dogbert Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Not a question but an observation. The photo of the week this week was taken with a Tamron 28-300 hyperzoom. Looks pretty good too IMO, and apparently no photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anupam Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 No reason why a landscape shot stopped down and then displayed as a 800pixel wide jpg will show a discernable difference in sharpness. What I would like to see is a 100% crop from <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3105075" target=_blank>this image.</a> <p>Even then it wouldn't surprise me if a bad zoom with excellent technique produces better results than a 50/1.8 shoddily used. As for the picture it is really good but not because of the equipment. The eye of the photographer is to blame for that, I think.<p>-A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 yeah, true, but it's 680 x 490 pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_herron Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I loved my 28-200 Sigma Hyperzoom when I was only shooting film. I got some awesome pictures from it...Since switching to digital 18 months ago, I have invested quite a bit in lenses and now have to take 3 lenses to get the coverage I used to get with the Sigma....better quality images, especially when enlarged (which I'm doing a lot more now), however I also wonder about the shots I may have missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvarko Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 i loved my 28-300mm until I started printing 8x10s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_brackhahn2 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I have an EF 28-200 that I loved when I was shooting film and was getting 4x6s and 5x7s printed. I kind of went crazy when I got my D60 and got some L glass and haven't really used it since. I did take it to the zoo recently, I guess just to spend some time with my old friend. BTW, the pictures were pretty good. I guess I got a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I still like my sigma 28-300 for carrying one lens and walking around. I'd never recommend for anybody to buy one, but there are times when a bag of fast primes and 2 to 3 pound L glass is just not practical. Besides, photographers are allowed to take snapshots, right? Regardless of what a 100% crop would show...I think that's still a great picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Good images do NOT rely on resolution at all. They rely on good composition, mood and creativity (among other things). That will never change. Doesn't matter if one's camera and lens can resolve three zillion pixels per inch. A bad photo will always be a bad photo and viceversa. Somehow people have come to totally misunderstand the concept behind "pro" lenses (like the L line, for example) and therefore assume that great results can only be achieved with those. NOthing could be further from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 <I>Good images do NOT rely on resolution at all.</i><BR>That's a considerable overstatement. Other things being equal, a tack-sharp image is usually more appealing than one with optical flaws.<P> <I> They rely on good composition, mood and creativity (among other things).<BR>This</i> statement I agree with completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 Giampiero I couldn't agree more. I worry that too many beginners look at the great shots in photonet then ask for equipment advice to get told to get an expensive L lens. I worry that they assume all that is needed is expensive gear and great photos will just happen. How many of the posters that begin with "I am just beginning photography and are looking getting my next lens...." are going to be regularly printing greater than 8x10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 >> Other things being equal, a tack-sharp image is usually more appealing than one with optical flaws.<< Depends on the subject. But, I didn't talk about "optical flaws". In fact, there are times in which "sharpness" takes away instead of adding to the picture. And that is true in film as well... That is exactly why diffuser filters where created :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakeforce Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 One of the best examples I can tell about using cheap lenses has happened to me not later than 2 days ago. I was in the darkroom printing some fiber paper, and I had a picture I liked in contact print but that I wasn't sure if it would be good in 11*14. So I just threw a 8*10 RC paper, hit the switch for 15 seconds @ 2.8 and got an AMAZING result. I then proceded to make the tests with the two filters, stopped down to f/11, etc, got a very nice picture technically speaking, but that didn't have the mood of the test picture. Things like this happen sometimes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 <P> <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_300_Di/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_300_Di/</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkor fan Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 In the old days I used to have a Sun 35-200mm f/4.5-5.6 for my manual Minolta system as my only lens. I subsequently bought a 50mm prime. After shooting the two side by side I put away the zoom and never took a picture with it again. Sure I had reduced coverage, but I never found myself complaining about the contrast, resolution, distortion etc. Many superzooms today would be a lot better than the one I used, and certainly they hold real advantages for people who are not inclined to change lenses. That said, I prefer a sharp result with great contrast, and carrying a second lens. The arguments about missing a shot etc. don't wash with me - If I need to remove the 24-70mm for a telephoto shot, then I will generally have time to change lenses. I can't recall ever missing a shot for this reason. Cheers, Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I had the chance to use both the tamron 28-300 XR and sigma 28-300 (non macro) last year.<BR>They were both amazingly good but weren't QUITE sharp enough for me. <BR>For those images that require sharpness ,they fell just a little too short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Sure creativity, composition, and timing are the most important things, but the same photo taken with a decent lens will be notably better due to things like contrast, saturation, distortion and such. In some instances the extra quality may be what brings an average photo up to a good photo. Additionally at times where you are pushing the limits of your equipment (low light for instance) there are shots where a slow hyperzoom just won't even have the capability to make the shot. Photographic ability is the primary factor, but equipment helps. Of course equipment doesn't make a good photographer is absolutely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmPhotography-DuaneHorne Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I own a Tamron 28-300 zoom lens. I think I purchased it in 2002. It today remains my most used lens. I am very pleased with its performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delwyn_ching Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I own and use a Tamron 28-300mm and it's a good general purpose lens for times I just want to carry 1 lens. Pictures come out ok and sometimes, not sharp. If I could travel with a bunch of lens, I would get a Canon 200mm L lens or a 70-200mm telephoto zoom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now