# Tamron 150-600 raw file



## coastalconn (May 30, 2014)

I figured this should be posted here since the Tamron is available in 3 mounts and people are curious..  Some people are saying that my sample images aren't sharp.  I think some of that is due to compression and some of it is just biased opinions because its a third party lens.. so I freely offer anyone to download this raw file and take a look, do your normal processing and post back into this thread if you want.. DSC_5604


----------



## sk66 (May 30, 2014)

Looks sharp to me, even w/o processing. Pretty impressive IMO. 
Granted, almost everything was in your favor for that image, but still...


----------



## TheNevadanStig (May 30, 2014)

Kris, all your pictures look great with the new lens. If anything I actually think they look better. Don't let a few misguided comments from a few people get into your head, you don't need to be second guessing yourself like this!


----------



## Derrel (May 30, 2014)

I *cropped it pretty substantially*, since the green background is detail-free and far outside the focus zone. Looks like a pretty good file to me. This was cropped to 1,600 pixels wide at 300ppi in PS CC.




for a 725k file, this looks pretty good. I applied only a tiny bit of Unsharp Mask, .25 pixel width at 300%, then faded that down to only 23% because even .25 pixel at 300% looked too overly-sharpened, since the D7100 has no AA blurring filter on it.


----------



## D-B-J (May 30, 2014)

Damn sharp file.  I went a little more artsy-fartsy with the edit.


----------



## nzmacro (May 30, 2014)

Not sure why anyone would even doubt it Kris. What you should do is, post up 4 shots (two from each lens) strip the EXIF and say "you pick which is which". I could easily post up shots from a Sigma 500 F/4.5 and a Canon 500 F/4.5 and only I would know the difference. 

Anyway, here's my take on it and the only unsharp part is normal with out of focus areas. That's simply DOF vs focal length vs distance as you already know

 

All the best Kris and a stunning highly detailed shot IMO.

Danny.


----------



## coastalconn (May 30, 2014)

TheNevadanStig said:


> Kris, all your pictures look great with the new lens. If anything I actually think they look better. Don't let a few misguided comments from a few people get into your head, you don't need to be second guessing yourself like this!


I had mixed feelings the first week, but after the Hawk yesterday I was pretty impressed.  On FB and another forum there have been a few comments made, so I figured the best way to know for sure was to make a raw file freely available..


Derrel said:


> I *cropped it pretty substantially*, since the green background is detail-free and far outside the focus zone. Looks like a pretty good file to me. This was cropped to 1,600 pixels wide at 300ppi in PS CC.
> 
> View attachment 75392
> 
> for a 725k file, this looks pretty good. I applied only a tiny bit of Unsharp Mask, .25 pixel width at 300%, then faded that down to only 23% because even .25 pixel at 300% looked too overly-sharpened, since the D7100 has no AA blurring filter on it.



Its interesting since sharpness is somewhat subjective, I would love to know how everyone would sharpen this image..  my original image was default in LR and a. 4 40% high pass...
This is a D600 file, D, I wanted to know what the files would look like on FF..  thanks for your input!


----------



## sscarmack (May 30, 2014)

Just took a peak, and from this sample, I wouldn't hesitate to buy this lens. Extremely sharp and colors are fantastic.


You do however need to get your sensor cleaned. Not bad but I seen quite a few spots.


----------



## coastalconn (May 30, 2014)

Thanks again everyone..Nice artsy fartsy.. Danny did you add contrast or just lower the black point?


sscarmack said:


> Just took a peak, and from this sample, I wouldn't hesitate to buy this lens. Extremely sharp and colors are fantastic.
> 
> 
> You do however need to get your sensor cleaned. Not bad but I seen quite a few spots.


Lol, it's my friends D600, looks like it's due for an oil change: )


----------



## ruifo (May 30, 2014)

Who's telling you it's not sharp?
It's pretty good.


----------



## nzmacro (May 30, 2014)

In LR, I don't add too much sharpening Kris, I use the clarity control mostly, dropped the highlights  and the whites, then dropped the blacks, raised the shadows, no added contrast. That was lightroom done. Into Photoimpact, cloned out those dust spots , selected the background, softened the BG, selected the subject and sharpened that only. Finally added a little contrast. Sounds more complicated than it is, probably around 5 mins. Just personal taste Kris and not everyone would go for it. FM, don't start me on what some of those guys get up to


----------



## TheNevadanStig (May 30, 2014)

Facebook mucks with image quality so much, there's no way to properly analyze a photo posted to it.


----------



## ruifo (May 30, 2014)

Close up


----------



## nzmacro (May 30, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Close up




Yeah, that's darn good !! I like tight crops, so that suits well IMO. Nice work.

Danny.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 30, 2014)

Sorry guys, but NOPE,  none of these are sharp enough.  Kris just send me the lens and whichever body you used for this blurry mess.  I will take care of the problem for you.


----------



## 480sparky (May 30, 2014)

Here's my entry:








The ONLY thing I did in Capture is a USM...38% intensity, 18% radius, 0% threshold.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 30, 2014)

Hmm, interesting. Ever since you posted that one thread when you tested the lens vs. your Sigma the Tamron images don't appear "unsharp".
The latest examples from this lens show that it is of very good IQ.
Was there some change in your process (or lack of) in your early shots with that lens ?


----------



## coastalconn (May 30, 2014)

OK, I guess the mods missed my point that this is about a LENS!  Anyways...

I would also go with the tighter crop myself..


JacaRanda said:


> Sorry guys, but NOPE,  none of these are sharp enough.  Kris just send me the lens and whichever body you used for this blurry mess.  I will take care of the problem for you.


LOL, just send 1 million dollars to my half cousin nieces brother in law in Nicaragua and I will post it out to you.. 


dxqcanada said:


> Hmm, interesting. Ever since you posted that one thread when you tested the lens vs. your Sigma the Tamron images don't appear "unsharp".
> The latest examples from this lens show that it is of very good IQ.
> Was there some change in your process (or lack of) in your early shots with that lens ?


Well, I think the big thing was AF fine tune.  At first the images were showing too much noise so I wasn't applying any sharpening as they had not as much detail as I thought they should have on a per pixel basis..  Also I was stuck in my mindset to change the WB because the Sigma didn't render the colors I remembered so I would change it to cloudy, sunny etc.  The Tamron I started leaving on auto WB after reviewing images...


----------



## nzmacro (May 31, 2014)

General gallery ???????. Not the first time I've seen a post moved like this in this forum, very strange.


----------



## coastalconn (May 31, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> General gallery ???????. Not the first time I've seen a post moved like this in this forum, very strange.



I was confused too..  makes ya wonder what the mods are smoking, um I mean thinking, lol


----------



## DarkShadow (May 31, 2014)

Yes looks very sharp. Should have moved it to NSFW being it was Raw. Know pass the hashish.


----------



## pjaye (May 31, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Close up


No way is this not sharp. Kris, just ignore the naysayers, they are just jealous of your awesome lens and great photography skills.


----------



## nzmacro (May 31, 2014)

symplybarb said:


> No way is this not sharp. Kris, just ignore the naysayers, they are just jealous of your awesome lens and great photography skills.



On FM that would not surprise me at all Barb 

The RAW is darn sharp where it should be and just shows how good that lens is in the right hands. First noted that with Jaca and now Kris. I would buy one in a heart beat if needed, especially after having seen this RAW shot.

Kris; I know this is a silly question (normal for me), does the manual focus feel free and easy ?? Not worried about how it works image wise, I can already see that, but just curious on that feel with MF. Smooth and free moving would be good to know and how far does it need to turn. Next time I see Brian I'll try it, but a few thoughts from you would be great to know on that.

Danny.


----------



## snerd (May 31, 2014)

As usual, I stand in awe of you guy's talent!


----------



## 480sparky (May 31, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> I was confused too..  makes ya wonder what the mods are smoking, um I mean thinking, lol



In order to be an innernets forum mod, you first must undergo a full-frontal lobotomy.


----------



## coastalconn (May 31, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> symplybarb said:
> 
> 
> > No way is this not sharp. Kris, just ignore the naysayers, they are just jealous of your awesome lens and great photography skills.
> ...


Oh it's the other snobby gear forum that starts with DP... no name given.  Mostly blowhards that don't have galleries.  I just call people out now and ask for a link to their gallery and they normally just go away, lol...  Anyways, The MF ring turns about 150 degrees, think noon to 5, so it is a very short travel.  I often flick it with my thumb to min or max depending on where I think my subject will appear.  It turns super easy and very smooth.  Maybe too easy depending on what your used to...  Hope that helps..  Something else that is neat, the max mag is listed at 1:5 on their specs, but it is closer to 1:4.2 so on my sensor 23.5 mm wide, at MFD the whole frame is about 102mm that is pretty wild at 600mm





480sparky said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > I was confused too..  makes ya wonder what the mods are smoking, um I mean thinking, lol
> ...


Frontal lobotomy or bottle in frontome? :cheers:


----------



## lordtris (May 31, 2014)

I liked this photo here is my rendition of it. I myself would have no complaints with this lens. I did crop a little as well just to put its eye closer to the corner.


----------



## 71M (May 31, 2014)

It looks good. If there's some primary or secondary colour abberation, it's very subtle, and no issue with a digital workflow. 600mm at f6.3 is maximum fl and aperture anyway with this lens? I reckon around 400mm, ~f11 it's probably at its best.


----------



## 480sparky (May 31, 2014)

71M said:


> It looks good. If there's some primary or secondary colour abberation, it's very subtle, and no issue with a digital workflow. 600mm at f6.3 is maximum fl and aperture anyway with this lens? I reckon around 400mm, ~f11 it's probably at its best.





I found f/11 and f/16 to be identical in terms of IQ, all through the entire zoom range.  Very little softening started to occur at 300mm.  Very little.

Maximum apertures at all focal lengths were a bit worse, but not near as bad as most other lenses I own.  Only at f/22 did the lens really start to degrade, and minimum aperture is fairly useless.


----------



## danielklaer (Jun 1, 2014)

Had some fun with it  Looks pretty sharp to me!

As this wasn't my image I put it on my photobucket instead of my flickr - to start with... It has definitely compressed this image badly when compared to flickr. Facebook does the same thing for me. I put the flickr up after to compare. Flickr is the top image and photobucket the bottom.


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 1, 2014)

Hey thanks for that Kris, that is a short travel and sounds easy to use. Very helpful thanks. DPR, yeah I got a bit tired of all the gear talk ....... mine is better than yours, DSLR's are dying, mirroless is dying, OVF rules, EVF rules, etc, etc. Just show me the darn image will ya  

All the best Kris and thanks again.

Danny.


----------



## sk66 (Jun 1, 2014)

I gave it a go.
LR: Clarity  (mid-tone contrast) set to 12, Sharpening 98% masking 98%.
PS: Hard luminance sharpening layer reduced to ~50%, HighPass Layer vivid light ~50%, HighPass Layer hard light ~50%. Sharpening layers grouped, masked, opacity adjusted.

Hard crop of the results:


----------



## Rgollar (Jun 1, 2014)

Picture looks great to me. So good I just order the lens myself.


----------

