Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 macro
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:42 am    Post subject: Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 macro Reply with quote
A splendid lens:


It looks like summer, but it has actually only 3 degrees Celsius.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A very hard to find lens these days. Splendid, as you said.
But, why macro?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great image. I have this lens and CA can be an issue.

Himself wrote:
A very hard to find lens these days. Splendid, as you said.
But, why macro?
Because that's what the lens is called. Although it isn't a macro lens.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I has closer shortest distance than other 300mm lenses, I had two times , nice lens indeed. Congrats!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks a lot for your feedback!
The "Macro" part was referring to the lens name (as martinsmith99 pointed out correctly). This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4 meters, which is an incredible achievement. More details can be found on the excellent adaptall-2.org site:
http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/54B.html

The lens is very compact and lightweight, so it is easy to hand hold it and it easily fits in small camera rucksack.
I hope I have some time over the next few weeks to test it a bit more.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wouldn't call this lens splendid, but it can produce excellent results when the stars align. I was surprised to find that it is not particularly sharper and doesn't have less CA than the 60-300 zoom. But it is shorter, thinner, and lighter than the zoom and has a very nice build - same style as the 90/2.5 macro lens. What bothers me about it is that the CA which can be pretty bad around reflections.

For example, magenta hues can be seen around the reflections on this dragonfly, even at this small size:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5013805438

On subjects without harsh reflections, the issue becomes moot and nice results are obtained:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5799163852


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5798615911


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5799164362

OTOH, similar results can be obtained from the 60-300 zoom at its long end.

No magenta around reflections here:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5013805514

And comparable results in other scenarios:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5798715191


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5788670829

For a zoom, the 60-300 is an impressive achievement. The 300 macro has the advantage of focusing closer and having a flat focal plane as true macro lenses have, but for general use, it does not offer better IQ.

I looked at these lenses when I was searching for a decent 300mm lens to use on Pentax. I wrote my impressions about several options here, for those that want more information.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The reviews I have read suggests that the 60-300 is a good lens but not quite as sharp at the long end.

I wasn't really after a 300mm when I bought mine, but I spotted it in a shop at 35gbp in new condition with case. Its primary use is with B&W film so for me, CA is not an issue, but yes, we all know it can be really bad.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd love to know on which camera (sensor format) these pictures were taken. 24x36mm or APS-C or M43?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both are great lenses, but the 60-300mm has less purple fringing. It disappears completely at f/7.1 as well Smile The 300/5.6 is nice and light though, and sharp!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I loved my 300/5.6, only sold it when I got the Tair 300 which was soon supplanted by the F*300/4.5
Pete



PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@memento: This was taken with an APS-C sized sensor.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memento wrote:
I'd love to know on which camera (sensor format) these pictures were taken. 24x36mm or APS-C or M43?


My shots were also taken with APS-C cameras - the dragonflies with Pentax K-7, the rest with Pentax K10D.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Transit wrote:
I loved my 300/5.6, only sold it when I got the Tair 300 which was soon supplanted by the F*300/4.5


Is that sample image from the first, second, or third love affair? Wink


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great pics Laurentiu! Ah now I really wish winter can speed on by so I can dust off my 54A for some shots. Razz


PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have this lens and compared it (on aps-dslr)with Tamron SP 60-300 and Sigma mf 70-210 APO, Sigma APO 70-30 AF and Tamron 70-300 Di.
The prime simply has better sharpness.
All other lenses have to be stopped down 1-2 stops to gain -almost- same quality.
The 300 doesn't have the same CA-probs like the 60-300 (which has probs with blue fringing).
I prefer the 3.5-4/70-210 over the 60-300 (and accomplish it with the SP 5.6/300).

When focussing near infinity the 60-300 may be better than the 70-210 but otherwise....


PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul wrote:

The 300 doesn't have the same CA-probs like the 60-300 (which has probs with blue fringing).


A few observations:

1. I recently (past two weeks) realized that the PF of these lenses is actually the red component of LoCA on these lenses. I went through all my adaptall-2 lenses and they all have stronger LoCA than modern lenses. But the nice thing about this being LoCA is that they only occur in front of the focal plane, so as long as you focus on the closest part of the subject you'll be able to avoid them. The green part of the LoCA is just as bad as the red one, but it mingles better with the background and doesn't get noticed as easily. The other thing is that LoCA tends to go down as you stop down the lens.

2. My Pentax K10D had a ridiculous habit of picking a colder WB with these lenses, which resulted in a lot of artificial fringing that would disappear if the WB was properly selected. I have not seen this problem on MILCs and I expect Pentax has also fixed their WB algorithms in more recent cameras. I am mentioning this because you talked about a blue fringing that I have not noticed - it might just be the result of shifting from red-purple to blue as a result of a colder WB selected by your camera.

3. In my experience, the 300 has the worst LoCA of all adaptall-2 lenses that I have. Worse than the 60-300. Cannot tell if it is sharper either at f/5.6 - I tend to use both at f/8. But the 300 is a much nicer lens to use than the 60-300 - it is smaller, lighter, and the focusing ring is nicer (I don't like the push-pull focusing rings).

Hope this helps.


PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks a lot for sharing your observations! I have to say that I am not a friend of push/pull zooms either, but with some Tamron zooms I accept it, because they are optically very good.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi everyone.

I'm on a quest for a good budget 300mm for my Panasonic G5, primarily for birding.. if such exists, that is. I was advised that I need at least f/4 or 4.5 and internal focusing but than I saw how good marks this lens got here - so after a couple of days spent on google, I think I saw more or less every single review, forum thread and gallery available on the web.. yet only a small part relevant to what I intend to use it for. I was quite impressed with the few bird pics I've seen (especially with martinsmith99's robin) but some questions remain - how good it really is for not-so-close subjects, how sharp it is wide open and how hard it is to focus stopped down?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome! Take Nikon 300mm f4.5 or Takumar 300mm f4 , one stop faster lens matter really in birding. I had all , include IF Nikon.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just made a simular hunt, looking to replace a contax zeiss 300mm f4 and eventually settled on the Tamron SP 300 5.6
So far I have to say I am extremely happy with the lens. yes its a stop slower than most, but it focuses much closer than any other 300 prime I have shot with, its incredibly small and light, and the sharpness seems really good (close in and at long range) A few samples shooting with it for a day:


@ infinity



[/img]


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Paul wrote:

The 300 doesn't have the same CA-probs like the 60-300 (which has probs with blue fringing).


A few observations:

1. I recently (past two weeks) realized that the PF of these lenses is actually the red component of LoCA on these lenses. I went through all my adaptall-2 lenses and they all have stronger LoCA than modern lenses. But the nice thing about this being LoCA is that they only occur in front of the focal plane, so as long as you focus on the closest part of the subject you'll be able to avoid them. The green part of the LoCA is just as bad as the red one, but it mingles better with the background and doesn't get noticed as easily. The other thing is that LoCA tends to go down as you stop down the lens.

2. My Pentax K10D had a ridiculous habit of picking a colder WB with these lenses, which resulted in a lot of artificial fringing that would disappear if the WB was properly selected. I have not seen this problem on MILCs and I expect Pentax has also fixed their WB algorithms in more recent cameras. I am mentioning this because you talked about a blue fringing that I have not noticed - it might just be the result of shifting from red-purple to blue as a result of a colder WB selected by your camera.

3. In my experience, the 300 has the worst LoCA of all adaptall-2 lenses that I have. Worse than the 60-300. Cannot tell if it is sharper either at f/5.6 - I tend to use both at f/8. But the 300 is a much nicer lens to use than the 60-300 - it is smaller, lighter, and the focusing ring is nicer (I don't like the push-pull focusing rings).

Hope this helps.


Very helpful thank you.
And thanks for your thoughts on your blog
OH


PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 on close focus it was great surprise.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Welcome! Take Nikon 300mm f4.5 or Takumar 300mm f4 , one stop faster lens matter really in birding. I had all , include IF Nikon.

Thanks, and thanks for the advice. ED-IF is exactly what I was considering before I stumbled upon your review of Tamron. Tamron is still tempting though - cheap, light, macro, reasonably sharp, nice colours and bokeh all in the same lens. CAs aside, with 450$ speed booster it could be perfect Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you get bored about Tamron easy to sell, sought after lens , give it a try.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I will. Is 170E too much for one in apparently near-mint condition?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1