huhhh... thanks for ur comment but I never did any blur edit or PS on these pics. they all are original JPEG output from 5D2 with this Tamron 300/2.8. the uncharacteristic of lens blur is actually come from the lens effect.
Every tool needs to be understood before you can use it well. Having a 300/2,8 is great only if you know how to make use of the isolation effect, only if you know how to not screw up the perspective, only when you know what to do with foreground and background elements, only if can light a subject to enchance the blurr off. So far I do not see any of this here. As a new toy it is nice to have one, shoot a few times in the past with a 400 but as I got over the trill it dawned on me that the images did not improve as dramatical as expected, then I discover the sad sad truth. As it is I just chalk this up to operator learning errors. If you have any not understanding what is being said issues - go look at good sports photography most of the shots are done with super teles the better ones are instructional. Shooting models with a 300 or 400 is nice but it involves more work - some fashion shoots use an assistant with a walkie talkie to pass posing instruction from the photographer to the model; he is standing too far to shout instructions well enough for the model to hear.
With regards to photo taking with such lens, to each his own. It is a matter of personal preference, one man meat is another man poison.
With more practice ,I believe he will improve dramatically once he understand the characteristic of this lens and make full use of it.