Why it's important to use a good lens - Side by side comparison.
Dec 8, 2023 08:00:34 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
camerapapi wrote:
I have never used a Tamron 18-200. I use the first... (show quote)
All correct and all valid. And, I think all pretty much what the OP was saying. I also felt that he was offering something of a demonstration, not a controlled test, which is consistent with his message. Lighting also differs a little between the two images, but since exposure is the same, that really doesn't matter either.
Again...I don't think this post necessarily shows us anything that we are not already aware of. It does remind us that our choices can make differences that we may want or need to keep in mind. I wish that I could either find someone willing to fix my lens (it seems to be just a connector that has come loose) or that I could find one that I would be willing to buy. Buteven if one of those things happens, I'm not going to use that lens for everything.
Dec 8, 2023 08:06:36 #
If you had taken the time to manual focus , you would have seen that something was not right ,Tamron makes descent stuff , it s not the lens by itself , but maybe the combination of lens / camera . put the lens back on and take a clear subject , manual focus to see . If it is clear on manual focus , but not on auto focus , then that is the issue .
Dec 8, 2023 08:10:21 #
I have 4 Tamrons. 15=30, 24-70, 70-200 and 150-600 all the G-2 versions' I have been more than pleased with the results. I initially had a problem with the 150-600. Had the camera/ lens calibrated where I bought the lens with no problems since. I've included 3 examples.
Dec 8, 2023 08:22:10 #
That's definitely a huge difference, yet people do take great pictures with Tamron and other generic lenses. Maybe you got a bad copy.
Dec 8, 2023 08:38:42 #
damianlv wrote:
I'm using an entry level camera, Sony a6000 with A... (show quote)
What you have shown is that there are different qualities of these two specific lenses.
This is no representation of a general statement that you are trying to propose.
A comparison of 2 lenses proves nothing except your experience with these two specific lenses.
Dec 8, 2023 09:19:06 #
jerryc41 wrote:
That's definitely a huge difference, yet people do take great pictures with Tamron and other generic lenses. Maybe you got a bad copy.
Looks like it to me...no way is that lens that bad...on its own.
Dec 8, 2023 09:38:40 #
Grahame wrote:
Whilst I will not comment on 'differences' between the two lens I have questions regarding your testing method,
a) Why is the framing so different?
b) Why have you undertaken a comparison test in such different lighting conditions?
c) Did you use manual focus to ensure ultimate focus on the same spot on the subject or rely on AF?
a) Why is the framing so different?
b) Why have you undertaken a comparison test in such different lighting conditions?
c) Did you use manual focus to ensure ultimate focus on the same spot on the subject or rely on AF?
I agree, especially with the lighting. The « bad picture » has the end of the beam in the shade, while the « good » picture has the same element in full light. No wonder one seems better than the other.
Dec 8, 2023 09:57:24 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
damianlv wrote:
I'm using an entry level camera, Sony a6000 with A... (show quote)
You’re comparing an 18-200mm to a 24-70mm?
Dec 8, 2023 10:34:07 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
When I had a NEX-7, I had the same 18-200mm Tamron lens. Occasionally it would not make great contact with the camera and the auto-focus would die. Even after sending it in to Tamron, the lens was never a favorite. Try the 18-105mm Sony "G" EZPZ lens. It is fabulous!
Dec 8, 2023 11:29:07 #
camerapapi wrote:
You did not mention how the Tamron performed after it was adjusted, hopefully sharpness improved but it is still a consumer lens.
You did not mention how the Tamron performed after it was adjusted, hopefully sharpness improved but it is still a consumer lens.
ADJUSTED ??!?!
IIRC, "adjustment" is all about AF accuracy.
Are we being shown "lens test" images that were focused by AF ??? Dumber schidt than that happens here all the time.
Dec 8, 2023 11:32:14 #
Grahame wrote:
Whilst I will not comment on 'differences' between the two lens I have questions regarding your testing method,
a) Why is the framing so different?
b) Why have you undertaken a comparison test in such different lighting conditions?
c) Did you use manual focus to ensure ultimate focus on the same spot on the subject or rely on AF?
a) Why is the framing so different?
b) Why have you undertaken a comparison test in such different lighting conditions?
c) Did you use manual focus to ensure ultimate focus on the same spot on the subject or rely on AF?
To answer your questions, over Thanksgiving I took some family group photos using the Tamron lens. A few days later I sold the Tamron so I don't have it anymore and couldn't compare at the same time to the Sony lens. The next day I purchased the Sony lens. About a week later I took a picture with the Sony lens using the same settings as the picture with Tamron. The time of the day was similar for both shots but not exactly the same. The distance from the camera to the subject was exactly the same. Both pictures were taken with the same AF, shutter released remotely with my phone.
It's not a scientific test just a general comparison.
Dec 8, 2023 11:37:08 #
camerapapi wrote:
I have never used a Tamron 18-200. I use the first... (show quote)
This picture was after calibration.
Dec 8, 2023 11:37:35 #
Dec 8, 2023 11:48:41 #
damianlv wrote:
To answer your questions, ........... Both pictures were taken with the same AF, shutter released remotely with my phone.
It's not a scientific test just a general comparison.
It's not a scientific test just a general comparison.
You actually compared lenses without even properly focusing them. Thaz not even mildly amusing. Its just boring old pure BS.
The thread title refers to lenses. Your actual comparison has NOTHING to do with lens IQ. You tested only the AF. You promote the idea of using better lenses. If better lenses enable improved accuracy of the cameras AF system, then better lenses are worthwhile in that way.
Acoarst this assures that, for moderate FLs, f:8.0 is the "Great Equalizer". Whenever that is not proving true then blame operator error *every time* !
Dec 8, 2023 12:46:00 #
leftj wrote:
You’re comparing an 18-200mm to a 24-70mm?
Well, hes pretending to do that.
When you dig into it, youll see hes not really comparing anything to anything. The lenses were both never accurately focused so there was no actual comparison involved.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.