Need some opinions.

tomhooper · Aug 3, 2008

Here are a couple of shots with my old (12 years) Tamron 200-400mm Zoom. I can't seem to get the focus sharp and am also seeing a blue halo or chromatic aberration from time to time. Maybe its time to move up to some serious telephoto glass. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

icassell · Aug 3, 2008

Yeah, that's pretty severe CA. What f-stop are you shooting at? If you're shooting wide-open, you might consider stopping down a bit.

tomhooper · Aug 3, 2008

Both were shot at 1/125 and 5.6. That may be part of the problem, but I'm really not happy with the focus. I have done both MF and AF and still can't seem to get the image sharp. Both were shot at full 400mm. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but the lens is basically useless if I can't shoot full range. Thinking seriously about going to a Canon 300mm "L" and maybe getting a high quality tele-converter. Really don't want to spend $5-6K on a super telephoto "L". Just the wanderings of a demented mind. Why did I ever get involved in this hobby in the first place?

icassell · Aug 3, 2008

tomhooper said:
Both were shot at 1/125 and 5.6. That may be part of the problem, but I'm really not happy with the focus. I have done both MF and AF and still can't seem to get the image sharp. Both were shot at full 400mm. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but the lens is basically useless if I can't shoot full range. Thinking seriously about going to a Canon 300mm "L" and maybe getting a high quality tele-converter. Really don't want to spend $5-6K on a super telephoto "L". Just the wanderings of a demented mind. Why did I ever get involved in this hobby in the first place?

You might consider e-bay. I bought my Sigma 100-300mm EX f4 for a bit over $500 in mint condition and it works great (even with Sigma EX 1.4X or 2X TC). I've been very happy with the Sigma EX series lenses and now own 3 of them (50-150mm f2.8, 100-300 f4, and 10-20mm f4-5.6 as well as both TC's. I bought the 100-300 and the TC's used on ebay).

Here it is with the 2X

tirediron · Aug 3, 2008

Wow, I'm almost wondering if an element has shifted a tiny bit... that's major!

Tolyk · Aug 3, 2008

The Tokina 80-400 is a rather good quality zoom lens that's worth considering, not sure how well it handles a tele-converter though, haven't tried it out.

If you've got the money for the 300 prime though, go for it

reg · Aug 3, 2008

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned CA correction yet.

Bifurcator · Aug 4, 2008

You just did.

A good mention too. :thumbup:

tomhooper · Aug 4, 2008

Well I could say I'm not interested in CA correction because I'm a purist and want to get the shot in the camera but seeing as how I've already gone over to the "dark side" (ie digital) and am really crappy at PS I guess I'll come clean and tell you that's the reason. I really think I need an excuse to get more "L" glass and cost is really not a factor.

Joves · Aug 4, 2008

Cost not being a factor why wait. The pics look like a good excuse to me.

table1349 · Aug 4, 2008

I don't know this lens, never shot it, but from some of the comments I have seen on other forums and review sights it seems pretty consistent that in the 200mm range the sharpness is pretty good. In the 300mm range it is a bit soft and several people expressed that in the 400mm range it is noticeably soft. Exif data shows both of your shots were shot at 390mm.

As for the CA, none of the reviews mentioned it particularly. A couple mentioned flaring, but not CA. Don't know if this helps You might want to see how sharp it is at 200mm. If it is sharp then I would guess that the lens is acting normal as far as the softness. If not then you may have a lens that needs service. Or replaced, depending on what you want to do.

table1349 · Aug 4, 2008

tomhooper said:
Both were shot at 1/125 and 5.6. That may be part of the problem, but I'm really not happy with the focus. I have done both MF and AF and still can't seem to get the image sharp. Both were shot at full 400mm. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but the lens is basically useless if I can't shoot full range. Thinking seriously about going to a Canon 300mm "L" and maybe getting a high quality tele-converter. Really don't want to spend $5-6K on a super telephoto "L". Just the wanderings of a demented mind. Why did I ever get involved in this hobby in the first place?

A lot of people seem pretty happy with Canon's 100-400mm f4-5.6L. A lot less scratch at around $1450 than the 300 f2.8. Here is a review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

tomhooper · Aug 4, 2008

I did some test shots and found that it is sharp at 200 and gets softer as you go up. The CA also follows this pattern and is worse of course in bright sunshine and low f stops. Think I'll just spring for a new lens. Now I have to decide which one.