo. But honestly that 300 mm direct looking face with both ears visible and distorted perspective and no eyes at all looks as dead body. Impressive photo but no life here.

Try not to shoot straight ahead faces or shoot it at 90-135 mm.

Sorry, but I don't agree and neither did the subject or his wife. They loved the pic, especially since he was standing pretty far away (this is a crop) on a boat. This result is very close to what I'd have gotten with my 300mm f4.

I noticed you did not mention these shots!

Sure they don't look as purpose shot photos but snapshots to delete immediately. The person imaged here has expression - it is good. But much better would be if we see or imagine object of his interaction - that would be a story.

You couldn't be more wrong and I don't think you understand that I do this for a living. If you were a working photographer you'd probably understand better. The shots below are for a yacht surveyor's website. Within the context of the site and the photos to accompany it within the series, they tell a simple and obvious story.

The point of the pics is to show a man at work in a SERIES of photos. I also have shots of a piano tuner that also don't tell a story on their own. But within a context of his brochure they are just what he wanted. There's a LOT more to photography than simply snapping a photo to tell a story or record an event. If YOU don't know or understand the context (and why would you?) that does not disqualify the photo.

I posted these shots to simply point out that the Tamron 70-300 VC can be perfectly fine for a job. My 300mm prime might have done a bit better, but it does not have VR and I did do some shots at lower shutter speeds. My 70-200 VRII, at these ranges, would have been behaving like a 150mm lens and probably would have needed much more aggressive cropping.

People can be happy from simple smile. I never trust what people said about theyr portraits, because they see at photo not a pictorial pleasure, but part of his/her impressions in that time.

(Women can concentrate on defects of cosmetics etc.)

So extra viewer is much objective.

The most important question is this: Could I have done the same shots with my old 70-300vr lenses? And the answer is YES, but with a bit less sharpness and contrast. I could have also shot the Nikon at 270mm, then cropped, but that also reduces quality.

And frankly, so far as I can see, the Tamron sharpness and rendering (via micro-contrast) is superior even well under 300mm.

May I present the dreaded eye crops (over 100%) again showing rendering better than the Nikon.

Good luck with your photos, Robert!

Robert

Thank you, sir and the same for you!

Robert

 Shotcents's gear list:Shotcents's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D800 Nikon D5200 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
VCNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow