Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2006, 2:51 AM   #111
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Now here is something interesting, and it proves my point that the Tamron is only visibly softer at the f3.5-4. This was taken indoors without the flash at each camera's widest aperture. Here is the KM 28-75. SHARP!!!


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 2:53 AM   #112
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Same shot with the Tamron at 28mm f3.5. Softer!


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 2:56 AM   #113
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Then I opened up the flash and took the same shot again. This time, due totheextra light from the flash,the lens closed down to f5.6, and VOILA. The Tamron is almost as sharp as the KM 28-75. Here is the Tamron:


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 2:57 AM   #114
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

KM


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 3:14 AM   #115
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Conclusion: (And this is borne out of dozens of more test shots that I took) - The Tamron 28-300XR is a very close competitor to the KM 28-75 f2.8 as far as image quality is concerned. Color rendition, dynamic range, distortion etc. are all very comparable and great in each of them, and differences in sharpness only become a factor when the Tamron is opened up to f3.5 or 4 where it turns visibly softer. At other apertures it is not a clearly visible factor. The KM also has a much better built I find. The Tamron focal ring came off after a few weeks and I had to put a drop of crazy glue on it. I could have sent it back to Cort Camera but the crazy glue works just fine. Other than that it's a great piece of glass and sooo convenient to lug around. But if you want to take shots like the one below, the KM comes into its own.

Now, I noticed that I stirred some passions here, and there might be some scientific lab test which contradict my finidings. However, if I can't see it and it does not impact the quality of my photos those tests are insignificant to me. I am inviting anybody else to do more comparisons and see what they find. I have been known to change my mind. Hell, that's how I ended up buyingthe KM lensin the first place. Thanks to meanstreak. Nooner's pictures especially tend to be so incredibly sharp and saturated. Are you using the Natural+ settings, or is it the lens that works the magic?

In any case, here are some more shots from the pet shop, where I would have been lost without the KM 28-75 (of course I also had my Minolta 50 f1.7 but I could not zoom in with it). PS: That's as sharp as it gets through that thick, somewhat milky aquarium glass wall.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 3:19 AM   #116
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

...and one more. Have a good night!

:-)

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 8:32 AM   #117
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

Rainer, I don't give a rat's about scientific lab test, I want tests like yours, actual real world photos. The fact that the 280300 is a bit softer on a close up indorr no flash shot doesn't take a thing away from it in my book, I think you would be hard pressed to find a comparable carry lens, especially for the price. Thanks for the test shots, and I know you enjoyed the field trip with your kids.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 8:35 AM   #118
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

Ru5tY wrote:
Quote:
Rduve,

Thanks for the comparison shots! I was doubting the Tamron before, but your comparison shots definitely put it in a new light for me. You're right that the KMseems only slightly sharper in the samples you posted above. I've got enough lenses to play around with now, but I'll still consider picking one up since it's only $140 on ebay :-).

Does anyone else have any other recommendations for a travel lens?
I'm happy with my 24-105 for travel, but i think that extra reach with the Tamron would be nice.
My cousin has a KM 18-200, and to me it is noticeably soft throughout the entire focal range.

Rusty
Rusty, I don't think you can go wrong with the Tamron. The weight should be in the same ballpark as your 24-105, and you get three times the zoom. Both lenses use 62mm filters, so you can economize on filters.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 11:55 AM   #119
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

You are very welcome. I did those shots for for my own comparison to see if I needed to lug several lenses around or if the Tamron should do just fine in most situations. And since many of you are trying to make the similar decisions, I wanted to make them available to the community. Anybody can make up their own mind. I for one am happy to have both lenses (and then some), but on a strict budget, the Tamron alone is quite good, actually as good, in most conditions.

I am going by the motto: "Look, Don't Listen!"

:-)

Happy Father's Day!

Rainer



PS: Speaking of Father's Day. Here is a shot I took of my 3-year-old, Tanner, with the Tamron at 300mm from the other side of the pool, and it's cropped down by about 50%. Still pretty sharp, isn't it? Boy, was I glad to have it on my camera.
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2006, 2:06 PM   #120
Member
 
Cavemandude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 62
Default

rduve,

One thing I've noticedis that manyof your pics have low white levels. A simple raising of these levels in Photoshop makes a big difference. Why your camera does this on your pics is something for someone else to answer. Let's face it, a sunny outdoor pool shot should look like one.

Your last picwhite levelsraised in Photoshop with a little color correction too:
Attached Images
 
Cavemandude is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:22 PM.