jimward Loc: Perth, Western Australia

My walkabout lens is a Tamron 18-270. I use it a lot on minesites because it covers most situations, and dusty minesites are no place to be changing lenses.

I've attached this pic not for applause, because it's a pretty standard kind of a shot, but to wave the flag for my Tamron lens which I feel has been put pretty low down the totem pole in some recent brand comparisons.

To my eye this shot is pretty sharp. My camera is a Canon 450D, range was fairly long (probably 150 metres). I used aperture priority and selected F11. For this the camera gave me 1/640, which on reflection wasn't very fast considering the truck was moving and it was a handheld shot. I'd set the ISO at 400 for my previous shot which was in dark shadow - it was early in the morning - and when I spotted the truck I didn't even think about ISO so I was probably a bit lucky not to blow out the highlights. I was shooting autofocus, centre point.

I thought the lens performed pretty well, but I'd appreciate some expert feedback in case I'm kidding myself. Could I have done better with a superior lens (and if so, which one?) or with smarter settings? Moving around a lot on site makes a tripod a tricky option and I can't see that would have made a lot of difference , but again I could be kidding myself.

With the wisdom of hindsight - and given some thinking time - I would probably have set the ISO to 200 and shot in shutter priority at 1/1000, which I'm guessing would have still given me an aperture of around F11.

As you can see, my photography is seat-of-the-pants stuff, so I won't be offended by criticism, but would really welcome some expert feedback.

Truck at Laverton

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Looks to me like that camera/lens/photographer did VERY well on that shot! The higher ISO kept the shutter speed up, which helped to capture the moving truck and keep it sharp. With the good light, the higher ISO doesn't cause as much noise as it does in low light, and helps keep the speed up.

Very nicely done!!

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Nothing wrong with that at all

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I think you and the Tamron have done a great job.
But your comment on the possible other settings have gone the wrong way.
If this shot is ISO 400, F/11, 1/640th.
Then ISO 200 at 1/1000th would have given you about F/6.3.
This probably would have been fine as well.

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

That lens caught the color brilliantly and the focus is spot on.

Thanks

Sarge69

jimward Loc: Perth, Western Australia

Thanks, everyone. I'll stick with the Tamron lens and put the money towards a Canon 650D body which (as posted before) will give me a greater ISO range for underground work.
Thanks again.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nice shot with good, warm lighting. As for the quality of the Tamron lens, just how particular does someone have to be when evaluating images? If you're submitting them to Nat Geo, then they must be perfect. For my purposes, if the exposure and focus look good to me, then the shot is OK.

I remember when I was yonger reading car mags, and the road test comparisons of high performance ($100,000) cars. Let's say one car does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and another does it in 5.1. Does that make the 5.1 the better car? Hardly. Unless a lens is really horrible, the type of testing done by professional reviewers is like splitting hairs. Their results don't matter to the casual, semi-serious shooter.

We would all like to own the best, but does it really matter if we spend three times as much to get the best? I doubt it.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

The image looks sharp enough to me, although you need something much larger than 600 x 527 pixels to make a really meaningful assessment.
My main reservation would be that 18-270 is an awfully wide range. Modern lens technology is superb, but 25x zoom is asking rather a lot. I use a 70-200 Tamron which has a max aperture of f/2.8 right through the range, so I can use acceptably short exposures right up to 200mm. It also means that, even with a 2x converter, I can still get f/5.6 at the 400 mm end of the zoom. I have found this lens to be a very capable performer, and I am pretty demanding in such matters; my shorter zoom is a Carl Zeisss 24-70, again with f/2.8 across the range which cost a bomb.

GHK

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I am pleased for you. I've had a bad experience with Tamron so I don't buy their gear any longer but this shot looks crisp and clean.

When I'm using a long lens, I have a Canon 75-300 which I like, and I know I'm going to shoot at 300 in bright light I automatically go to
1/1000 to keep the blur down and it usually works very well.

You did good.

Skip-M Loc: Phoenix AZ

works for me, wish I was that good

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Great shot,love the warmth effect.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

It looks remarkably good, especially for something shot at 150 -meters distance.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Just noticed our difference in spelling for "meter" (American). Apparently in the rest of the English-speaking world it is "metre" rather than meter.

[quote=bunuweld]It looks remarkably good, especially for something shot at 150 -meters distance.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

[quote=bunuweld]Just noticed our difference in spelling for "meter" (American). Apparently in the rest of the English-speaking world it is "metre" rather than meter.

Metre is really a French word!!!

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

I personally think you did very well - there are 2 kinds of "Hand Held" positions - properly held - firmly grasping your camera with both hands and bracing your upper arms firmly against your chest
or something solid (post,car,rock)
improperly held is loosely holding the camera and not bracing it in any way I cringe when I see folks using the screen to compose a shot
My bridge camera has great image stablization - great for my shaky old man hands - BUT- I still use the true hand held position.
Harvey