Comments on: Managing expectations http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/ Living through the lens Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:18:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andreas Manessinger http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10440 Andreas Manessinger Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:25:54 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10440 Thanks :) Thanks :)

]]> By: Paul http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10439 Paul Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:31:35 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10439 @Andreas: The auto focus performance is about the same as my other lenses. The interesting thing about this lens as well as my 200-500mm, is that it is a 3.5-6.3. When you zoom all the way out past 200, the aperture becomes 6.3. This presents a problem in low light, naturally. Auto focus systems perform best at 5.6 or wider due to the amount of light needed to do phase or contrast focus. Along the whole range, the auto focus seems to be acceptable. I could see that this would not be a lens that I would choose to do sports with, perhaps, simply because of the auto focus. However, if I had it on my camera, saw some sports picture opportunities, then I'd use it. I'd probably do a lot of pre-focusing, though. It's not all that fast. I have faster, more capable lenses for that. Having said that, it is still the right tool for the job in many cases, as most of subjects don't move a lot and shoot from the tripod. The vibration control works very well, so it would seem to suite your hand-held style very well. As I mentioned, though, it is not a inconspicuous lens, especially when extended to 270mm. It's quite obvious! @Andreas: The auto focus performance is about the same as my other lenses. The interesting thing about this lens as well as my 200-500mm, is that it is a 3.5-6.3. When you zoom all the way out past 200, the aperture becomes 6.3. This presents a problem in low light, naturally. Auto focus systems perform best at 5.6 or wider due to the amount of light needed to do phase or contrast focus.

Along the whole range, the auto focus seems to be acceptable. I could see that this would not be a lens that I would choose to do sports with, perhaps, simply because of the auto focus. However, if I had it on my camera, saw some sports picture opportunities, then I’d use it. I’d probably do a lot of pre-focusing, though. It’s not all that fast. I have faster, more capable lenses for that.

Having said that, it is still the right tool for the job in many cases, as most of subjects don’t move a lot and shoot from the tripod. The vibration control works very well, so it would seem to suite your hand-held style very well. As I mentioned, though, it is not a inconspicuous lens, especially when extended to 270mm. It’s quite obvious!

]]> By: Andreas Manessinger http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10430 Andreas Manessinger Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:26:46 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10430 Nice to finally have someone to ask about this lens :) I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and it creeps as well, yes, the term "zoom creep" may just as well have been invented for it. But really, this particular Tamron lens is extremely interesting. How's autofocus performance? And precision? Nice to finally have someone to ask about this lens :)

I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and it creeps as well, yes, the term “zoom creep” may just as well have been invented for it.

But really, this particular Tamron lens is extremely interesting. How’s autofocus performance? And precision?

]]> By: Paul http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10427 Paul Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:35:48 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10427 @Thomas: The short answer is that I cannot even remember one time where I shot the 200-500 without a tripod. Ever. So, image stabilization is not an issue. I frequently will shoot with it at 500mm and I really like the results. @Thomas: The short answer is that I cannot even remember one time where I shot the 200-500 without a tripod. Ever. So, image stabilization is not an issue. I frequently will shoot with it at 500mm and I really like the results.

]]> By: Intern http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10425 Intern Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:44:48 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10425 Hi Paul, Wish you and your family, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!! I see a lot of wonderful images here! Keep it going... - Jyoti Hi Paul,

Wish you and your family, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!

I see a lot of wonderful images here! Keep it going…

- Jyoti

]]> By: Thomas http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10423 Thomas Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:14:15 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10423 Those warm summer-like colors... just like in the good old days (aka "half a year ago" ;) I was wondering, how often do you use the long end of your 200-500 mm lens? Without any image stabilization I guess one needs quite a bit of light before it becomes usable without a tripod, or? Those warm summer-like colors… just like in the good old days (aka “half a year ago” ;)

I was wondering, how often do you use the long end of your 200-500 mm lens? Without any image stabilization I guess one needs quite a bit of light before it becomes usable without a tripod, or?

]]> By: Steve Skinner http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10413 Steve Skinner Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:14:33 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10413 Paul, I have been reading your blog for just over a year and I am always inspired by your great photos. I am also convinced that you could make great photos if all your lenses were made from old soda bottles! Paul,

I have been reading your blog for just over a year and I am always inspired by your great photos. I am also convinced that you could make great photos if all your lenses were made from old soda bottles!

]]> By: micki http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10410 micki Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:38:58 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10410 I just spent my birthday and Christmas money yesterday, and was making the same considerations as you've been mentioning when I made my purchases. I enjoyed your read on the Tamron lenses. I've never owned one and often wondered about their quality. I just spent my birthday and Christmas money yesterday, and was making the same considerations as you’ve been mentioning when I made my purchases.

I enjoyed your read on the Tamron lenses. I’ve never owned one and often wondered about their quality.

]]> By: Earl http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/2008/12/23/managing-expectations/comment-page-1/#comment-10409 Earl Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:52:05 +0000 http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=2092#comment-10409 Nice color, sharpness and clarity in these photos. If the quality of a lens is judged by its results (these photos) then I'd say you've got a good lens. :-) I've had a number of Tamron lens and have a good impression of the company as well as the lens quality/cost ratio. The only problem I've experienced with a Tamron lens was this fall with a 28-300mm Di VC lens I purchased for use with a full frame (FF) camera. The lens AF/VC mechanism was eventually found to be defective. It was repaired in a timely manner (3 wks) under the 6 year warranty at no cost and now works very well. I also have the same 200-500mm lens as you and at one time had a Tamron 18-250mm DX lens. I gave this DX lens along with my Nikon D200 to my daughter when upgrading equipment and she is using it today with great results. Heck, if given a choice without cost being a factor we'd all want the very best glass. However, cost always figures in so we make compromises. The nice thing about digital photography being popular is it's possible these days to have a good lens without breaking the bank. ;-) Nice color, sharpness and clarity in these photos. If the quality of a lens is judged by its results (these photos) then I’d say you’ve got a good lens. :-)

I’ve had a number of Tamron lens and have a good impression of the company as well as the lens quality/cost ratio.

The only problem I’ve experienced with a Tamron lens was this fall with a 28-300mm Di VC lens I purchased for use with a full frame (FF) camera. The lens AF/VC mechanism was eventually found to be defective. It was repaired in a timely manner (3 wks) under the 6 year warranty at no cost and now works very well.

I also have the same 200-500mm lens as you and at one time had a Tamron 18-250mm DX lens. I gave this DX lens along with my Nikon D200 to my daughter when upgrading equipment and she is using it today with great results.

Heck, if given a choice without cost being a factor we’d all want the very best glass. However, cost always figures in so we make compromises. The nice thing about digital photography being popular is it’s possible these days to have a good lens without breaking the bank. ;-)

]]>