| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/24/2005 12:00:23 AM · #1 |
I think the term "professional" has many definitions and perceptions on DP. Sometimes I'll hear people say, "If it's not a Canon L series, it's not 'professional'". Or sometimes I'll hear, "Hey, Canon lenses are great, but they're not perfect. Tamron is just as good...although people with Canon lenses would say otherwise." It seems like no one can agree on the equipment is out there...every one is biased.
So, here's a very straight-forward question, "Can the top-quality Tamron lenses take 'professional' caliber photos?" If I setup a studio and used a Tamron lens instead of a Canon lens...could I still achieve 'professional' caliber results (assuming all of the other variables were in tact...lighting, camera settings, etc.)? If I had unlimited funds, I would probably get all Canon L series...they have a great reputation. But I don't have unlimited funds, so I have to be more selective...but I don't want that to necessarily stand in the way of being able to establish myself as a 'professional'...whether that's 2 weeks or 2 years down the road. Just curious what opinions are out there.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:08:29 AM · #2 |
I think it depends on what you are gonna do with the images. If you are gonna look at them on the computer screen, u won't see much difference between the various 'similar' makes and models. When you start printing them, you will see a difference, especially at larger sizes.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:18:14 AM · #3 |
It all depends upon which specific lenses you're looking at. Tamron and Canon both make excellent lenses, and they each have some lame ones, too. Cost does not necessarily determine quality either. The $70 Canon 50mm f/2.8 is very sharp, while the $2000+ 28-300 L can be soft at the ends of its zoom range (par for the course with big zoom ranges).
The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ranks up there with the best of them. Absolutely pro caliber, and one of the best lens bargains out there. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:21:38 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it depends on what you are gonna do with the images. If you are gonna look at them on the computer screen, u won't see much difference between the various 'similar' makes and models. When you start printing them, you will see a difference, especially at larger sizes. |
The differences in lenses are actually exagerated on the screen if viewed at 100%.
to the OP: Tamron in terms of optical quality, can rival that of canon L glass with a few of it's lenses. The differences between them and the canon lenses, is often weather sealing, and inferior build. Some professionals feel that the tamrons might break or something, but for the price you could buy a few of them for the price of comperable L glass. I've not heard of any of the tamron glass breaking, and I love mine. So in a word, yes you can get professional results from good Tamron glass. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:24:17 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ranks up there with the best of them. Absolutely pro caliber, and one of the best lens bargains out there. |
Just don't expect to take it out in the field (like, say, you were going to Iraq or the rainforest for Nat'l Geo) and expect the Tamron to last. In a studio/portrait/wedding/general use environment, it should be great. and for the price of one L lens, you can get 3 of the Tamrons
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 00:27:54.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:25:52 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by chafer:
So, here's a very straight-forward question, "Can the top-quality Tamron lenses take 'professional' caliber photos?" |
Yes, if a professional photographer takes a photo with a Tamron lens, then the photo is a professional photo. The quality of the photo would depend on the photographer. The more expensive Canon L lens might make it easier for the photographer to get the result s/he wants. It might also make it possible to take a photo under conditions that a lesser lens simply can't handle. That's one reason why many professional photographers are willing to pay big bucks for Canon L lenses.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:33:16 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Just don't expect to take it out in the field (like, say, you were going to Iraq or the rainforest for Nat'l Geo) and expect the Tamron to last. |
My Tamron gets the most use of all my lenses by far, yet it's my two most expensive Canons that have required service (yeah, OK, so I dropped them). Note that Tamron includes a much longer (5 year) warranty than Canon. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:35:21 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Just don't expect to take it out in the field (like, say, you were going to Iraq or the rainforest for Nat'l Geo) and expect the Tamron to last. |
My Tamron gets the most use of all my lenses by far, yet it's my two most expensive Canons that have required service (yeah, OK, so I dropped them). Note that Tamron includes a much longer (5 year) warranty than Canon. |
I was thinking more about weather sealing and the generally neglectful way some PhotoJournalists treat their equipment in the field
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:41:37 AM · #9 |
Some thoughts on this...
L lenses are an easy decision, no real thought need be made. You get good to very good lenses pretty much across the board. Sometimes there are no other options (70-200 2.8 IS)
But who cares? Better yet, who knows? Unless you have some reason to advertise what equipment you use the customer will not know the difference, or care. The results are what matter.
If you are in business then you have to concern yourself with expenses, and ROI (return on investment). If a $300 lens will get the job done, then spending $2500 is foolish and a bad business decision. On the other hand, if a $1700 strobe will be more durable (packing, unpacking, etc) than a $500 one, you are better off spending the extra.
What I am figuing out from talking to pros and such is this - if you have a specific reason for a particular lens then get it (the canon 70-200 2.8 IS is one such beast) and if you will be printing LARGE prints then the extra bit of image quality of an L lens may be worth it (large being 16x24 or bigger).
Tamron's SP, Sigma's EX and Tokina's PRO line of lenses are all very good to excellent. You have to look at your needs, your business and decide from there.
I have done some studio and outside portraiture (pets, HS seniors). I like zooms, don;t need a fast lens (using flash or outside daylight) and for me teh Tamron 24-135 SP lens is perfect. I have recently acquired an older tamron SP 70-210 2.8. The sheer size of this lens impresses the avg joe. If it were white would it be more impressive? Who can say.
I assisted a wedding photographer this past year, and she shot a $350 canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 lens on a 10D...older camera, non L glass...and gort $4000 for 4 hours work. Had she used a $1500 lens on a $4500 camera she;'d have still gotten $4,000 in revenue, but had a lot larger bill to pay at the end of the day!
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:44:58 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spazmo:
I was thinking more about weather sealing and the generally neglectful way some PhotoJournalists treat their equipment in the field |
Interesting the way this paints professionals as being careless. I know that they just have a job to do, but having seen a bit of evidence for this elsewhere, I think it's telling that not only can you get optically professional results from Tamron glass, it's likely that if you don't treat the lens like "professionals" do, you will also get longevity that is quite satisfactory.
Not that I have any reason to say I know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 06:56:19 AM · #11 |
I shoot for a newspaper and, if they ask me to get a shot and its pouring rain, I still have to get the shot. I think that is what ultimately killed my Sigma EX 17-35.
I have been at assignments with other PJs and, since often the equipment isn't theirs (their papers have a bigger budget than mine), they can be rather careless when trying to get the best shot. And its not that they are careless, its more of a mindset thing. You can be so absorbed behind the lens you forget the world around you.
Also, they play baseball and football outside in the rain. You need the shot, you keep shooting.
And you never know if its an award winning image... :) |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 09:30:09 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I assisted a wedding photographer this past year, and she shot a $350 canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 lens on a 10D...older camera, non L glass...and gort $4000 for 4 hours work. |
I would bet:
1) It was outdoors.
2) She's got 1.8 and 2.8 lenses in that bag
or
3) The pictures sucked no matter how 'good' or spensive she is.
:)
I'm guessing I could get away with a 3.5 occasionally but 5.6? Outdoors during summer yes. No other way.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 10:16:51 AM · #13 |
I asked her about that lens choice - she likes tight shots, and still has to get teh wide ones, so she likes a zoom. She likes the look of a diffusion filter, so she had one on that lens - that mostly negates the sharpness one gains from going L.
Yes it was outside, but she shot pretty much everything at 5.6-8 and had $8,000 worth of Lumedyne strobes plus radio triggers (and of course backups to everything).
Her shots were not of the modern style, but around here one has to educate the client on style -they DO NOT ask and when you attempt to explain, they don't seem to really get it. I know of a very few photogs with any style at all- part of the reason i want to do it is to bring some 'art to the wedding scene here (not that i'm there myself at this point).
L glass is weather sealed, and as for build..don't drop any lens. PJs and other pros move heir equipment a lot and their focus is often on other things going on around them, and they take a lot of pictures.
I'll ask my friend Emmanuel about lenses - he has 'moved up' to all L glass now but blew thru 150,000 pics on Sigma and tamron glass in teh past 2 years and see if he an opinion based on experience. He firmly believes the Canon 500 4.5 is better than the Sigma 50-500 - BUT one is a prime, one 10x zoom and the price difference is $3,000. He feels he missed shots with teh bigma that the canon gets - that can be significant for someone making a living with their lenses.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 11:47:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
L glass is weather sealed, and as for build..don't drop any lens. PJs and other pros move heir equipment a lot and their focus is often on other things going on around them, and they take a lot of pictures.
I'll ask my friend Emmanuel about lenses - he has 'moved up' to all L glass now but blew thru 150,000 pics on Sigma and tamron glass in teh past 2 years and see if he an opinion based on experience. He firmly believes the Canon 500 4.5 is better than the Sigma 50-500 - BUT one is a prime, one 10x zoom and the price difference is $3,000. He feels he missed shots with teh bigma that the canon gets - that can be significant for someone making a living with their lenses. |
Don't generalize, not all L glass is weather sealed. A ton of it isn't.
Well yeah, if you compare a $3500 prime to a $800 10x zoom which do you think is gonna come out better? The 500L/4.5 is supposed to be pretty fantastic. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:35:01 PM · #15 |
Great feedback. I'm going to wait a few more days before I make any decisions on lenses...but this definitely helped.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:03:31 PM · #16 |
| I ordered my Tamron 28-75 just a few days ago. I really hope it will live up to my expectations. :) |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:25:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jansku:
I ordered my Tamron 28-75 just a few days ago. I really hope it will live up to my expectations. :) |
You'll love it. Mines pretty much glued to my camera. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 03:09:25 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I assisted a wedding photographer this past year, and she shot a $350 canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 lens on a 10D...older camera, non L glass...and gort $4000 for 4 hours work. |
I would bet:
1) It was outdoors.
2) She's got 1.8 and 2.8 lenses in that bag
or
3) The pictures sucked no matter how 'good' or spensive she is.
:)
I'm guessing I could get away with a 3.5 occasionally but 5.6? Outdoors during summer yes. No other way. |
Strobes?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 03:20:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Strobes? |
I think since Mav is primarily a wedding photog for business, strobes are sorta bulky and unwanted during ceremonies.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 03:27:31 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Strobes? |
I think since Mav is primarily a wedding photog for business, strobes are sorta bulky and unwanted during ceremonies. |
Depends on the ceremony. Some pastors/churches have rules, others do not.
The photog in question has 4 of these set up - 2 under the tent (reception area) and one on a flash bracket and i as the assistant carried the other one. It was a July summer afternoon, outdoors and HOT. I asked about why the strobes and she said it added sparkle/punch and the second one gave some modeling to the faces.
A lumedyne strobe - there are other variations.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 04:15:16 PM · #21 |
Since none of the canon bodies cheaper than the 1 series are weather sealed, there is little point for most of us to worry about weathersealing. If the conditions you are shooting in are going to fry your camera body, what use is having a tight lens?
When I go to the Amazon or the Gobi desert for National Geographic I will have to leave my tamron 28-75XrDi at home. Untill then, it is the most reliable lens own, and a great bargain. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 05:14:25 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since none of the canon bodies cheaper than the 1 series are weather sealed, there is little point for most of us to worry about weathersealing. If the conditions you are shooting in are going to fry your camera body, what use is having a tight lens?
When I go to the Amazon or the Gobi desert for National Geographic I will have to leave my tamron 28-75XrDi at home. Untill then, it is the most reliable lens own, and a great bargain. |
Very well said!
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 05:19:26 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Since none of the canon bodies cheaper than the 1 series are weather sealed, there is little point for most of us to worry about weathersealing. If the conditions you are shooting in are going to fry your camera body, what use is having a tight lens? |
I donno about other people, but I carry a 2-gallon ziploc freezer baggie with a hole cut in it that I can force a lens through, so when I shoot in the rain or mist the camera body is protected but the lens is exposed. So a better-sealed lens would be a bonus for me... Unfortunately, my one "L" lens is not weather sealed :-)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 17:19:47. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 09:56:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by chafer:
If I setup a studio and used a Tamron lens instead of a Canon lens...could I still achieve 'professional' caliber results? |
You could get professional results with a lensbaby, or a 40 year old non-coated screw-mount lens on an adapter, if you handled it right. Just look at the scores people get with the $50 18-55mm kit lens, just goes to show that a cheap lens is no barrier to making great images with it.
Where L glass and similar comes into its own, is removing the "handling it right" aspect. Better reliability (including weather-sealing and damage resistance), fast autofocus, sharpness, low chromatic aberration and distortions are all factors that make sure you can get the shot every time, rather than only once you cater to the imperfections of the cheap lens. If you're a creative and enthusiastic photographer, your results probably won't differ, just the amount of work you have to do to get them. You just have to decide if your circumstances and your needs match that sufficiently to merit spending the extra cash.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 12:49:11 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by chafer:
If I setup a studio and used a Tamron lens instead of a Canon lens...could I still achieve 'professional' caliber results? |
You could get professional results with a lensbaby, or a 40 year old non-coated screw-mount lens on an adapter, if you handled it right. Just look at the scores people get with the $50 18-55mm kit lens, just goes to show that a cheap lens is no barrier to making great images with it.
|
Unless your clients are only going to see web images, not a good reference. That lens will look doggy printed compared to an "L".
Also remember that most lens are too sharp for general portraits. Unless your model has perfect skin or you want to retouch. So a tamron in the studio for portrait work would be probably be fine.
|
|
