Cheap up to 300 VC pays dividends
After a bit of asking for opinions on here about this lens as a handy thing to carry for crime scenes and Incidents I bought one.
I've been really pleased with my second hand example from MPB.
As a throw in the bag, go anywhere ( or realistically rolling about in the car) it's been great. I own a 300 f4 Canon, which is optically better, but it's a pain to take everywhere. The Tamron is nice and light, makes up for the dark aperture with excellent VC, and of course zooms.
In the real world, it's paid up with work in Mail, Mirror, Star, Express, Guardian and Telegraph, and the Sun.
So, for all those pixel peepers out there, a cheap lens can cut it in the professional world.
I've been really pleased with my second hand example from MPB.
As a throw in the bag, go anywhere ( or realistically rolling about in the car) it's been great. I own a 300 f4 Canon, which is optically better, but it's a pain to take everywhere. The Tamron is nice and light, makes up for the dark aperture with excellent VC, and of course zooms.
In the real world, it's paid up with work in Mail, Mirror, Star, Express, Guardian and Telegraph, and the Sun.
So, for all those pixel peepers out there, a cheap lens can cut it in the professional world.
Quote:So, for all those pixel peepers out there, a cheap lens can cut it in the professional world.
I am assuming that the 'on-the-spot' reportage type images you submit for use on newsprint don't have to be up to the same standards of pin-sharp images used, say, in a glossy?
I understand your thinking about if it does the job well enough, then why spend extra money on extra weight and pixels. The only thought is will it survive the day to day handling you dish out? Is the build quality good enough? Perhaps time will tell...
Oddly, most viewers don't see images on coarse paper nowadays, but online, so strangely picture quality is important.
Usually, the type of additional image that it gets used for is a sort of B roll coverage. It's usually combined with a Sigma 70 to 200 f2.8 that weighs a ton, and takes the hammer. As you say, time will tell, bit it's the occasional lens, a bit like the fisheye.
Of course, for broadsheet type stuff I would go for the L lenses if planned in. This morning it was a story a out flood barriers, and the 16 to 35 L came out. Now, that's a favourite bit of kit
Usually, the type of additional image that it gets used for is a sort of B roll coverage. It's usually combined with a Sigma 70 to 200 f2.8 that weighs a ton, and takes the hammer. As you say, time will tell, bit it's the occasional lens, a bit like the fisheye.
Of course, for broadsheet type stuff I would go for the L lenses if planned in. This morning it was a story a out flood barriers, and the 16 to 35 L came out. Now, that's a favourite bit of kit
Thanks for the reply, Phil. I should have realised that more and more are reading/seeing the news as it happens on their devices and not waiting for the "latest news" to appear in print the next day. It is obvious, as you say, that IQ is absolutely a requirement...
As papers ditch picture desks and photographers the requirement for quality vanishes. Journalists do a lot of work on smartphones that would have been done by 'real' photographers with an SLR years back.
I realised that for a lot of uses where a moderate wide angle is ideal, the phone is the perfect tool. No need to mess about transferring images from camera to phone. It's quite usual to grab a first shot on a job on the phone as a 'hello, I'm here, and it looks like this' and get it away first.
Of course on a job like this where a long zoom is needed, or an ultra wide or shooting at 100,000 ASA has to be done, then a phone can't do it.
My first news video sale to a TV station in Australia was off my phone, and it's becoming a large part of local newspapers coverage of events.
Of course, ultimately it all comes down to composition, a news nose and being there and getting the first pictures away.
I realised that for a lot of uses where a moderate wide angle is ideal, the phone is the perfect tool. No need to mess about transferring images from camera to phone. It's quite usual to grab a first shot on a job on the phone as a 'hello, I'm here, and it looks like this' and get it away first.
Of course on a job like this where a long zoom is needed, or an ultra wide or shooting at 100,000 ASA has to be done, then a phone can't do it.
My first news video sale to a TV station in Australia was off my phone, and it's becoming a large part of local newspapers coverage of events.
Of course, ultimately it all comes down to composition, a news nose and being there and getting the first pictures away.
It's quite common. Our local chief photographer had to deliver a training session to a Welsh part of the empire who now have no photographer.
Video off a phone is quick and easy, but you have to think the shot out.
I think a lot of younger journalists only see mobile phone pictures and social media, so they haven't a clue what real news pictures should look like.
Video off a phone is quick and easy, but you have to think the shot out.
I think a lot of younger journalists only see mobile phone pictures and social media, so they haven't a clue what real news pictures should look like.
