Why it's important to use a good lens - Side by side comparison.
Dec 8, 2023 13:04:06 #
User ID wrote:
Your "a, b, and c" concerns are the tip ... (show quote)
I appreciate your concerns, they would be valid if this site would be for scientific tests and discoveries.
I understand that this site is to learn from others and exchange experience.
It looks like you are just a sad troll, you don't even share your name.
So sad. Get a life :)
Dec 8, 2023 13:36:10 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
User ID wrote:
You actually compared lenses without even properly... (show quote)
The thing is...I have owned and used a different maker's 18-200mm zoom for several years (until it broke). I have held in my hands and tried on my own camera a lens identical to the one that the OP is wrote about. The situation and results that he posted are quite believable, whether focused automatically or manually. The lens is quirky and unpredictable. The Nikkor version is famous for poor and failed autofocus. And its optics deliver mediocre to unacceptable results even at best focus, whether auto or manual. The Tamron, which I did not purchase, did not seem the equal of the Nikkor, as well as having some additional negative qualities.
I have been in situations in which I had to use less than optimal equipment. For a while, the 18-70mm zoom was my only lens. I did the best I could with it. When a better option became available, I did not ever go back to it. I did have a couple of instances which required use of the 18-200 Nikkor. It never bacame a first or second choice, however.
Dec 8, 2023 13:49:52 #
Alafoto
Loc: Montgomery, AL
damianlv wrote:
I'm in no way bashing Tamron, they actually calibrated this lens under warranty and I had it back in about a week.
It was a Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC
Sony 24-70mm F/4
It was a Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC
Sony 24-70mm F/4
I have the Tamron 18-200 lens in a Canon mount. I bought used from a gentleman who stated that he never received stellar results from it, but the price was low enough that it was worth the gamble. My wife uses it as a knock around lens and the results are satisfactory for the occasional 4x6 print and mostly posted online photos that she takes and the f/6.3 is a small hindrance, but not so bad if one uses flash for indoor shots.
That was a long diatribe to get to my question: Where did you send your lens for re-calibration? She likes the lens enough that it would be worthwhile to me to spend a nominal amount of money to have it made better.
Dec 8, 2023 14:23:53 #
I have a Sigma 18-300mm zoom and while I have no lens to compare with, I get what more than satisfies me, even at the 300mm end. Here is a shot taken at a live concert with a blow up to show detail:
Dec 8, 2023 14:28:42 #
damianlv wrote:
To answer your questions, over Thanksgiving I took... (show quote)
Whilst there are of course differences in IQ between lenses, from the 'difference amount' you've attempted to demonstrate and from what you've said so far suggests the problem is either,
a) lens error
b) operator error
Dec 8, 2023 16:04:13 #
PHRubin wrote:
I have a Sigma 18-300mm zoom and while I have no lens to compare with, I get what more than satisfies me, even at the 300mm end. Here is a shot taken at a live concert with a blow up to show detail:
Dec 8, 2023 16:06:48 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
PHRubin wrote:
I have a Sigma 18-300mm zoom and while I have no lens to compare with, I get what more than satisfies me, even at the 300mm end. Here is a shot taken at a live concert with a blow up to show detail:
The 18-300mm lenses are significantly newer designs than the 200mm max zooms. They do not represent any sort of fair comparison to them.
Dec 8, 2023 16:23:43 #
PHRubin wrote:
I have a Sigma 18-300mm zoom and while I have no lens to compare with, I get what more than satisfies me, even at the 300mm end. Here is a shot taken at a live concert with a blow up to show detail:
Wow! When you get pores like that in the results, you know it's an awesome lens
Dec 8, 2023 16:34:05 #
Dec 8, 2023 16:38:17 #
starlifter wrote:
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.
Beautifully done, and I love that kind of squinting coyote shot 🥩🥩🥩🥩
Dec 8, 2023 17:08:35 #
Walt R wrote:
Good glass beats fancy new bodies almost every time !
Walt
Walt
Dec 8, 2023 17:17:24 #
Even before switching to R cameras I used only Canon lenses, slowly moving away from non-Canon lenses.
Dec 8, 2023 17:27:06 #
Zooman 1 wrote:
Even before switching to R cameras I used only Canon lenses, slowly moving away from non-Canon lenses.
If you only used Canon lenses how do you move away from non-Canon lenses?
Dec 8, 2023 18:25:45 #
sorry my mistake, should have wrote I was moving away from non Canon lenses. Thanks for pointing this out.
Dec 8, 2023 19:58:38 #
Zooman 1 wrote:
sorry my mistake, should have wrote I was moving away from non Canon lenses. Thanks for pointing this out.
That’s what you did say. Yet you also said you had only used Canon lenses.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.