ProfessorLarry

Works as a Journalist/Novelist
Joined on May 20, 2014
About me:

Award-winning designer, author, and journalist.

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
In reply to:

Photography Matters: A wonderful way to turn a nice DSLR with a quality sensor into a good P&S. Don't get me wrong, these gallery shots are quite good, but as CCD FTW observes, "the Sigma 100-400mm...is in a whole other league." I went to a baseball game with the Sigma lens attached to a Nikon D500. I missed a lot of shots that could have used a sub-100mm focal length. With this lens, I would have gotten those shots, but my long shots would have been inferior.

So, I'm conflicted. Sacrifice IQ and have a "good enough" one-lens solution, or look like a geek and endure the hassle of carrying 2 camera bodies to cover the entire focal range with no compromise lenses.

The "solution" is to carry two bodies with two high IQ zooms that cover the needed range. But that is a much bigger investment that only the well-paid pros or the 1% can justify. Freelance journalists just do not pull down enough to make it pay, so I stick to one body and one lens and get shots that are more than good enough for newspaper and mag use. I do sometimes need to correct barrel distortion on the wide end or fringing overall, but that's a snap in post.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 19:53 UTC

I have owned the Tamron 16-300 for several years and worked it hard as a photojournalist (on a Nikon D7100). The very rare occasion that 400mm on the tele end would help would not be worth (a) a lens that is fatter, longer, and heavier and (b) losing that critical 2mm on the wide end, which can absolutely spell the difference between getting the shot needed in close quarters or not. For journalism, the only other lens I ever use much is my Tokina 11-20. My two prime lenses (35mm f1.8 and 60mm f2) mostly only get hauled out for portrait and specialty shoots. I would consider trading in for the 18-400 only if IQ were dramatically better, which early reports say is not the case.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: My LX100 starts at 22mm f1.7, which is wider and faster than this Tamron, and goes all the way to 300mm with digital zoom. It weighs 390grams and has 4k video. I took these photos with it: http://japantraveldiary.tumblr.com. However, if you want to carry around a 1kg camera with a 540g amateur lens attached to it to take snapshots, be my guest.

Apples and oranges. Micro 4/3" is a smaller sensor than APS-C. Comparing digital zoom (cropping) with uncropped optical tele is absurd. If what you want is snapshots, a little all-in-one may be fine, but you can never go wider than the 24mm or swap in a fast macro lens, or ... DSLRs and ILCs serve a different audience with different needs.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Every pro makes choices as to what to carry, what not, what to invest in, what not to buy. It depends on the kind of work you do and how much. A wedding photographer does not pack the same kit as an extreme sports shooter. I'm a part-time freelance journalist. I sometimes carry an extra body with a different lens, but when I have to be all over the place for an extended period, I'd rather just put my Nikon around my neck with the 16-300 on it.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 10:11 UTC

As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 02:02 UTC as 29th comment | 8 replies

Many previous posts slam the IQ at 200-300mm but ignore real world conditions and constraints. The real payoff with super-zooms is not the set shot with the perfect lens and angle and lighting and many hours of prep. In the field with a fast 18-70mm mounted and a sudden perfect opportunity in the distance, by the time you switch lenses you will have lost the shot. The Tamron is about being ready for whatever comes along. It's better to get the shot (and fix CA and distortion in post) than miss it altogether.

Plenty of pros shoot APS-C (or Canon's slight departure) with good mid-price lenses. If it's going onto the web, into newsprint, or even in slick photomags printed at 300dpi 8x10 or less, the Tamron 16-300 is more than adequate. If you are really doing museum-quality wall-size prints on metal--forget it. But how many of the posts are from people working at that level?

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 01:59 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply

I've now accumulated steady use since I bought it on the day of its US release. My reviews here and on Amazon were among the very first. As a journalist, I find this to be the perfect go-to lens for everyday work. On occasion I go to a fast fixed-focus portrait lens (60mm f2.0) or my ultra-wide zoom (11-20 f2.8) but the Tamron ultra-zoom covers 80% of my needs. Yes, it's a compromise to achieve such versatility, but the compromise is near optimal.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 01:07 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7