March 03, 2015, 11:40:13 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - iowapipe

Pages: [1] 2
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 08:54:55 PM »
I'd be interested to see a comparison when these are out.

100-400L II at 400mm and f/5.6 upresed 50% compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/6.3.
100-400L II + 1.4x TC III at 560mm and f/8 compared to Tamron 150-600 at 600mm and f/8.

My prediction as that both would be a near tie, except the Canon will have less CA and faster focusing on the first test.

my prediction is that the first comparison would put the tamron far ahead for total detail, 200mm is an insane amount to make up for, the tamron would have to pale even compared to a coke bottle for that to be true

now in the second case maybe it would be about a tie???? who knows or even better?

Results are mixed, see for yourself:

The Tamron loses a lot of quality from 500mm to 600mm.

Though, as has been mentioned, the center sharpness remains and for 'most' instances with this lens, the point of interest will be reasonably centered and not offset overly far.   As always, a compromise, though in this case one that 'generally' will work.   It is by far not a perfect tele, but for the price it is more-or-less astounding.


But without having used the 40/2.8 I am not sure the improvement provided by the 35 f/2 will knock your socks off. You are much better off getting a good copy of the 50/1.4 in my opinion.

While I liked my 50mm f/1.4 for particular things, and having bought it for the improved quality over the f/1.8, I regret to say that I fell into the same problem sooooo many others experienced.  Even though the lens has been out for years, it has continued its habit of a failing focusing mechanism.  19 months after I bought mine, I started having inconsistent focus on shots over 10 feet away.  I ignored advice found on many forums that said to avoid the lens.  I 'hoped' that newer lenses had hardware tweaks that solved the mechanical failure.  Not so.  And the price of repair is too high to justify.  It would be smarter to buy a new lens with warranty if I desperately felt the need to replace it with the same 50mm f/1.4 model.   Instead I'm putting that money towards other desires, and only very seldom miss the 50 when I want to do something very particular.

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 07, 2014, 01:35:14 PM »
:) I can translate it if you want, i'm the writter for Pixelistes french website. But, i don't want to make advertizing for the website. I'm also a photographer who wants to discover things. So i take my usually nickname "Djenuwine" as i use on Instagram and things like this, and i just put a link to add informations and sample pictures taken with it.

Thanks for the offer but I don't think there is a need for you to spend extra time.  The google translation did a remarkably fine job and is only a matter of pasting the url.

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:57:32 AM »
Hi everybody

Two other reviews :


and here

Thank You for the links.  Reading the one via google translate was fun: a lens having a necklace is a funny image.  :P

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 06, 2014, 12:25:25 PM »
Having had this Tamron for a month now and reading about it in plenty of forums, it is nice to read a review that independently corroborates what testing has shown in skilled hands so far.  Winter weather has made it difficult for people to get out with the lens and do much shooting and comparisons with other lenses/bodies.

I found I also like the lens best when not shooting all the way at 600mm.  MFA on my 5Diii was a startling -17 on both wide and tele ends.  Way out of the norm for the small handful of lenses I own so far.  BUT, as long as it works, I'm certainly OK with it.  The 6 year warranty does provide a certain amount of peace.

Coming at the time when I was wanting to buy my first long lens, it was great timing, the Canon 400mm f/5.6 had been squarely in my sights over the 100-400mm zoom.  Image quality was more important to me, figuring wildlife would be farther away as a rule and I would be resorting to cropping fairly often anyway.  I would enjoy the lighter 400mm, but this Tamron gives me some flexibility for closer shots while retaining good images in the center at a distance.  A new Canon 400mm would run around 30% more, and I would also need to buy a 1.4x extender in addition.

The Tamron has helped me save money and provide comparable quality in the price range I was looking at.   All pluses for me at this stage in my shooting (and income level).

check the 5th paragraph

yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.

... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4

I'm in the same boat as you - being a bit newer to photography I figured/hoped that the 'old' problems with that lens would have been addressed in the intervening years.  19 months out and I have a lens that is pretty inconsistent past about 10 feet away.   I'm not planning on sending it in for repair and spending nearly half the price of a new one for the privilege.   I have a 40mm I'm quite pleased with.  And I really only use the 50mm occasionally, not regularly.

I wonder what the story is from the Olympics?  I see a lot of White lenses there it appears to be more than half but there are quite a few black ones as well.

Check out this article.  Talks about Getty and AP and what they use.  (AP is entirely Canon, Getty is a mix of Nikon and Canon)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:25:05 AM »
Exactly about the choice of reviews.  You have to know to handle a 600mm, and those who do know have produced some very good images. The lens has a five-year warranty, but I would prefer not to have to use it.

I just saw that someone pointed to an update on lenrentals blog referring to the 'possible' issue with AF, but when I followed the link it simply took me to the comparison review they did on the lens.  I checked the most recent responses on the blog and didn't see anything pertinent either.  This person claimed Tamron was aware of the AF, but hadn't run into it in their testing.  But again, I didn't find that on the blog link he used, or on any new postings on the blog.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 02, 2014, 04:54:31 PM »
There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?

There are also rumours that stocks to the big retailers are being withheld while Tamron sorts out the AF problem. Has anyone any knowledge of this?

The only recent (stress, recent) reports I've read that are from 2 people who are very experienced both testify that; BIF tracking doesn't seem any worse than the Canon 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4xTC on it, and the other person said his take is that he had reasonably good success and doesn't seem any worse than the Sigma or his Canon 300mm with a 1.4xTC (he feels he needs to have more practice with the lens at the 500-600 range).

I imagine we are mostly reading the same 4 or 5 blogs out there, and there are a few vocal people who don't imagine it will be good enough.  But they haven't used the lens yet.

Like you, I just placed my order after 'carefully' sifting though the many preliminary reports. I really aimed to focus  on those people with demonstrated skill at long lenses.

But, there aren't a lot of people who have taken the lens out yet due to bad weather.

Thank you everyone who has braved the Winter temps and conditions to give us some excellent examples of what the lens can do. 

Based on the discussion by people who are experienced with long lenses, I've decided to pull the trigger on this lens as my first long lens.  I know I'm down in the queue and will have to wait for the lens.  But even if I don't receive it until March (when the weather warms and lets me get outside to begin using it), I'll have a lot more information from these forums by then.  And if some drastic flaw rears it's head, I can cancel my order.

As Dustin, and a few others have pointed out, the compromises this lens makes don't have a dramatic impact on the long end as compared to high $$ competition.  And I'm certainly not in a position to spend $3000 or more to buy even larger lenses that will yield 'similar' results.   As 2 experienced reviewers have pointed out:  'better' lenses, with the tele-externders and cropping, yield similar results in the 500-600mm range.   

Thanks again for your work and dedication.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: January 29, 2014, 01:03:05 PM »
This is the same site that confidently claimed that the older 70-200/2.8 IS was sharper than the latest 70-200 Mark 2. I would treat their opinions and testresults with extreme caution...

Yep, DXO comes up with considerable amount of wtf in its scores.  But anyhow, reviewing this lens now is pretty strange as the pros / cons of this lens are pretty well known.

True, it is a very well known and compared lens.  It will be nice to have it in the database once they test the new Tamron 150-600mm.  I think I saw in their comment section that they expect that test to be done on the next couple weeks.

As a person ready to pull the trigger on my first long lens, I'll be sure to check out the information.  I
've yet to see a rigorous comparison of the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and the new Tamron.  That will help me decide which to buy.  (AF speed and sharpness of the Tamron @400mm compared to the Canon 400mm,  and whether cropping the 400 will give similar results to the Tamron in the 500-600mm range)

Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6.  I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400).  Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted.    Fingers crossed! 

Below comparison was posted a few days ago. The author was criticized for not removing the filter. He later re-did the images but some still think his EF 400mm f/5.6 is a sub-par copy, thus skewing the result in favor of the Tamron:

Another study:!i=3030095385&k=Q6n39TN

Thanks for the links.  :)  The first I had seen, and I had thought maybe there were too many variables at work in such a quickly shot test.  So I thought I had better wait for something a bit more rigorous and controlled.  (tripod mounted, VC off, ...  see what the lenses were capable of at their best)  I, like some of his commenters, was surprised at the results.  And compared to the posted pics in Dustin's report, I was skeptical of the difference in the camahoy posting.  Maybe his 400mm lens was a bit off as some asked?

The second link I hadn't seen, thank you,  and hopefully his autofocus problem was peculiar to him.  So far, other reports haven't indicated his issue with problems on focus points other than the center point.  Fortunately, I'm waiting until Spring is imminent  before I make my decision.  Right now, with the temps below zero, I'm not getting out much to shoot anyway.  Nice weather near the end of March may change my level of patience a bit though.  haha

Very nicely done review, I appreciate the writing and tests.  Being newer to photography than the regulars here I am just beginning to build my lens inventory.  Fortunately I'm not game to have a lot, so I'm trying to be picky. 

I passed up a good deal on a very good copy of the 100-400 Canon this last August, because after looking at the 400 f/5.6 prime, I had decided I wanted the lens for the long end and not the range of zoom. (my 70-200 serves me very well around town) So it was then an easy decision in favor of the prime.  I planned on holding off for a sale.  Then the release of the Tamron was announced and I decided to hold off a bit more. 

Now I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the 400mm Canon f/5.6 to make my final decision.  I sway towards the Canon because it's much lighter, but the reach of the Tamron and quite decent image quality might be the push that pulls the trigger for it.  I am going to be walking around with either lens, possibly with a monopod, but most likely not.  The weight won't bother me after I buy a proper strap like the Black Rapid or whatever.

Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6.  I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400).  Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted.    Fingers crossed! 

And a note to everyone on here:  many of you make the process of gaining useful knowledge much easier.  Thank You!  I'm a researcher by training and temperament both, so I don't mind the process of searching out useful material.    This forum and site make it much easier thanks to many of you.

Good morning, everyone, we are up and running but still missing bits and pieces that did not survive the transition. Some of the galleries are affected because the the plugin didn't make the transition.  We will be working through the day to rebuild the missing pieces, but on a plus note, the site does appear to be stable.

no your are not.... at least not in germany.

the link to your website that produced a 404 yesterday now shows a website:

Yep, still problems.  It 'can' take up to 3 days for a new domain IP to propagate, but 24 hours should hit the vast majority.  Although, not knowing what all you did for your change, it is possible there is a conflict or mistake yet in the records.

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

Indeed.  It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end.  I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L?  Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important.  A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO. 

Still, the new lens delivers surprisingly good resolution performance for the focal length and cost.

And that is the question I have also.  I've put off buying a friend's 100-400 Canon lens because after comparing it to the 400mm 5.6 prime, I decided I really want the lens for the reach of 400mm.  Not the flexibility of zoom.  I have my 70-200 f4 IS that does well enough for me at this point in my learning curve.  (yes, the f2.8 would be wonderful since many of my pics are low light... but the weight and cost both are a hindrance) 

My guess is that the IS of this Tamron may be enough to sway me since I'm not going to be setting up in a blind and waiting for wildlife to find me.  I'll be traipsing around and trying to find a stump/limb/trunk/rock to be my brace.  BUT, the 400mm Canon would be considerably lighter if I can get similar results from a crop.  I bit the bullet this past summer and moved up to the 5Diii on a good deal and LOVE the FF experience.  I don't want to spend money on a crop body right now, it would be better spent on good glass.

Pages: [1] 2