BF2S Forums Photography.. Post 'em

anyone have experience with tamron lenses and liked them? im interested in this lens for  travel.
it has a better zoom range than the competitor nikon lens(18-200mm) and that Vibration Compensation (VC) mechanism fancy pants
what do you think? the Tamron AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC lens
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2008/0730.html and the adorama link http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/ … viewHeader

Last edited by Kimmmmmmmmmmmm (2010-05-10 10:50:51)

Finray wrote:

so i herd u liek HDR?

why yes, yes i do

Finray wrote:

Nice shot burnzz, is that a fish eye or a panorama? (the dark spots in the corners)

actually, the dark spots is my lens hood.

three exposures, -2, 0, +2 EV tonemapped thru photomatix. cs5 now has HDR pro, that will sharpen and eliminate ghosting. i think photomatix is better, but cs5 gets close.

i posted an HDR panorama a couple of pages ago. if you want to see 'content aware' fill, look at the bottom corners of this picture

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/457 … 3843_b.jpg

E; it is 30 exposures - 10 tonemapped, then stitched and filled in cs5

Last edited by burnzz (2010-05-10 13:16:58)

Right now I'm waiting on it getting dark enough to get a night HDR of the same photo.. Got the tripod set up looking out my window right now

It's just better to take three - or more - seperate photographs on the day and work with them. You have so much more detail at your fingertips.

Thanks for the tip, I was just messing with the shutter speed.. gonna give the f stop a go too.

Left it too long and it's way too dark now. Bugger.

5 hours? well the results r nice. wouldnt it be impossible to do HDR of night sky??(stars move n stuff)

Microwave wrote:

FAO: Kmar, burnnnnnnz, wallpaper etc etc...

I have a UV filter for my camera and I have a question!

I've been doing a lot of reading about them being cheap bits of glass infront of your expensive lens and the lens is already coated against UV and there's no need for it (kind of argument).

I've not noticed any difference with one and I agree with the argument so I'm probably going to take it off and never use it again.


What are your opinions on using one?

i never use my UV filter, ever.  if outside I use the Polarizing filter. No filters for inside or night shots.

found this on some forum:

WB - night photography:
White balance, of necessity, will be tungsten, of course, to reinforce the blue sky, and to help de-saturate the yellow artificial light, which can be overpowering. Experiment and try using Fluorescent White balance for brilliant color in the sky. Lowest ISO as usual-at least, at first! Aperture depends-F8 to F11 is the sharpest range for your lens, but you may need to forsake the threat of diffraction, and go for F16 or 22, if you are getting lens flare.

Last edited by Kimmmmmmmmmmmm (2010-05-10 14:58:37)

burnzz wrote:

Microwave wrote:

What are your opinions on using one?

i use a circular polarizer when the suns out. i have a neutral density also. i have the UV on, in front of my expensive glass - it comes off with the lenscap. meaning, i take the time to unscrew it, and put the lens cap back on it. my lens cap is on a tether.

and it's that way for all my lenses.

Thanks burnzz. I use a circular polarizer for sun too. I need to get my hands on a neutral density too for some nice long exposure day shots

Definitely going to stop using the UV.

From what I know a neutral density filter basically darkens the image. Enabling you to have a longer shutter/larger aperture than you would normally in those light conditions.

Microwave wrote:

I've been doing a lot of reading about them being cheap bits of glass infront of your expensive lens and the lens is already coated against UV and there's no need for it (kind of argument).

I've not noticed any difference with one and I agree with the argument so I'm probably going to take it off and never use it again.


What are your opinions on using one?

I personally dont use UV filters, although I should for normal shooting (a big hell no for macros). Its a good idea since it will lessen the chance of you destroying your lens should it ever be dropped, but image wise it changes nothing. I do use a CPL when its sunny though

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

anyone have experience with tamron lenses and liked them? im interested in this lens for  travel.
it has a better zoom range than the competitor nikon lens(18-200mm) and that Vibration Compensation (VC) mechanism fancy pants
what do you think? the Tamron AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC lens
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2008/0730.html and the adorama link http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/ … viewHeader

It sounds nice to have, but DONT DO IT. Extreme zooms have terrible performance in terms of aperture, bokeh, and sharpness. Plus, they make you lazy. Granted, if youre only doing snaps for 4x6 prints it really wouldnt matter, but you most likely will be very disappointed by its performance

Last edited by Wallpaper (2010-05-10 20:06:48)

what software, finray?

Finray wrote:

Photomatix iirc.

cs5 will merge, and being photoshop, will clean up the image very well. but i'm going to keep photomatix, because cs5 won't tone map like it;

Wallpaper wrote:

Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

anyone have experience with tamron lenses and liked them? im interested in this lens for  travel.
it has a better zoom range than the competitor nikon lens(18-200mm) and that Vibration Compensation (VC) mechanism fancy pants
what do you think? the Tamron AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC lens
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2008/0730.html and the adorama link http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/ … viewHeader

It sounds nice to have, but DONT DO IT. Extreme zooms have terrible performance in terms of aperture, bokeh, and sharpness. Plus, they make you lazy. Granted, if youre only doing snaps for 4x6 prints it really wouldnt matter, but you most likely will be very disappointed by its performance

lazy? i just dont want to bring a slew of lenses down the river with me. my 'go to' for wide to tele right now is a quantaray 18-200 3.5-6.3. What would you recommened then instead?