5Dsr with Tamron 18-400

[AlCrawford]

I have a 5Dsr and a 7D Mark II along with Canon 24-105, 70-300L, 100-400L ii, 18-135 EF-s, and Tamron 150-600 among others. When Tamron came out with their 18-400 crop lens I decided it might make a better walk around lens than does Canon’s 24-105 or the 18-135. There are times I don’t want to lug around my heavy stuff (I am 76 years old.) While I intended to use the 7Dii with the Tamron, it is the case that the Tamron crop lens mount for a Canon is the same as for a full frame camera, much like the Nikon crop lens will work on their full frame cameras. (Canon’s crop frame mount extends further into the camera so as to interfere with the mirror in a full frame camera) So I mounted the 18-400 lens on my 5Dsr and took a series of photos with that combination. As everyone on this board probably knows you can set the 5Dsr to a 1.3 crop or a 1.6 crop. I shot photos full frame and with the 1.3 and 1.6 crops. What I have included here is a full frame image plus a 1.3 crop with focal lengths of 28, 200 and 400. The 28mm image has some vignetting that goes away at about 25mm. The rest are just fine in that regard. I am not claiming the image quality is quite what my L lens deliver, but this lens produces some high quality images. I will let you judge for yourselves.



View attachment 4bc744cf9b0f4905827ad57282bb9f95.jpg
Full frame with the lens hood attached.




18mm at 1.3 crop. Note the slight vignetting at the corners.




200mm at 1.3 crop. Taken from same spot as above.




400mm at 1.3 crop. Taken from same spot as above. All images hand held.

 

[Andy01]

Quite sharp, but some really ugly CA around the arches especially on the 400mm shot.

Colin

 

[Jon555]

Thanks, that was quite an interesting curio.

 

[BlueRay2]

sorry, i don't understand, what do you mean by 1.3 crop?

 

[BlueRay2]

i agree with you on CA ;-)

 

[landscaper1]

Quite sharp, but some really ugly CA around the arches especially on the 400mm shot.

Colin

Just to put this into perspective, how large would a print of that image have to be before that CA became visually apparent when the print was viewed at normal (not pixel-peeping) distance?

 

[Andy01]

Quite sharp, but some really ugly CA around the arches especially on the 400mm shot.

Colin

Just to put this into perspective, how large would a print of that image have to be before that CA became visually apparent when the print was viewed at normal (not pixel-peeping) distance?

 

[landscaper1]

Quite sharp, but some really ugly CA around the arches especially on the 400mm shot.

Colin

Just to put this into perspective, how large would a print of that image have to be before that CA became visually apparent when the print was viewed at normal (not pixel-peeping) distance?

--
Landscaper

Well, I just displayed the 4th image as "original size" on my 27" monitor (about 18" x 12" - not terribly big) and the CA is visible although not too obvious. If I hit the "+" sign to zoom in (presumably 100%, so around 60" x 40" - big) it is extremely obvious.

I would not think that this type of image would be too bad for CA, so I would hate to see the CA on something like a heavily backlit tree.

I am not surprised that a high-rez (even at 1.3x crop) camera like 5DSr is not very forgiving with a super-zoom.

Colin

Again, to put this in perspective, since the OP is talking about "a walking around lens," how bad is the Tamron ... really? A 12x18 print is probably as large, if not larger, than what most photographers are likely to make. And it's not as if that CA will be apparent in every image made.

If this discussion is limited to walking around lenses, then what would you suggest as an alternative? I can attest that the Canon 24-105/4 L has some CA, and not just at the extreme focal lengths, either. The Tamron, on the other hand, does offer a considerable gain in focal length without a comparable gain in weight and bulk.

Yes, there is no denying a bagful of single focal length lenses would very likely offer superior optical performance. However, for most of us, that's hardly a practical solution when we're just walking around, especially in unfamiliar environments where we don't know what kinds of subject matter we're likely to encounter.

The OP is to be complimented for experimenting with this approach. In fact, it makes me curious what sort of results would come from using the Tamron 16-300 zoom with the 5Dsr.

--
Landscaper

 

[Sharlin]

sorry, i don't understand, what do you mean by 1.3 crop?

Simply that the 5Ds has an option to shoot cropped photos at 1.3x or 1.6x crop factor instead of the whole sensor area, mimicking the field of view of an APS-H or APS-C camera, respectively.

 

[AlCrawford]

First, on my purpose for purchasing this lens. It will be a versatile walk around lens. And it will lighten my load when my requirements are not as demanding as to require my L series lens. Next month I will be visiting Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. I believe the 18-400 lens will do quite well for me while I am walking around in that living history. On the other hand, when I am doing wildlife shooting in Rocky Mountain Park, Yellowstone, or the Serengeti I will still use my two camera setup with my L series lens.

Second on CA. When you read the reviews of the 18-400 one of the most common faults found in the lens is high CA especially at the long end of the focal range. That judgement is usually followed up with a statement that this is easily corrected in post processing. Following this paragraph is the same photo as the 400 mm image in my original post, but with Lightroom CA correction applied. For those concerned with CA I would suggest you revisit your objections with the corrected image in mind. BTW, it was my intent not to correct the CA so as to present the lens flaws and all.


5Dsr with Tamron 18-400 lens at 400 mm. Lightroom CA applied.

Lastly, I am including shots from a different day of the same subject with four different lens. Three were shot at 400 mm while the fourth, the Tamron 16-300, was shot at 300 mm. All were shot using the 5Dsr set for an APS-H (1.3) crop factor. They were all hand held. Each were post processed in Lightroom adjusting the lighting so that all of the images fairly matching. Also, each underwent CA correction. This in no way be considered a full test of the lens, but rather an indication of if the 18-400 is in the ballpark with the others.


5Dsr, Tamron 18-400, at 400 mm., APS-H crop


5Dsr, Tamron 16-300, at 300 mm. APS-H crop


5Dsr, Canon 100-400 ii, at 400 mm. APS-H crop.


5Dsr, Tamron 150-600 i, at 400 mm, APS-H crop

A note on the Tamron 16-300. This is my wife's lens which she uses on her 70D. It has served her very will. I shoot a series of images with it on my 5Dsr. I found it performed very well, almost but not quite as well as the 18-400. BTW, that evaluation would apply to a crop camera as well.

 

[landscaper1]

Al, I personally appreciate your comparison shots and look forward to your further tests of the Tamron 16-300. For those of us using a Canon xxD or 5Ds/Dsr, you've illustrated that there are viable alternatives to the 24-105 focal range as a walk-around lens, especially if additional focal length is desired.

 

[BlueRay2]

sorry, i don't understand, what do you mean by 1.3 crop?

Simply that the 5Ds has an option to shoot cropped photos at 1.3x or 1.6x crop factor instead of the whole sensor area, mimicking the field of view of an APS-H or APS-C camera, respectively.

thank you for clarification, Shalrin! i have a 1dmk4 and if i am not mistaken, that was the last aps-h camera canon made ;-)

 

[Dragonrider]

Best test shots with this lens so far. Most of the early reviews are very poorly done and quite inconsistent with each other (albeit all pretty positive). I have been considering this lens as a mate for my SL2, and these shots are encouraging. Hadn't thought of using it on the 5DSR, but it does make an interesting option.