Tamron Lens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MICC

Ok, Ok, I'm new here. I have the 2 lenses that I got when I bought my D3100 Nikon 18- 55mm and Tamron 70- 300mm so I'm thinking the one you suggest would be useful as it would fall in the middle and maybe I could stop carrying 2 lenses round all the time. I borrowed a macro lens nikon 105mm 2.8 and I loved it but its a bit expensive for me right now. I have only had a DSLR about 2 years but i have done a couple of courses and I am still experimenting so I pretty much love it all.

---

Hi Mary,

Many thanks for adding name and location (and sorry if it felt like I was nagging). :)

Now I'm going to "grill you" with a round of searching questions :eek:

What subjects do you like to shoot?

Have you handled a D7000, to compare size and weight against the D3100?

What is it about the D3100 that you feel is holding you back?

3 should do for starters, as we've only just met ;)

Pardon my manners, I should have said; welcome to the CiC forums from ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

At the risk of diverting the thread, are the swans a 100% crop from a small bit of a much larger picture Randy?

I am puzzled why you shot at f/22 as that did 'bad things' to the shutter speed at that focal length.
It probably doesn't help sharpness either, because of diffraction at f/22.
Even on the landscape, at 18mm, everything in shot will be within the DoF of say f11 or f/16 if you focus at the hyperfocal distance.

Ah, maybe your post #14 holds the answer ;)

Cheers,

---

http://i49.tinypic.com/28jf3d.jpg

I did crop a bit, I guess from using macro, I am becoming accustomed to being able to crop as much as 50% and still retain detail. As mentioned, it admittedly not the best that I have done. Full story in regards to the shot: Driving down a narrow county road, saw the swans on shore, parked off shoulder, and approached fence. Swans were not keen on my approach and began rapid departure. Framed shot, to my horror I could not auto focus! Discovered that removing camera from bag, I had switched to manual. By the time I hurriedly recomposed and focussed, the swans were well into open water. I remembered why I prefer macro and vowed revenge upon all uncooperative swans. F/22 would not have been my choice, but at the time it was now or never. I just feel that I may have pulled it off with a 70-300, as I have found the 18-270 is soft at 270mm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtbaum

I did crop a bit, I guess from using macro, I am becoming accustomed to being able to crop as much as 50% and still retain detail.

---

Yes I do too (crop a lot I mean), but at distance other factors come into play that degrade the results unless you can mitigate them effectively.

Without the rushed circumstances, I'm sure this would have been better at f/8 and 1/1250s to help with the risks of camera shake and/or subject movement - We've all been there!

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Yes I do too (crop a lot I mean), but at distance other factors come into play that degrade the results unless you can mitigate them effectively.

Without the rushed circumstances, I'm sure this would have been better at f/8 and 1/1250s to help with the risks of camera shake and/or subject movement - We've all been there!

I do pledge revenge, the park that I frequent for many of my prairie series is the site of reintroduction of tundra swans to Mn, dang things are nesting half a block from my house
Cheers,

---

I do pledge revenge, I will capture the wily swans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtbaum

I do pledge revenge, I will capture the wily swans

---

Dave You have made me re think, I have been checking out the Nikon 105 and can see that if I bought a new lens I would still have it to use if I wanted to upgrade my camera body later.
I enjoy most photography though don't do much portrait, just family. I love flowers and landscape particularly the sea.
I have found that the better the camera or lens is the heavier it is and which is a problem for me as I then get camera shake. Would more specific lenses help?

I'm pretty much in agreement with the folks above. I have a Canon 600D and use a Sigma 17-70 f2.8/4and a Tamron 70-300 f4/5.6 as my main lenses. I fairly recently decided to buy the Tamron 18-270 VC you describe, having read the reviews and knowing what I was buying - which is pretty much what I got.

It's certainly capable of taking decent pictures, but not up to the standard of the other two lenses. However, I'm averse to carrying much, and if it means that I have the camera and lens with me instead of at home, it's worth it.

These wouldn't win any comps, but I think they're not too bad.

Shot at 80mm
http://i48.tinypic.com/2nt8n7s.jpg


And at 270mm, with a fairly hefty crop

http://i48.tinypic.com/2m862a1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MICC

Dave You have made me re think, I have been checking out the Nikon 105 and can see that if I bought a new lens I would still have it to use if I wanted to upgrade my camera body later.
I enjoy most photography though don't do much portrait, just family. I love flowers and landscape particularly the sea.
I have found that the better the camera or lens is the heavier it is and which is a problem for me as I then get camera shake. Would more specific lenses help?

---

Mary, I think that is the right decision. especially if you like to photograph flowers.

Lenses tend to remain "state of the art" a lot longer than cameras !

and of course like most people I lust after new cameras. I was in Park Cameras saturday and I was drooling :)


----------------------------------------

as to he Tamron 18-270 PZD..... ? Never used it but used the previous version and it was ok. I always thought the Nikon 16-85 and 70-300 VR were better but it was convenient. I sold it then missed having a travel zoom and bought the Nikon 18-200 - my gut feel is that is the Nikon is a sharper lens.....

On the cameras; your D3100 is 505g from memory and the D7000 780g.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MICC

Dave You have made me re think, I have been checking out the Nikon 105 and can see that if I bought a new lens I would still have it to use if I wanted to upgrade my camera body later.
I enjoy most photography though don't do much portrait, just family. I love flowers and landscape particularly the sea.
I have found that the better the camera or lens is the heavier it is and which is a problem for me as I then get camera shake. Would more specific lenses help?

---

The 105mm is also pretty heavy at 790g, but at least it has VR.

If your interest is flowers, rather than insects, plus landscape, perhaps a shorter/lighter macro prime would suit better?
I have no experience of them though.

A quick look on the Nikon comparison device (only on USA site);

Note USD prices, for comparison only as no-one buys at RRP.

AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G = 280g = $279.95

AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED = 425g = $599.95

AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR = 355g = $529.95

AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 IF-ED = 790g = $984.95

You need AF-S to AutoFocus on your D3100.

VR means Vibration Reduction, useful to combat camera shake if hand holding, although note it is less effective the closer you get to true macro 1:1, but for flowers, unless part of the stamen, this again won't be so relevant, so VR may be worth having, I find it so with the 105mm.

DX means only works on cameras upto and including D7000, this is of little consequence to you now - and you probably know most of this stuff by now anyway.

The important things are max aperture (e.g. f/2.8), for when using for stuff other than macro and VR, plus weight and focal length. The shorter the focal length, the closer you need to be to the subject for 1:1, which is why, for shooting insects, the 105mm is the minimum and 150, 180 (Sigma) or even 200mm is more useful; so you can be further away and not spook them.

If I didn't already have a 50mm prime lens, I'd be tempted by the 40mm, no VR, but about a stop faster than my 18-200mm at that focal length and only just over 200 quid on Amazon UK. :)

Of course, for whole flowers, shot from a bit further away, there's the even cheaper 35mm (non-macro) f/1.8 at 144 quid :D

But they're not a recommendations, just a wishes for myself ;)

Cheers,

Thank you all very much, thats a huge amount for me to think about and research. I will definitely buy lenses instead of a camera(though I can't help feeling a bit sad) but once I've made a decision and taken some pics I should feel better. I'll let you know what I decide. Great shots Dave with the Tamron so thats a consideration too.