john_ellerman1

<p>Just a comment to Yakim regarding acronyms: I heard on the ABC yesterday that an ancronym has to make a word that is pronounceable e.g. "RAM" for "random access memory". SS is not a word so it is an "initialism" rather than an acronym. What can I say; I'm a pedant! I won't quote you and say "I thought that every Canon photographer knows this", because I didn't:-)</p>

 

<p>Just a comment to Yakim regarding acronyms: I heard on the ABC yesterday that an ancronym has to make a word that is pronounceable e.g. "RAM" for "random access memory". SS is not a word so it is an "initialism" rather than an acronym. What can I say; I'm a pedant! I won't quote you and say "I thought that every Canon photographer knows this", because I didn't:-)</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150778353722477&set=a.196251097476.139711.536067476&type=1&theater" alt="" />Taken with Canon 7D + Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on a monopod, at f/1.4 and 1/800th sec at ISO 3200. Some modest cropping involved but no other manipulations.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a 400D and a 7D with Canon 10-22, 17-55 f2.8 and a Tamron 18-270 (amongst others). I am not a professional but I am struggling to see any difference between the IQ of these lenses, particularly at A4 size. I was just now comparing some images with the raw converter in PSE 9 which allows one to magnify the images from the starting 16.3% up to 100% and beyond and I was not able to choose one over the other. Now maybe that is not a good way to compare lenses and of course, there will be different levels of resolution between different f stops within the one lens but I must say that I can't tell by looking at a print which lens was used. I am a member of a local club which holds competitions judged by accredited, external judges and have won plenty of top awards with the Tamron 18-270. I just correct any obvious distortion in DXO optics pro. I have traveled with the 10-22 and the 18-270 and used the latter for 95% of the photos. Of course it will never FEEL the same as having an L lens on the camera but when I travel I want low weight and maximum versatility. The subject, the composition and the lighting are much more important than the equipment, in my opinion. The Tamron, for all its shortcomings, is a compromise that delivers that to me in a lot of situations but then perhaps I am a Philistine.</p>

<p>Just one comment regarding filters (see Geoff Mower's comment): I was getting soft images and was using a polariser made by Hoya in the Philippines (green box). I had to replace it with one made in their Japanese factory (blue box). It was a dud filter! Beware the cheap, Hoya polarisers in the green box, it's been reported by others too.</p>

<p>I had an Opteka grip for my 400D and it performed flawlessly. This time I ordered a Canon one with my 7D and it has a hair-trigger. It usually goes off before my image stabilisation has cut in. Very annoying!</p>

<p>I was thinking about this last night at my photo club (Port Hacking Camera Club) that meets in Cronulla, Sydney and discussed it with fellow members. I had just won 3 merits (the highest award) and a credit for four of my photos in an externally judged competition. All shots were either presented via computer and projector or were A4 prints. My comment to fellow members was along the lines of "I know that my Tamron 18-270mm would be considered inferior to a canon 24-70 or 70-200 but if it is winning awards, what the heck? I correct any distortion with DXO Optics Pro 6, so that's not an issue; I've never had a judge comment negatively on image quality, so that's not an issue; Yes it is slower than an f2.8 lens but can still produce very acceptable shallow depth of focus and acceptable bokeh; and best of all, it's light and does everything without needing to change lenses. I have a Canon 7D, 400D, Canon 100mm f2.8 macro, Kenko extension tubes, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a Canon 10-22mm and I find that my Tamron 18-270 hardly leaves my camera. Yes, everything in photography is a compromise and each person has to decide what compromises are acceptable to him or her. I've made my choice.</p>

<p>I use a 380EX on my hotshoe and then take an A4 sheet of stiff paper, fold it in half then curve into a half-pipe and fit over the top side of my flash with a rubber band. This directs the light down to in front of the lens. I find it is perfectly adequate.</p><div></div>

<p>Everything in photography is a compromise and I know I sound like a troglodyte but having gone through all the EF and EFS options and agonising for months, I took a Tamron 18-270 and a Canon 10-22 on a trip to France and Spain. I hardly used the latter lens and the Tamron gave me just about all I needed. I have won a lot of awards using it on my Canon 400D at my local club at either A4 or projected at 1024xwhatever and am now using it on my 7D. I correct distortion in DXO Optics Pro and have never had any judge ask which lens I was using. I would like to own all the EF lenses but would tire of carrying them and then not notice any difference in result, except perhaps in lowest light but then the 7D offsets that problem with extra ISO range. Any noise at high ISO is slight and correctable with DXO. I also own the Canon 100 f2.8 macro and the Sigma 50 f1.4 and use those if I want shallow depth of focus etc. But honestly, for travelling, the Tamron is the best all-rounder for me and I don't notice any IQ issues. The only downside for me is that there is some slight dust sucking going on after a year and maybe I will have to have it cleaned at some stage. I understand the desire to have the best possible but if you can't tell the difference?</p>

<p>I have had the older version of the Tamron 18-270 for about a year now and love it. Used it a lot on my Canon 400D and now on the 7D. I correct any distortion in DXO Optics Pro. I travelled in Europe with it and my Canon 10-22 but hardly used the latter. It was just a nuisance to change lenses. On the down side I am now noticing just a few dust particles on the inside. It apparently sucks in a small amount of dust when zooming but I guess that is almost inevitable with any zoom that extends the way this one does. Alas everything in photography is a compromise. Overall though it is a lens to be recommended on the basis of more than adequate image quality but particularly convenience.</p>