[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Koulang' timestamp='1286347207' post='3519']

I am sorry for making you confuse. I wanted to write tripod mount adapter! I know this lens is not 1:1 macro, but I wonder when we shot not too small objects like flowers? As I found in most reviews, this lens produces great image quality at f11 at 300mm, so if I zoom all the way to 300mm to shot macro, it may give very attractive background blur, but doing macro requires tripod's work even with great VC, so why I have this question.

[/quote]

You do not have to use f11 at such long focal lengths and not within the real macro realms.



So, I do not think a tripod is needed at all, especially because if the lens' IS (VC) which is said to be very good.



I shoot hand held at 200mm without IS at ISO 200 now, so I am sure I could should handheld at 300mm with IS (VC) and stopped down a bit more easily.



The Tamron reaches 1:4 or 0.25 magnifcation at 1.5 meters... I shoot 0.21 at 1.2 meters or 0.29 at 0.9 meters now, handheld.



Canon EF 70-200mm f4, no IS, handheld at 200mm focal length and 0.9m distance (on APS-C):

















If you do want to use a tripod, you still do not need a tripod mount. A cable/remote shutter release and mirror lock up will be enough to cancel out the movement caused by the imbalance. And if you hold the camera while it is not the tripod, your hands will absorb the movement energy.

[Steinar1]

Wow - nice pic's. You certainly can shoot flowers handheld with the lens. I have lots, but my system still has not gotten around to put the pictures in a website so that I can download them here. Do you use Flickr B? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Kindly Vieux Loup

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1286377179' post='3532']

Wow - nice pic's. You certainly can shoot flowers handheld with the lens. I have lots, but my system still has not gotten around to put the pictures in a website so that I can download them here. Do you use Flickr B? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Kindly Vieux Loup

[/quote]

I posted these images on the gallery right here on dpreview. You can link to the midsize version in posts <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[koulang]

Your images look really nice. I think you can take sharp images at 200mm but 300mm is more difficult. I use my Canon 70-300mm before, and I try shot at 300mm to get nice background blur, but images looked blurry. I could not use it handhold especially at low light. Even in good light, I still could not do it because I need to stop down to F11 at lease to get everything in focus.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Koulang' timestamp='1286765151' post='3570']

Your images look really nice. I think you can take sharp images at 200mm but 300mm is more difficult. I use my Canon 70-300mm before, and I try shot at 300mm to get nice background blur, but images looked blurry. I could not use it handhold especially at low light. Even in good light, I still could not do it because I need to stop down to F11 at lease to get everything in focus.

[/quote]

As you can see, I do not stop down at all. My images are at 200mm and with f4. I know that I can make similar images with the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM (very nice lens by the way) handheld at f5.6. Stopping down to f8 still is no problem to handhold, especially as the 70-300's have image stabilization.



I guess it is down to technique.

[koulang]

As I see your images, I still prefer more depth of field. For example the flower is not fully in focus; it is only sharp in center, and elsewhere is blurry. I love to stop down at F8-F11 or even smaller to get great depth of field. However different people have different preference. I don't have steady hands, and the 750g lens may not balance with small camera body like Canon 500D on tripod unless using tripod mount attached on the lens.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Koulang' timestamp='1286967819' post='3601']

As I see your images, I still prefer more depth of field. For example the flower is not fully in focus; it is only sharp in center, and elsewhere is blurry. I love to stop down at F8-F11 or even smaller to get great depth of field. However different people have different preference. I don't have steady hands, and the 750g lens may not balance with small camera body like Canon 500D on tripod unless using tripod mount attached on the lens.

[/quote]

The size of the body makes no difference, in this. Whether it is an 1Ds MK III or a 350D, the imbalance will be the same.



But does that matter? I think not. You do have VC (IS). So, a bit of shake is no problem. If you do not want to make use of IS, then you should consider using mirror lock up + remote shutter control.



I could personally easily shoot handheld at f8 to f11.



But if you still want a lens with tripod mount.... there are then 3 alternatives. The Sigma 100-300mmm f4 (much bigger and heavier, but does not extend), the new Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM (comes with its own tripod mount) and the EF Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM and f4 L IS USM, which you can order a tripod mount for (same one the EF 300mm f4 L IS USM has).



About my images: I do not use a small depth of field because I have to (I can easily stop down to f8 in the light that I use), but because of that my images are visually attractive because of the chosen DOF. Yes, I could choose to have whole flowers in focus, but then my images start to be bland and documentary instead of beautiful and emotional. A choice, rather than a need.

[koulang]

I have very limited budget but want to have good image quality, so I always try to ultimately use equipment to gain its best result. However, Tamron 70-300mm VC is now the only option of this range. Canon 70-300mm L will be very expensive , maybe 3 times more expensive, so I have no alternatives beside Tamron.

[koulang]

I have read a lot of forums on this lens and most are happy. I even download images taken with this lens on Nikon mount to see full resolution. All images are sharp, contrasty, and nice background blur which is impossible to get those result with my Canon 70-300mm IS. However I own a bad copy of the Canon, and I decided to sell it for $400 and wait for Tamron 70-300mm VC, but still not arrived.



After I read more forums on Canon's mount, some people complain about its sharpness; they said it was soft especially at 300mm which was softer than the Canon's. I think there are a lot of variations in Canon mount. Even though, I see very impressive images taken with this lens on Canon 5D MkII.



How do you think about variations of this lens in Canon's mount?

[hackmann]

Tamron perform better at 300mm inded. But at wide open its hard to beat nikon 70-300mm. The lens is ultra sharp.



I am giving a very good use to this lens to portrait shots at wide open or in 100~150mm...



You can check the photozone test here:

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...rt?start=1



And my topic with some sampes:

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/top...56g-if-ed/



Cheerz!

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />