Why didn't I get an L sooner?

[Thomas Kachadurian]

Of course it can be that bad. It's from a 28-300mm lens, and a cheap one. Even Canon's 35-300L isn't going to measure up to the 28-70L.

Tom

Nicholas

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The
reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that
any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set
the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a
friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as
me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

--
http://www.kachadurian.com

 

[RichW]

Geez!! That is so bad I wouldn't even call it a lens! How could that possibly be in focus??

Rich

Tom

Nicholas

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The
reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that
any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set
the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a
friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as
me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

--
http://www.kachadurian.com

 

[dave nitsche]

Go to mindandmachine.com A lot of the images there were shot with that Tamron lens.

Get a good copy of a lens and learn how to use it. Your Tamron copy is a bad one and probably should have been returned.

Some day this forum will understand that the quality comes from the artist not from the equipment. Mike's images kill 90% of the stuff I see here, mine included. You are all kidding yourself IMO that you need $1400 lenses. You need to learn about photography. Sorry all...

Can't buy talent... I say that to myself everyday... LOL.

As a little side note, Mike RETURNED 2 28-70 L's and settled with a Sigma 28-70 2.8 because he felt the two Canon lenses didn't stack up for the price and that the Sigma was of acceptable quality (if equal to the L) for his images. Pretty strong statement from one of the most respected artists online...

--
Dave

 

[Doug Eddleman]

Mike,

While I agree that equipment does not make the photographer, as you state there is obviously a problem with my lens. I chose to invest in a used L lens for $780 (not $1400 as you imply) - in my opinion a fairly good deal, rather than spend money on another cheap lens and risk not getting the quality I want.

I wasted two years before I got my D60 trying to learn how to become a photographer with an inexpensive 35mm SLR and the Tamron lens and frequently getting poor results which frustrated me and almost turned me off on the hobby as I thought the blurry pictures were due to my inexperience. Back when the D60 came out I was working 80 hour work weeks and consequently made a lot of cash and decided to reward myself with a D60 and a 50mm f1.4. Suddenly I was getting sharp pictures and finally getting the results I wanted. But everytime I used the Tamron I would get varying results but assumed it was still due to inexperience. I consequently rarely used my Tamron and relied heavily on the 50mm for most of my photography and with good results. What I didn't come to realize until recently was that varying results I was getting was due to the poor performance of the Tamron at anything lower than f8.

Now I realize that my lens is most likely defective, and in fact sent it in for warranty repair yesterday, but I have been turned off on wasting time and fighting my equipment instead of using and enjoying it. For me, time is as important as money (to an extent as you can see by my decision to buy a used 28-70L as opposed to a new 24-70L).

The reason this thread resurfaced is because I wanted to give Tamron a fair shake by relating my experience with the upcoming warranty repair and to report how it goes. I will update this thread with the results once I hear back from Tamron service and if they repair the lens I will do another test to show the results.

Doug

 

[aevoegels]

I can't beleive how bad these other lenses are. My only none L is a 50mm 1.8, which still is fairly decent...

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[hawkeye1]

but i'm glad your happy........welcome to the "L" club............other than a 50 f/1.4, L's are all i own now.
have fun......

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[Tim Chong]

Don't forget EF 100mm macro (USM or not)... it's darn sharp and nice.

 

[Doug Eddleman]

And it performs much better now. Took a couple of test shots and compared it to the pre-repair pictures. I didn't get the focal lengths to match exactly and I don't have the same cereal box - but it appears much better to me now.

See below:

f5.6 - before repair



f5.6 - after repair



Doug

 

[Cryptnotic]

It does look a lot better now. I guess that is at about the same focal length and distance?

--

I just want to take really spectacular pictures of my vacations, pets, family, projects, and drunk friends.

 

[Doug Eddleman]

It should be about the same, but I didn't check the EXIF. Regardless - the image quality seems to be acceptable now where as before every image I took below f8 was horribly soft! I guess something must have been out of alignment.

Doug

It does look a lot better now. I guess that is at about the same
focal length and distance?

--
I just want to take really spectacular pictures of my vacations,
pets, family, projects, and drunk friends.