Telephoto technique? Tamron 70-300

[FowlersFreeTime]

So I got a new-to-me Tamron 70-300mm and had to try it out yesterday. The results are... not as sharp as I had hoped. Here is an example:

• ILCE-6700
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 25/10000 sec
• ISO 250

I took this straight out of camera, just a minor crop on the phone. When I zoom in, the dragonfly should be sharper, even though AI AF locked on. So technique question: should I be using a faster shutter speed?
EDIT: not sure why the metadata is displaying the exposure in a funky format, but it was 1/400.

 

[Tim Mayo]

So I got a new-to-me Tamron 70-300mm and had to try it out yesterday. The results are... not as sharp as I had hoped. Here is an example:

I took this straight out of camera, just a minor crop on the phone. When I zoom in, the dragonfly should be sharper, even though AI AF locked on. So technique question: should I be using a faster shutter speed?
EDIT: not sure why the metadata is displaying the exposure in a funky format, but it was 1/400.

I'm not sure why the metadata is displaying like that either! Another bug for the list! You'll definitely need a faster shutter speed than 1/400 for something like a dragonfly unless it's perfectly still and you were pretty close. Normally I'd go with around 1/1000 minimum if there's any movement and I'm shooting from a far, faster if the light allows.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I was lucky enough to be about 1-1.5 meters away from most of my dragonfly subjects yesterday. They were somewhat cooperative, but there was a light breeze. I'll try a faster shutter speed today and see how I fare.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Getting better, but could be improved?
No edits, SOOC JPG:

• ILCE-6700
• E 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 A047
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 250

 

[Clix Pix]

I agree with Tim -- definitely higher shutter speeds for fast-moving critters!

Since this is a used lens (you said "new to me," so this is my assumption, anyway), is it possible that the lens is faulty?

 

[Loke]

That second picture looks more like wrong focus than unsharp? Looks like focus is locked on wings and not eye to me.

I am by no means a experienced photographer, but i often use the 2x focal length when shooting hanheld. So if i shoot 85mm i use at least 1/150, if i shoot 400mm i use up towards 1/800. This is for my lens blur, then ofcourse might need to shoot even higher speeds for object motion blur depending on subject. If i get my first shots, i might try to get lower on the shutter speed to reduce ISO.

So if out of focus, try to recognize if its the object, or your handheld technique/shutter speed thats wrong. Just my few thoughts

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I agree with Tim -- definitely higher shutter speeds for fast-moving critters!

Since this is a used lens (you said "new to me," so this is my assumption, anyway), is it possible that the lens is faulty?

Oh I can't catch the fast moving ones, I settle for the ones that have pitched on a branch LOL! But yes, going to keep trying different [faster] exposures and apertures until I dial this in.

As for it being faulty, that is always a possibility. MPB does offer warranty on the lenses they sell, so perhaps I might have to keep the receipt handy.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

That second picture looks more like wrong focus than unsharp? Looks like focus is locked on wings and not eye to me.

I am by no means a experienced photographer, but i often use the 2x focal length when shooting hanheld. So if i shoot 85mm i use at least 1/150, if i shoot 400mm i use up towards 1/800. This is for my lens blur, then ofcourse might need to shoot even higher speeds for object motion blur depending on subject. If i get my first shots, i might try to get lower on the shutter speed to reduce ISO.

So if out of focus, try to recognize if its the object, or your handheld technique/shutter speed thats wrong. Just my few thoughts

Definitely possible. The center of the subject looks sharpest, that would be the wings, but not the head or thorax. Perhaps a narrower aperture would be more forgiving as well?

 

[Loke]

Definitely possible. The center of the subject looks sharpest, that would be the wings, but not the head or thorax. Perhaps a narrower aperture would be more forgiving as well?

Yes. I was also thinking, looks like 1,5m is the minimum focal distance on the Tamron 70-300 @ 300mm. Could the problems be due to the fact you took a picture just about the minimum threshold for focal distance? Could be an posibility to take a picture of something else stationary that is on a 2-3m distance on a f/11, with wide focus are just to see if you get it sharp - just to see that its not the lens thats causing problems.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Yes. I was also thinking, looks like 1,5m is the minimum focal distance on the Tamron 70-300 @ 300mm. Could the problems be due to the fact you took a picture just about the minimum threshold for focal distance? Could be an posibility to take a picture of something else stationary that is on a 2-3m distance on a f/11, with wide focus are just to see if you get it sharp - just to see that its not the lens thats causing problems.

Oh, that makes a lot of sense! At the 1M mark, AF was not working and I realize now that I was too close. I'm going to back up to 2 M and try F11.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

• ILCE-6700
• E 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 A047
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 500

Roughly two meters away. Definitely getting a bit better. I guess the lesson to learn here is that not all zoom lenses can be treated like macro lenses: the minimum focusing distance must be respected.

Damn, now I want that Sony 70-200 with Macro capabilities... and I just got this lens!