Do I really want a new lens? I use a Canon 7D II or a Canon 80D or for fun, a Canon D60 (not a 60D) with a Tamron 16-300. I use that lens often as my walk around lens as it is light...

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

I use a Canon 7D II or a Canon 80D or for fun, a Canon D60 (not a 60D) with a Tamron 16-300. I use that lens often as my walk around lens as it is light and and is very versatile. I've been studying my images lately and am not overly impressed with sharpness, especially at the tele end. So I'm thinking of the Tamron 18-400. Would I get sharper images with that lens or should I stay where I'm at. Attached is an example. Thanks for your advise and please don't say "go to Nikon or Sony."

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I can’t tell you which of those 2 long zooms would give you sharper images, but I can tell you that if you want sharp, forget about consumer grade zooms. If you want to go fast, you don’t try to choose between a Honda Civic and a Nissan Sentra.

Get an L zoom or some prime lenses in the focal lengths that you normally shot at. Good luck!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

So you have a lens that doesn’t meet your standards, but you won’t consider all of the options?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

the f/stops here wrote:

I use a Canon 7D II or a Canon 80D or for fun, a Canon D60 (not a 60D) with a Tamron 16-300. I use that lens often as my walk around lens as it is light and and is very versatile. I've been studying my images lately and am not overly impressed with sharpness, especially at the tele end. So I'm thinking of the Tamron 18-400. Would I get sharper images with that lens or should I stay where I'm at. Attached is an example. Thanks for your advise and please don't say "go to Nikon or Sony."

Ok, so don't go to Nikon or Sony, or any other camera brand - you don't need to. But do go to Canon L, Sigma Art, Sigma Sport, Tamron G2, etc - but don't expect to get anything sharp in a 10x or 20x consumer zoom. And be prepared to pay for what you want. Or get the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, which is optically similar to the L version, and not that terribly expensive. Or not.

chaman

Consider the Canon 100-400mm Mark II L lens.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

The only thing I can suggest is, take your preferred camera to a quality local camera dealer and ask if you could try the lens on your camera.
I am confident they will agree. Then view your images in the comfort of your home, then you can make an informed choice.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

I have an 18-400 Tamron. It is not as sharp in all the zoom ranges as a EF70-300 f4-5.6 IS II USM. And if your hands are not rock steady the lens may have a noticeable shake at full zoom. The EF lens is, I think, as sharp or sharper than the Tamron. The EF is lighter and easier on the wallet. A much better walk around lens for me than the Tamron. It has become my new favorite. Now I wish I had saved enough for the L version.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

the f/stops here wrote:

I use a Canon 7D II or a Canon 80D or for fun, a Canon D60 (not a 60D) with a Tamron 16-300. I use that lens often as my walk around lens as it is light and and is very versatile. I've been studying my images lately and am not overly impressed with sharpness, especially at the tele end. So I'm thinking of the Tamron 18-400. Would I get sharper images with that lens or should I stay where I'm at. Attached is an example. Thanks for your advise and please don't say "go to Nikon or Sony."

How old is the lens? The earlier Tamron lenses were not nearly as good as the newer ones. I have the new 28-300 Tamron VC PZD and it is pretty sharp on a 6D. It isn't as sharp as the Canon 28-300 but it is pretty close. I think the stabilization on the Canon is probably better but there is a big difference in cost and weight, sometimes I wonder if it is worth it. :D

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Careful, once the IQ hook is in, you wont be able wriggle free...
....once I saw an image from my first L lens (70-200 f4 L nonIS) and compared to my 18-135mm 70D kit lens. I called the bank and took out a 2nd mortgage. :-)

The GAS is real...

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

crazydaddio wrote:

Careful, once the IQ hook is in, you wont be able wriggle free...
....once I saw an image from my first L lens (70-200 f4 L nonIS) and compared to my 18-135mm 70D kit lens. I called the bank and took out a 2nd mortgage. :-)

The GAS is real...

Hahaha :D, I have a friend who shoots a 70D, I showed him my new 16-35 f/4 L IS when I first bought it and offered to let him borrow it. He said no, he said he heard that once you use an L series lens you won't go back to standard lenses and he said he can't afford the L series. :b Oh well I'm generous and I offered.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The net-net is, as others have said, is that there is essentially no free lunch. Optics, like many other designs, are a series of compromises, and the price of versatility (like a 10x - 20x zoom) is sharpness/IQ. All else being equal, the best primes are potentially sharper than the best zooms, low FL range zooms (3x- 4x) are potentially sharper than wide FL range zooms, and high end (and more expensive) lenses are likely to be sharper then inexpensive lenses. My suggestion would be to pick the FL(s) that you most like to work in, and pick a limited range zoom or prime in that range of the best quality lens you can afford.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

TriX wrote:

The net-net is, as others have said, is that there... (show quote)

rts2568

Your 7D Mk II is just fine but for the fact that it is an APS-C. Having said that however, looking much closer at the flower, I would suggest that it could do with a little sharpening firstly and secondly the depth of field is fairly shallow while camera shake is intruding also. Most importantly in this case I can only suggest that yes, you do need to go for a new lens, The canon macro lens for this kind of close up with plenty of depth to be considered when you shoot while concentrating on avoiding camera shake by ensuring there is no mirror vibration and etc.
You need to concentrate on what you want to use the lens for, how much you can afford and etc.
Take some advice/research re macro techniques.
A last point to take a look at is, there appears to be a lot of noise with this shot and that doesn't help with sharpness. Provider more light to resolve & overcome this impediment!

Wishing you lots of good study, re-evaluation, adequate post processing & technique improvements.

Ron

Largobob

crazydaddio wrote:

Careful, once the IQ hook is in, you wont be able wriggle free...
....once I saw an image from my first L lens (70-200 f4 L nonIS) and compared to my 18-135mm 70D kit lens. I called the bank and took out a 2nd mortgage. :-)

The GAS is real...

I totally agree, crazydaddio. I WILL NOT buy a lens because it is cheap. I buy my lenses based on research, measured data, personal reports/observations and examples of images taken through those lenses.

There are a multitude of things that go into producing quality images. IMHO, if you don't have good glass or good lighting...not much else will save the image.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

the f/stops here wrote:

I use a Canon 7D II or a Canon 80D or for fun, a Canon D60 (not a 60D) with a Tamron 16-300. I use that lens often as my walk around lens as it is light and and is very versatile. I've been studying my images lately and am not overly impressed with sharpness, especially at the tele end. So I'm thinking of the Tamron 18-400. Would I get sharper images with that lens or should I stay where I'm at. Attached is an example. Thanks for your advise and please don't say "go to Nikon or Sony."

Make some controlled shots using a tripod and various camera/lens settings. You can even try using focus-checking tactics. If the lens can't achieve sharp focus, look for another.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+check+focus+on+dslr&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS729US729&oq=how+to+check+focus&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.3479j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8