VV- street shooting with my new toy- tamron 300/2.8


summerking

Member
Sep 27, 2011
169
0
16
33
bought a new toy old lens Tamron 300/2.8 in $600 recently, today have a chance to street shooting with my friend vv at clark quay.

20130429_63b18755a432cfd81d4aFlTWsymAXdDr.jpg


20130429_12d506a67ce55425b767XcA4mjMWjICe.jpg



20130429_26011a25915d49f8d026pQZSfaAvY255.jpg
 

Got any close-up shots?
 

300/2.8 ????? WOW!
 

Outstanding "isolation" effect. All three pictures wide open a f2.8 I presume.
 

Holy cow. Must be huge and heavy.

Good Shots! Thanks for sharing.
 

Outstanding "isolation" effect. All three pictures wide open a f2.8 I presume.

very isolating , foreground blur is really difficult to look at...bad bokeh at work...
 

very isolating , foreground blur is really difficult to look at...bad bokeh at work...

foreground blur is more a composition thing rather than equipment
 

foreground blur is more a composition thing rather than equipment

no offence. but a wise chef will not use a hatchet to slice sushi.
 

very isolating , foreground blur is really difficult to look at...bad bokeh at work...

Hmmm.... If you look closely, especially at #3, the blur chops off very suddenly, which is uncharacteristic of lens blur. It looks post-processed with added blur to me actually. :p
 

^now that you mention it, the blur does cut off under the arm of the subject :eek:

i could be wrong though :dunno:
 

^now that you mention it, the blur does cut off under the arm of the subject :eek:

i could be wrong though :dunno:

I've shot with 300 f/2.8 before and the blur is much more natural.
 

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.
 

i have bad eyesight . dense foreground blur gives me a headache
 

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.
 

really nice pictures, the toy is worthy.
 

is this the manual version?
 

Looks good leh the color rendition. Only thing is the CA looks heavy, but perfectly forgivable at this price!
 

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.