The Utility Lens (or the "Mom lens")

[DonSchap]

Okay, sunny day ... here is the overall base shot, at about 50mm. Nothing special, just an old house, blue sky .. and lots o' sun.



I then zoomed to 300mm and I have posted the 100% crops of the sign in from of the house.

First the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 300mm (indicated) 100% CROP!


Then, the TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD@ full stretch 100% CROP


Finally, the TAMRON AF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) @ full stretch 100% CROP


EDIT: OKAY, AS DISCUSSED LATER IN THIS THREAD, here's the
TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD Super Zoom @ 300mm (indicated) 100% CROP


Clearly, unparalleled sharpness of focus ... and yes, it was taken at a different time of day (more high noon, than later afternoon - hence darker shadows and brighter highlights, because of the additional solar power), but that only changes the color of the light ... not the razor exactness that the lens offers. Like they say, "Get a bigger gun!" END EDIT

Do not worry about the settings ... this is about soft focus. Check it out, it makes itself quite clear. I am going to surmise that it should be relatively easy for folks to understand why I tend to use the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 rather than any other long zoom. Again, the purple fringe is a little more than the Di lenses, because it is a film lens, but still ... crisper focus for a $500 telephoto zoom.

Also, like I mentioned ... you can see that the 75-300mm and the 28-300mm match up pretty well in focal length once your subject is beyond 27 feet. Also, my 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 has been "tweaked" by TAMRON, so it stands to reason that it really is a lot better than most on the street. Calibration is important and this is about the best you can expect from it.. It's also double the price of the 75-300mm f/4-5.6.

[Elisha]

i found a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DL Macro for cheap!
any opinions about this lens?
i only found one user review on Dyxum and one article about it but nothing else.

[DonSchap]

What's that tell ya?

Either they are speechless at the astounding performance of the lens ...

or they are so disappointed they couldn't bear the shame to admit they purchased it.

Anyway, I would be a tad bit skeptical, considering all the photographers running around out there.

[Elisha]

lol for $65 maybe it is worth the risk.

[DonSchap]

Well ... you know what lenses are proven to deliver the good (sharply focused, chromatically clear and true color) shots. It's YOUR photography and I wish you luck with whatever equipment you elect to use. Make the best of it.

A lot of effort has been put forth to ADVISE you of the pitfalls ... and if you insist on "stepping in it" and repeating them, you are more than welcome to. It's your money and time.

Have a superior day in whatever you decide.

BTW: I have a lens that normally sells for well over $150 online and based on these specifications, what would you pay?

AF 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8

Wow, huh?

Yeah, I paid all of $5 and I feel like I got ripped off!

I will not shoot through it and feel like giving it away. Oh, it works and all that, but IQ is just tragic. It suffers from "lens creep" in ways that I can't even begin to describe. I keep it around, just in case I go to the beach with my DSLR and do not want to spoil a "good" lens in doing so. Kind of like the "kit lens" only brighter and longer. Tell you what ... YOU pay the shipping and it is yours, my friend. Then you can tell me all about what qualifies as "good glass?"

[Elisha]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

[DonSchap]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

Look, my 75-300 is a little older than everyone elses. Also, not everyone has a piece of glass they can do a fair comparison (Sean?). I tried to make that clear, when I participated in this thread. I recommend you shoot through any lens you plan on buying and then look closely at the image. It may be just fine, but you won't know a lot until you blow it on your screen (no more than 100%) and compare it to some other lens at the same distance and focal length.

I just wanted to have you take a look at what you can expect with various lenses. Only you know what you want to do with it and how much you want to spend. I'm a little picky ... and have shot through several different pieces of glass, looking for the most "cost-effective" results I could acheive.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that if you spend $1000+ on a lens, it should be a nice item. But, when you are only coughing up $150 - $400 ... you have to do a little more work in picking one out otherwise you get terrible results, overall.

I have a lot of the "usual" selections and from them, I have my favorites and ones I would highly recommend for the price. I have also published warnings for some lenses that were supposed to be "okay", out-of-the-box, but wound up being ... unacceptable and needed some further adjustment.

It takes time to build a good camera bag ... because of these considerations, but I am not trying to lead anyone down a path that will result in poor photographic results. I just shoot through them and try to be honest with the results.

I looked for a full year to find the AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 that fit my SONY.



They had quit making them back in 2004 ... so it was a search. I wound up getting it from Japan. It is a great lens for what it does. The comparable SONY lists out at $1500 and will not be available until January 2009 and weighes a lot more. It would be nice if Tokina were able to produce the SONY mount, but they just won't and cannot get permission from SONY to produce it. They have some humdinger lenses, now.

Minimum Focus Distance (M.F.D.) is about 8-feet with this one.

[dr4gon]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

I praise it for its price, but to criticize it for its softness beyond 200mm. It just became so evident in my lunar photography and then my trip to the zoo. It's great for the size I mean, the 70-200/2.8 isn't something I can readily take and use anywhere....

Nothing can really touch the 70-300 for the price range. One that might be a touch better, although with Sigma's quality, you might be frustrated is their 70-300 APO version.

The Tamron is really making me want to step up to the SONY G some time in the future.

[Elisha]

i'd definitely love to get the 70-300G but it is around $800 CAD now. in good time is what i keep telling myself.

[DonSchap]

Anyway, it is what it is. Good luck.

Oh, one other thought. If your really want sharp shots at 300mm, 400mm or even 500mm ... I highly recommend the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) lens. Now this is a piece of glass that is lightweight, flexible as all get out and sharp as they come for the price. A true "sleeper" lens for people wanting some serious reach in their bag. It is no shorty, but definitely worth a LONG look, if you can find a store that has one. It is definitely a full sun optic ... but delivers excellent images!





I'm kind of sorry I didn't take it along for these evaluation shots. That would have been cool.


WHAT'S IN YOUR CAMERA BAG?