Portal Forum General General Discussion Consumer Research Reply To: Consumer Research

#151474 Quote
fightclub30fightclub30
  • GoldenHas donated $ to the upkeep of GPL
Up
0
Down
::

Chris83 wrote:


First of all, thank you both for replying. Very glad to hear the positive views on the Tamron glass. Seems to fit the bill of a solid nature and landscape zoom lens without breaking my budget.

I DID consider keeping my kit lens (18-55mm) and buying a zoom beyond that range, but the price and versatility of the Tamron 16-300mm made it worth the extra weight on the body. And yes, not having to switch back and forth was a consideration.

Once I get the lens and play with it a bit I will definitely post back with my thoughts.

I am by no means an expert, but wanted to offer my expeirence. I have a Nikon D3300 with a few lenses, one of which is a Tamron 18-270 that we bought at the same time as the camera. We purchased it for our National Park trips, and use those photos as artwork in our house. Wildlife and huge landscapes.

The 18-270 has some barrel distortion and vignetting, both of which are more pronounced at either end of the spectrum.

I want to warn you, that in my experience shooting above 150mm or so really requires a tripod, or a much steadier hand than I have. Most pictures I have attempted to take at that range are too blurry and have a lot of chromatic aberrations. Even at a 5×7 it is noticeable. Not to mention having context makes the pictures SO much better, IMHO. My zoomed in grizzly bears just aren’t as cool as the grizzly in the foreground with the mountains and stream in the background. I am no National Geographic photographer, that’s for sure.

I found myself using the 18-50 mm range much more and typical had the kit lens on. The Tamron was very heavy. I also felt the photos in the 18mm-24mm range were better on the kit lens than the Tamron, and easier to focus (for me, I don’t use autofocus). The other thing it didn’t do well was night sky photos. The super zoom lens was a huge lever on the end of the tripod, which occasionally would move over a 60 second exposure creating blur. And needed longer exposures to get a good photo than the kit lens (very little light travelling through much more glass?)

I ended up buying a Nikon 12-24mm lens that I am much happier with, for the photos WE want. Not saying you would be happier with something like that, but we are. Now, when I want to take anything at 50mm-150mm or so. It is a great lens, and I keep it for that. I just spend so little time in the 150+mm range that if I had to buy a lens again, I wouldn’t get something that went to that range to start with.

I have also read that many of the issues we had with it (barrel distortion being a big one) were made much less noticeable on the newer 16-300 lens. So there is that.

Lightroom has been very valuable to me. I stay zoomed out and am able to “stitch” photos together. I can crop images as needed. If you shoot in raw you can adjust exposure and a whole host of other things. With a 24MP sensor, we have a 28″x64″ photo (taken w/ tripod) of the Alaskan Mountain Range taken from Talkeetna. It is the coolest picture I have ever taken. Blowing it up that big, there still isn’t any pixelation or anything like that.

You miles may vary, and you likely take completely different photos than I do. Good luck and enjoy!