# Is this Lens sharp ??



## psran (Feb 24, 2014)

I have been very dedicatedly testing my Tamron 70-300 vc and have made all attempts from my side to eliminate human error. Please go through these shots and guide me whether I have got a Bad copy or is it alright

All the Images were taken with Shutter speed 1/1500, f8, VC on or on Tripod, good light and I have also attached the orignal uncropped image showing where my focus was and how much I had to crop out

1.







2.






3.





4.






5.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2014)

how about one of the pictures you took where the subject isn't 5% of the total pixels.


----------



## psran (Feb 24, 2014)

Braineack said:


> how about one of the pictures you took where the subject isn't 5% of the total pixels.



How much frame should be generally occupied,  birds seem too far to me even with 300mm


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2014)

I would say YES, pretty sharp actually. Those are MASSIVE crops, and on the focused shots (the first one is NOT focused properly), the detail rendered at those long distances is good. Very good. It looks to me like atmospheric conditions (haze/smoke/dust in the atmosphere,etc) and or a bit of sensor noise are the limiting factors. The lens appears to be focusing well at long distance, and the detail seems pretty good on what are MASSIVE crops. You are looking at very,very small frame segments here. You are cropping these frames down to .003 of the frame, and the birds still look pretty well-rendered for being such utterly tiny parts of the whole image.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 24, 2014)

Braineack said:


> how about one of the pictures you took where the subject isn't 5% of the total pixels.


Every bird looks sharp when it takes up the entire frame... Unless you're shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle smeared with vaseline. 100% crops are where you usually tell the difference in sharpness of modern lenses.

If that seems silly to you ("you don't print photos that big!") then congratulations: you have just discovered why "sharpness" shouldn't be as big of a concern as people treat it as. Kit lenses are mostly already sharp enough to give you all the resolution you need if you compose a shot correctly in-camera and print it under normal circumstances.  Upgrades should be more for the purpose of wider apertures, better autofocus, better build quality (if you care about that), more extreme focal ranges, etc. more so than sharpness.

The only time you need sharpness at 100%-ish crop amounts is if you're intending to use a tiny portion of your image as the final print. However, it's often as cheap or cheaper to get a longer focal length than it is to get a sharper lens and continue cropping tiny portions of it.  Or get closer to your subject.





@OP, Yes they are sharp, considering the crop. But they are pretty bad final images, because even though the lens is trying its hardest, if you only give it 0.5% of the frame, it just can't compensate THAT much. So they look fuzzy. Yes they sell lenses that will look significantly sharper than this one at 100% crops at the same focal length. However, they cost several $1000's more. You're better off buying a longer focal length consumer lens if cost is an issue, or even cheaper: improve your stalking skills or location and get a hell of a lot closer to your birds.

I can get photos of robins that are way more detailed and sharper than those herons are, despite robins being like 1/15th as tall as a heron and despite me using a $35 manual focus 135mm (not 300mm) lens off ebay, because if I go slowly and take nonthreatening stances and wait until they get used to me for half an hour and blah blah I get 1-2 feet away from them before they fly off.  I mean you can't just swim out onto those islands I'm guessing. But perhaps you could wait for them to come to YOUR side of the bank. And wait there long enough to not be threatening / consider a blind to hide in / etc.


----------



## psran (Feb 24, 2014)

Shot from 30-35 ft


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2014)

psran said:


> Shot from 30-35 ft
> 
> View attachment 67507



NOISE seems to be the limiting factor here, in a very big way. What ISO was this? 1,600? 3,200?


----------



## ToddnTN (Feb 24, 2014)

OP said that the first series of shoots were all at 1/1500 and f8, which means the ISO had to be cranked up some. I would think that 1/500 and f5.6 with a lower ISO would help.


----------



## psran (Feb 24, 2014)

^^ ISO 3200, I know it was kinda high but this bird was very active so I couldn't compromise Shutter sp


----------



## vimwiz (Feb 24, 2014)

Noise, and crop, lens itself seems ok.


----------



## psran (Feb 24, 2014)

Anyone  else using this Lens ? I had seen pretty good reviews about this Lens but it seems to be at par with 18-55 kit lens


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 24, 2014)

I had the Tamron 70-300VC  I used with a Nikon D3100 and it is a very sharp lens,Especially stopped down to F/8. Here is one from it @ 2800 ISO with no Cropping.

DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr

Here is another at 3200 ISO.

DSC_0068 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr


----------



## psran (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> I had the Tamron 70-300VC  I used with a Nikon D3100 and it is a very sharp lens,Especially stopped down to F/8. Here is one from it @ 2800 ISO with no Cropping.http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkshadow1911/8842603737/DSC_0002 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr
> 
> Here is another at 3200 ISO.http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkshadow1911/9488132411/DSC_0068 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr



Very nice photos, you seem to have got pretty close to the Birds.

I am guessing that reach is my biggest problem,  how about using 1.4x or 2x kenko TC


----------



## jaomul (Feb 25, 2014)

Using a 1.4 teleconverter you will lose autofocus unless you have a camera that focuses at f8. A 2x will lose af with all cameras. Image quality will also take a hit


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 25, 2014)

Thanks psran.  As I was told and learned for my self, the key is getting close as possible. The way I look at it,if my subject doesn't fill a good portion in the frame looking through the finder then its to far and probably not worth shooting.  I am not sure about a TC on that lens as jaomul pointed out the downside of using one.300mm was never enough reach for me but a few occasion that didn't require massive cropping.

From looking at some off your images they look a tad under exposed,that with high iso noise and excessive cropping will destroy IQ.


----------



## psran (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> Thanks psran.  As I was told and learned for my self, the key is getting close as possible. The way I look at it,if my subject doesn't fill a good portion in the frame looking through the finder then its to far and probably not worth shooting.  I am not sure about a TC on that lens as jaomul pointed out the downside of using one.300mm was never enough reach for me but a few occasion that didn't require massive cropping.
> 
> From looking at some off your images they look a tad under exposed,that with high iso noise and excessive cropping will destroy IQ.



I have been reading reviews on Web,  according to most users the IQ doesn't degrade much with a 1.4 TC but if you look at my images even 1.4x would not be enough. I have come to realize that I cannot fill the frame at 300mm unless I am around 10-15 feet away from a bird which would be a skill in itself to get that close.Being a poor hobbyist I can't afford a Long Zoom lens in 500-600mm range.

Regarding under exposure , I was using Exposure compensation of +0.7 and I had to keep a Shutter speed of 1/1500 so there was no way to avoid High Iso

Which lens are you using right now and how close do you need to get to fill the frame?


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 25, 2014)

Sigma 150-500mm for birding. This was maybe around 30ft maybe a little more @ 500mm.ISO1250


IMG_0938 by DarkShadow191145, on FlickrIMG_0938 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr


----------



## psran (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> Sigma 150-500mm for birding. This was maybe around 30ft maybe a little more @ 500mm.ISO1250http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkshadow1911/12440012155/IMG_0938 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr



That seems pretty sharp especially considering the distance & size of Bird.

So do you think that your keeper rate has gone up after switching from 300mm to 500 mm currently. I may be able to pull a deal on used sigma 150-500 once tamron 150-600 is released


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 25, 2014)

The reach rate went up yes but my overall keeper rate went up as I learn exposure better and keeping an eye on lighting changes,back light vs my subject light exposing to the right. when needed. I wish it was that simple as a lens change but reach does definitely help. I just got the sigma a few weeks ago. I got quite a few shots from my canon 70-200 f/4L as well.


----------



## KmH (Feb 25, 2014)

A lot of the photos you posted are under exposed (dark).

Photographers that specialize in BIF (birds-in-flight) shots often use a focal length of 600 mm and a gimbal tripod head.
The only trouble is 600 mm prime lenses sell for $10,000+.

There are some less expensive alternatives, and you need more focal length than 300 mm:
$900 - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
And Tamron has a new 150-600 mm lens - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...s-new-tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-poping-up.html


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 25, 2014)

You may not want to get overly concerned with the idea of filling the frame. Yes the closer the better in most situations, but the reality is that it's not often possible and you could drive yourself nuts trying to obtain it all the time.

Get the longest lens you can afford and learn it along with your camera. Learn enough about your subjects and the time of day when they are most active/available in the best light. Learn to stalk, lure or sit patiently in camo or a blind.

Personally, I think the most important thing is to enjoy the whole process.

Check this out: Secrets of Digital Bird Photography





Take a look at this site. Lots of great information.


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 25, 2014)

Good advice Jaca. The only thing I will add is,don't get frustrated. I know its easer said then done but don't worry you will get good ones even with the 300mm. Be the hunter and not the haunted.


----------



## psran (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> The reach rate went up yes but my overall keeper rate went up as I learn exposure better and keeping an eye on lighting changes,back light vs my subject light exposing to the right. when needed. I wish it was that simple as a lens change but reach does definitely help. I just got the sigma a few weeks ago. I got quite a few shots from my canon 70-200 f/4L as well.





KmH said:


> A lot of the photos you posted are under exposed (dark).
> 
> Photographers that specialize in BIF (birds-in-flight) shots often use a focal length of 600 mm and a gimbal tripod head.
> The only trouble is 600 mm prime lenses sell for $10,000+.
> ...



Got some pretty good advice from Dark Shadow, KmH and Jacaranda. That link given by Jacaranda is excellent , I am gonna spend some days with it.

Another thing which Derrel had posted but I missed somehow is about weather condition. Yes it was a bit Hazy day and that is clearly showing up in pics, being a noob I was not paying much attention to weather but I finally am seeing it now


----------



## psran (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> Good advice Jaca. The only thing I will add is,don't get frustrated. I know its easer said then done but don't worry you will get good ones even with the 300mm. Be the hunter and not the haunted.



Pretty encouraging words, let's see how it goes


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 25, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> Good advice Jaca. The only thing I will add is,don't get frustrated. I know its easer said then done but don't worry you will get good ones even with the 300mm. Be the hunter and not the haunted.



No doubt.  Well, no doubt you will get frustrated :lmao:.  Just let that be part of the fun and challenge.  

Isn't it great when you think you should have a bunch of winners and then get home to only get finger cramps from all the delete delete delete delete :banghead:


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 25, 2014)

True that. Sometime's when I review some on the LCD preview they look good until I get home and view them on the computer and there craparola. I thought I had some BIF a few times,ok maybe more then a few times and had nothing but tree branches.:lmao: Still, I never delete in camera just in case there is a good one.


----------



## BillM (Feb 25, 2014)

Go at the right time of day to get good light and drop that shutter to 1/1000 to get the ISO down and don't underexpose. Bringing up an underexposed picture in post will just increase noise. What are you using for a body ?

And camo really does help :thumbup:

I just started last year and when I look back at those early picture now I just laugh, they are really that bad lol


----------

