April 20, 2014, 10:58:09 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 145
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 05, 2014, 01:17:47 AM »
I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

I suppose it's usable for this amount of cropping.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 05, 2014, 01:09:55 AM »
A quick sharpness test....

The goal is to see what effect the F stop has on sharpness with the 150-600 when used at 600mm

All shot with a 60D from a distance of 20 feet and processed in lightroom. All images are with the Tamron 150-600 profile enabled and with chromatic aberration correction enabled.

The target is the fine print on the back of the packaging of a laser pointer... it was the smallest size printing that I could find lying around the house.

The first image has the colour balanced, sharpness slider at 0, noise reduction slider at 0

The second image has the sharpening slider at 80, noise reduction slider at 50, and blacks level at -50. There is a typo on the picture description.... The first bar is F6.3, not F5.6.

Obviously F8 or F11 is far sharper than F6.3 and it falls of by F16. With sharpening enabled, F11 appears slightly better than F8. When you consider that I could not see the pattern around the "danger" symbol when it was inches from my face, yet the lens could pick that up from across the house, this lens is great bang for the buck!....

Very nice comparison, but I wonder just how sharp it is at 100 or 200 feet distance?  In my experience with telephoto prime and zoom lenses, both the lens itself becomes less sharp at longer distances...but also the AF accuracy diminishes at those distances that are either at, or close to, infinity.  Why?  Because the focusing elements need only move a micron or two to take things from being "tack sharp", to "soft"...even when focusing manually in live view.

I'm not even talking about atmospherics with the above, either...they enter in (especially in warmer weather), but they are easier to see than just some slight softness.  They're "wavy"...

I don't shoot most of my bird images, and especially not any other wildlife at such a close distance (20 feet).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 05, 2014, 01:01:59 AM »
this is kind of a crazy question.

7d is NOWHERE as good. The 7d has the absolute worst iso performance of any canon ive used. Grainy skies in well exposed iso 100?  No thanks.

Seriously though, there is no reason to buy a 7d anymore, especially 7 current prices. its going on 5 years old, and still north of a grand- not a good investment at all.

+1.  I tried a 70D in a store.  I like it much better than the 7D.  The ergonomics of the larger body and grip of the 7D, are probably preferred by 5D3 lovers...but other than that, I don't see a reason to buy a 7D now.

That said, I won't be buying a 70D anytime soon...until it gets discounted as much as the 6D has been recently.  That would put a body-only price for the 70D down to about $800 or less.  When that happens I might bite.  Probably in November or December.

Landscape / Re: 2 ND. Snow in 2014 at my home
« on: February 05, 2014, 12:56:30 AM »
Dear Friends.
Yes 2 days ago was the 2 nd. snow in my home town, just 2-5 inches only, But in Apex, North Carolina  are not the snow or super cold are , Just this year.
Past 2 days, all school in NC. are closed.
Yes, I just grab my new toy Canon EOS-M with 22 mm M  lens F/ 2.0 and shoot around my home and my yards.

Nice shots, but your thermostat is set on 77???  Wow...just wow.  Somebody needs to learn to embrace winter a little more!  :P

On the night it got down to 3 below zero here (Jan 30), I went out for about 25 minutes shooting some night shots in my yard, with the mere 2 inches of snow cover...of my favorite oak tree.  The neighbor's heatpumps were running nonstop off in the distance...but mine was not...because I had my thermostat turned down a lot...and the woodstove heat was keeping the temp above that level...thankfully.  My power bill was still on the high side for January, though!

I wore insulated gloves, but took one off to work the camera...felt like needles all over my hand!  There was no wind, it was very peaceful and quiet...no wild animals making sounds (such as owls) either, because they either stayed inside their nests, or else froze to death!  Hopefully the former...

The 6D performed like it was 70 degrees, though.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: January 28, 2014, 03:05:06 AM »
 here is a couple more BIF's shot two 8 shot burst's trying out the new1dx update I was shooting on AV  but my iso & f stop  was moving on me so I need to go look at my settings  to see what I need to turn off.

These are great!

Canon General / Re: Deals at Adorama: 600EX-RT, Canon EOS 6D kit and more
« on: January 28, 2014, 02:22:30 AM »
Looks like they've returned to their pre-holiday price levels for the 5D3 and 6D.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« on: January 28, 2014, 02:19:31 AM »
It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length.  It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today.  The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity.  We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly.  They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production.  Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them.  Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades.  Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of.  It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Interesting and informative post, thank you!  Yes it's a shame these were never produced.  I don't recall the term "Seidel aberration", but perhaps I've read it...I think on the lensrentals blog.  From your take on it, it sounds like you think the current generation of f/1.2 lenses will be the last.  I hope not.  But it would make sense.  It seems like most everyone likes a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, more than a faster aperture prime.  I'm not one of these people...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 28, 2014, 02:11:21 AM »
Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Here's the links:


Thanks.  By "large format", I assume they mean something larger than 36mm in width?  As for the non-bayer array, it's still an array...don't see how it would be any more revolutionary than whatever Fuji has done.

Both links said "it depends on what the competition does"...as in, they obviously have a good idea what Canon are up to, and want to wait to see when Canon are done with their next generation sensor.  Or else it could mean they're waiting to see if Canon releases a medium format sensor...or body.

Video & Movie / Re: Just WOW
« on: January 27, 2014, 11:48:48 PM »
I preferred her eyes green!

Video & Movie / Re: Just WOW
« on: January 27, 2014, 10:24:41 PM »
Please hide this video of all the ugly women in the world. ??? Have you ever wondered all fat and old brides , with wrinkles and mottled skin , requiring the video of your wedding with this "miracle software " processing video in real time. :o If such software existed, the use license would cost millions of dollars per year. :-X A computer to run this software would have imagined at least:
128 gigabyte of RAM DDR6 (quad chanel) FSB 2333 .
4 different processors (OCTO CORE each) CLOKC with 9.3 GHz .
2 grafic cards with 512 bit, 1024 treads, and 32 giga of dedicated grafics memory DDR7 each.

Hear all the ugly women: :-*
This software does not exist , and when there , will cost much more expensive than all plastic surgery and aesthetic treatments that money can buy. Do a favor for themselves : Prefer plastic surgery , with a video of this because you would not be recognized by their husbands , they would get a divorce immediately watch the video . :'(

I'm serious . Do not ask me to make these imaginary corrections to your videos , I command you put the video on ... :o :o :o :o

Don't you think you are bashing women a bit?

i wish mine would hurry up and get here so i could tell you what it is really like instead of what i think it will do. til then i can say that i have downloaded all the samples and read all the reviews. i agree with what Drizzt321 is saying but it also appeals to another crowd as a secondary lens, i have the sigma 120-300 sport which is amazingly sharp and heavy. its really good with the 1.4tc, 2x meh? from what i have seen its about the same as this new tamron at 600? i plan on getting the 600ii because i like to shoot that fl and its the best i have seen, are you going to go for a walk on the beach with the sigma 120-300 and the 600ii? this lens covers that whole range pretty well in a nice relatively light package no tc's no changing lenses

If you would let me borrow your Sigma 120-300, I would take it on however long of a walk you wish!  I don't live on a beach or go on a vacation every 3 months...but I have lots of nice places near where I am to take wildlife photos.

The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens.  If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point).  I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.   

That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.

I'm with you on that one, and other than the 70-300L and 200-400 1.4x, it seems that nearly all of these lenses lose a lot of sharpness at their maximum focal length.  I don't get that because the whole idea is to shoot at or near the max FL.  Who buys a 150-600 to primarily shoot at 150-300?  It seems like the lens designers would optimize for 400-600 at the expense of 150-400, but I'm sure that's neither easy nor cheap :)

I dunno. I may want to often shoot in the 400+ FL, but right now my longest lens is the 135L, so I suspect I'd find myself shooting a lot from the 200+ with it. And after I eventually get the 70-200, I'll still probably be shooting more in the 200+, or more likely the 300+ when I do shoot with this Tamron. For me it's that (right now) I can't see myself shooting really any of these focal lengths all that regularly, or even if I do I somehow don't see myself spending $7K+ on the BWL lenses, with or without 1.4x/2x TCs. Not to say when I win the lotto I won't be buying myself the LensRentals Chess set, but other than that very fortuitous situation, for me at least, the BWL aren't something I'll be buying.

This lens is really for the crowd that want's a flexible lens, fairly decent optical quality, at what's really an amazing price. Heck, if this were another $300-500 more it'd still be a good price for what you get, although obviously not as great of a deal. So me or people who want a cheap birding lens would find the fairly good (although not great) IQ worth the price. Not to say I don't want maximum IQ, but if you want maximum IQ this lens isn't targeting you anyway.

Good points.  Again, my point is that if you want to shoot at or below 400mm, there are other lenses better suited, weigh less, have faster aperture at those shorter focal lengths...and in some cases cost less, yet deliver equal or higher IQ to this Tamron.

If the longest focal length you have now is 135mm, I have to wonder if you need any kind of telephoto lens at all?  Because if you needed one, you would already have one.  Btw, the TC's work superbly on the 135 f/2...although with the 2x one mounted, I kind of wish for a way to attach a tripod ring.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon won't offer a high megapixel body
« on: January 27, 2014, 10:02:12 PM »
Soon Sony will have some kind of 54mp masterpiece on the market as well (using non-square pixels, to boot!)

I've missed out on this rumor, can you tell what you know so I don't have to look it up myself?

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: January 27, 2014, 04:49:04 PM »
Did you let them do the final image prep, or did you give them a scaled image?  If so, was it at 300ppi?

I was a graphic artist in a former life, so I always do the final prep on my photos (resizing, color correction, etc.) and send the best quality file I can for printing.  I usually send 300dpi unless the lab recommends something else and usually print on matte or Pearl papers.  I've done some large canvases at 150dpi with great results, however as that media is less demanding.

Also, to avoid hijacking yet another thread (sorry Dylan), here's another BIF:

Thanks, nice pelican!  Sorry about being a hijacker, I guess I'm doing it for the rewards in the afterlife!!

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 145