October 30, 2014, 01:54:55 PM

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 - Lee Jay

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78
1
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 29, 2014, 08:56:08 AM »
Actually the 100-400 by itself is already lighter and smaller than the 70-200. If you're carrying both a 70-200 and a 100-400 in your bag, that's not a smart thing to do.

I don't.  I carry one or the other (I use the same bag at home and at work, and I use the 70-200+2x at home and the 100-400 at work).

2
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:42:03 PM »
Ugh I took out my 70-200 2.8 Mk2 with the 1.4 today and mid shoot took it off and was much more pleased with the results, cropped or not. It's such a great lens, why degrade it? I know others would say it's such a great lens it can TAKE the hit but I just can't any longer. Thus the 100-400 Mk2 is up my alley.

One of these is from the 70-200II + 2x + 1.4x, the other from the 100-400L + 1.4x, both on the Canon 18MP 1.6-crop sensor.  Honestly, I don't know which is which.


3
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:02:31 PM »
Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma.  The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position.  Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown.  The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long.  Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

If its about bag space and weight just get a teleconverter for the 70-200.

I already have that combo.

4
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:05:56 PM »
Why even bother with the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma on the way. I think they would be better off making something longer than 400mm.

Because a lot of people, myself included, would value something shorter in length and smaller in diameter than either the Tamron or the Sigma.  The bag I would use for this lens won't take anything bigger than a 70-200/2.8 or the existing 100-400L in the retracted position.  Further, the Tamron is a little heavy (not too bad) and the Sigma C is unknown.  The Sigma S is way too heavy for me to handhold all day long.  Finally, it's likely that this lens will out-focus the Tamron and SigmaC for moving subjects.

That's why.

5
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:31:18 PM »
As the lens extends during the zooming process, could it pump dust into the camera and on the sensor?  Altough it is not a trombone design, as the 28-300 or 100-400, the volume of the lens expands as we zoom in and contracts as we zoom out and I think it could allow air from the outside into the lens and from the lens into the sensor.  Am I wrong?

It's hard to say where the air comes from and to during extension and retraction.  Could be from the body or from the outside through the lens and not from the body.

My 24-105L extends and retracts, and I've never found it to be a dust problem.

6
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 03:46:52 PM »
$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one.  If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year.  MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

You may be right, but I highly doubt it will be priced lower than the Nikon 80-400. If anything we generally see canon L glass fetching a premium.

Not always.  The Canon 800/5.6 is $13,500, the Nikon is $17,900.

I think Nikon is asking a bit much for the new 80-400, especially since it doesn't seem to even be as good as the current 100-400L.  If Canon follows, then they'll sell fewer of them.

7
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 03:39:14 PM »
$3,000 min. That's my prediction.

I'll make a different one.  If it's real, I'll predict it will be available somewhere legitimate for right around the $2,000 mark at some point within the first year.  MSRP might be $2,499, or $2,899 or whatever, but I still think street price will ultimately be at or lower than the 70-200/2.8L IS II.

8
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:00:37 PM »
This actually makes a whole lot of sense.  A 100-400 is really just a scaled up 70-300 - about the same zoom range, just a third bigger.  Why not scale up the design of the existing lens?

I'm not saying I like it, but I'll have to see in person if I could get used to having the zoom ring on the "wrong" side, compared to my other three zooms - the 17-40L, 24-105L, and 70-200/2.8L.

And, yes, of course it'll extend, same as the current one does.  It makes little sense to contain such a long lens in a non-extending frame the way the 70-200s are.

9
Soft at 600mm? I don't think so

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy.  When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent.  But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera.  That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame.  That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look.  This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm).  There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

You continue to repeat this mantra "soft wide open at 600mm" as a deterrent against the Tamron, yet your own 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2x TC III is no different.  Citing the same source

"Images are sharp wide open at 280mm (f/4).

The 1.4x reverses the 200mm pincushion distortion (resulting in very low distortion) and adds some CA and slight full frame corner softness. The 2x causes a noticeably softer image at 400mm."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

No mention of aperture, although I suspect that "noticeably softer" applies only to wider apertures.

The fact is that this characteristic is shared by most long telephoto zooms. Let's move on, please.

My combo is slightly soft wide open at f/5.6 and sharp at f/6.3.  The Tamron is soft wide open at f/6.3 and sharp at f/8.  Do you see the difference?

Regardless, what I want is something SUBSTANTIALLY better than what I have, in both optics and focusing, in a similar size and weight.  The Tamron isn't that.  It's too long, and too soft/slow (f6.3/f8).  If Canon makes a 100-400L replacement, it's likely to be far better optically even with a 1.4x TC attached, and also likely to focus faster and more reliably than the Tamron.  Of course, that's several "if's" that we'll have to wait and see to evaluate (if it's real, if it's good optically, if it's fast-focusing).

For now, I'm keeping my current combo, which is equal to or better than the current 100-400L in several ways.

10
The TDP test has the lens at different distances so that the chart completely fills the frame.

Yes...correctly.

Quote
That is a useless comparison for comparing the resolution of a lens for a subject at a fixed distance away - the target is 50% further away at 600 vs 400mm in the TDP tests. I have posted images of the iso chart taken at the same distance away using 400, 500 and 600 mm. The Tamron at 600mm clearly outresolves itself at 400mm.

Well, duh.  It would be quite useless if it didn't.

It's still soft wide open at 600mm.

11
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length.  Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end.  Many do, but the better ones don't.  For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

You made a blanket statement it was soft at 600mm, and you didn't qualify it with an f number. The current 100-400 is at its weakest at 400mm. Here is a selection of bird photos that some of us have taken with the lens at 600mm. Soft are they?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22284.msg426389#msg426389

This I what I said:

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy.  When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent.  But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera.  That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame.  That requires critical resolving power.Have a look.  This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm).  There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

12
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

The sample images in the links above from fredmiranda.com might indicate otherwise. Isn't it true with most telephoto lenses that wide open and max focal link sacrifices some sharpness?

It really depends on price of the upcoming 100-400mm, and one's willingness to forego Canon L for similar performance across the same focal length.  Tamron looks to be a strong contender.

No, it doesn't have to be true that it softens up at the long end.  Many do, but the better ones don't.  For a telephoto where resolving power is its while reason to exist, this is a major problem for people that lime to get the most from their equipment.

13
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon PowerShot SX60 HS
« on: October 27, 2014, 08:53:34 AM »
The problem is, Camera Labs seems to be one of the few that got one that functions properly at the long end.  Many others are so soft they look out of focus.  I think there's some manufacturing or firmware issue with the first batch and the IR review demonstrates that extremely poor performance.

14
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

No one is saying it's soft at 600mm and f/8, just at 600mm and f/6.3.

15
...I expect the 100-400II to be very solid, very sharp, 4 stop IS, weather sealing, etc.  They may have the size and weight advantage, but it will be interesting to see comparisons of the different 150-600's vs the 100-400II + 1.4TC.

Don't underestimate the value of that size and weight advantage.  The Tamron and Sigma C both have 95mm filter threads.  I expect the Canon to be 77mm or 82mm.  I also expect it to be much shorter in overall length.

The Tamron is 10.1 inches long without the hood.  It's 4.2 inches in diameter.
The 100-400L is 7.4 inches long without the hood. It's 3.6 inches in diameter.
The 70-300L is 5.6 inches long without the hood.  It's 3.5 inches in diameter.

If the new one (if it exists) is really over 2 1/2" shorter and over half an inch smaller in diameter, that's a big difference in storage and usage.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78