Tamron 16/300Lens (Page 3): Like most things in photography it's a choice and you are entitled to yours as all I was doing was to pass on some info that might solve a problem and...

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Merlin1300 wrote:

I don't wanna go there - - and I don't think the OP wants to go there either
I can PP, and am reasonably good at it -- but I'd refer the shots SOOC to be 85-90% of what I could otherwise do in Post.
IF I need longer - - I'll use my Fuji S1. If I decide I need better IQ, then I'll look more closely at the Sigma or the Tammy 150-600 G2.
While I might have gotten a bad copy of the Tamron 18-400, I''m not going to invest any more time and effort into that lens.

Like most things in photography it's a choice and you are entitled to yours as all I was doing was to pass on some info that might solve a problem and nothing more....Rich

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Merlin1300 wrote:

I don't wanna go there - - and I don't think the OP wants to go there either
I can PP, and am reasonably good at it -- but I'd refer the shots SOOC to be 85-90% of what I could otherwise do in Post.
IF I need longer - - I'll use my Fuji S1. If I decide I need better IQ, then I'll look more closely at the Sigma or the Tammy 150-600 G2.
While I might have gotten a bad copy of the Tamron 18-400, I''m not going to invest any more time and effort into that lens.

Like most things in photography it's a choice and you are entitled to yours as all I was doing was to pass on some info that might solve a problem and nothing more....Rich

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Merlin1300 wrote:

I don't wanna go there - - and I don't think the OP wants to go there either
I can PP, and am reasonably good at it -- but I'd refer the shots SOOC to be 85-90% of what I could otherwise do in Post.
IF I need longer - - I'll use my Fuji S1. If I decide I need better IQ, then I'll look more closely at the Sigma or the Tammy 150-600 G2.
While I might have gotten a bad copy of the Tamron 18-400, I''m not going to invest any more time and effort into that lens.

Like most things in photography it's a choice and you are entitled to yours as all I was doing was to pass on some info that might solve a problem and nothing more....Rich

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Sorry for the repeats but something went wrong....Rich

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

Sorry for the repeats but something went wrong....Rich

jcboy3

jrcarpe wrote:

Would love to hear others opinions of this lens. All replies are appreciated.

You will never need to buy another lens. It's a wonder you can even remove it from the camera.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

bigwolf40 wrote:

I under stand what you are saying but I was told by a professional photo instructor that any photo taken with a digital camera needs PP. It's the nature of the censor which is not like film. It does take up a little time but it is worth it in the end. I found for me I can do it in less then a minute on my photos. I'm not a great lover of PP but it does help for the short time it takes....Rich

Perhaps that's why so many cameras have PP settings directly in the camera.
On my Canon EOS 760D, there is a menu setting for Picture Style. Under Picture Style I have settings for Auto, Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, Monochrome, User Def. 1, User Def. 2, and User Def. 3. Under those settings are controls to set the Sharpness (0 to 7), Contrast (-4 to +4), Saturation (-4 to +4), and Color tone (-4 to +4). Monochrome provides settings for Filter effect and Toning effect instead of Saturation and Color tone.
So when I see someone write or say that all of their pictures are "straight out of the camera," all that tells me is that they don't have a clue how their camera works and that all they are doing is using the default manufacturer's settings, which are the settings created by some software programmers who may or may not be photographers themselves.

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

russelray wrote:

Perhaps that's why so many cameras have PP setting... (show quote)

I agree with you all the way but according to a Pro Instructor you still have do do some PP enhancement and I found that to be true no matter which lens I used there was always an improvement in the the sharping of the photo....Rich

3dees

I have the Tamron 16-300 on my D7200. best walk around lens for me. I thought about selling it for the 18-400 but didn't want to give up the 16 vs 18mm. bought the Sigma 100-400 instead. I'll keep the 16-300 until something better comes along.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

leftj wrote:

Good advice. I had the 16-300mm for about a year and was very pleased with it's performance. When the 18-400mm was introduced I sold the 16-300mm and got it for the extra reach. IMO the 18-400mm is even better than the 16-300mm. If you go with the 16-300mm you will like it but you'll be wishing you had the 18-400mm.

I did the same, with a different camera, and agree whole heartedly!!!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

bigwolf40 wrote:

I agree with you all the way but according to a Pro Instructor you still have do do some PP enhancement and I found that to be true no matter which lens I used there was always an improvement in the the sharping of the photo....Rich

I shouldn't disagree with you since EVERY SINGLE ONE of my pictures are messed with in Photoshop, onOne, Landscape Pro, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint, Nik, Redfield, Photomatix Pro, OpticsPro, JixiPix, Topaz, and maybe a few others that I'm not remembering off the top of my head. However, the fact that ONE pro instructor said that doesn't mean that it has to be done. It only means that he likes to do it based on his own cameras that he's using. The fact that you agree means very little also other than what my wise old grandmother told me in 1966 when the population of the Earth was only a couple of billion: "If you like it, there's someone else on Earth who likes it, too."

Beemer

I'm with you! Shoot and keep.