April 18, 2014, 03:21:28 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 55
Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: March 11, 2014, 05:02:03 AM »

I feel the same way its going to be VERY hard to beat the current 135

Actually both the Zeiss APO Sonnar and probably the Sony-Zeiss ZA versions beat the Canon in sheer IQ. The now discontinued CV 125mm APO Macro Lanthar was also a jewel (and a macro too!); very difficult to find used and mostly at exorbitant prices.

There is plenty of room for improvement. The Canon does deserve praise though for being still competitive many years after its release.

I bought the Tammy and I'm very happy with it. It's my first lens over 300mm and time after time I see some improvement in my skill. It's insanely fun to use.

Some time ago I speculated that it was possible to build an even better 500mm f/5.6 prime for the same price. I would buy it even keeping the Tammy zoom.

Photography is a hobby for me and I can't justify spending much more than 1K on a single lens. In fact I'm almost grateful that Tamron opened up the world of good 600mm at this price range.

If I could afford it, I would buy the 600 L II in an instant.

EOS-M / Re: It's too bad...
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:24:39 AM »
Well, that's only because the EOS M is a worthless little camera that shows how little Canon is able to innovate and how they fail to understand that mirrorless is the wave of the future…or maybe it's because the EOS M is a great little camera that delivers very good IQ by putting a large sensor in a small, well-constructed body with a great UI that also happens to be compatible with the best lens lineup in the industry.

Let us know when you figure out which is correct.  ;D

As it often happens, I guess the truth is in the middle.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:22:21 AM »
A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.

In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.

Lenses / Re: Sigma ART Series: 70-200mm f2.8 possible?
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:15:08 AM »
Sigma already has a 70-200/2.8 so you're merely asking when it will be refreshed. Who knows?

For the sort of lens that it is it could go either in the ART or SPORT category.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:29:38 AM »
I agree with Rienz, this lens has to offer a particularly good price/quality advantage to be competitive.

The Canon is super good and super expensive, with a rumored IS version coming up next.

The Tamron is outstanding in price/performance and also has VC.

Sigma eventually needs to refresh their f/2.8 zooms too.

Some BIF shots.

All 600mm f/8, most are heavily cropped.

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 07, 2014, 04:56:52 AM »
Bryan makes the same mistake as many other reviewers by measuring the focal length at close range.
At close range zooms "loose" focal length more rapidly than primes.
If he had only focussed say on something at a couple of hundred metres I am sure that the 570 he calculated would be much closer to the 600 of the prime he was checking against.

I'm not sure it was a 'mistake'.  One would hope that testing at or close to infinity focus would yield a result of 600mm, within a reasonable rounding error - that's how the focal length sepcification is defined.  A 600mm lens at 200 m frames an area of 12 x 8 m - most of us shooting with 600mm lenses don't shoot houses from 1/8-mile away.  What a typical user would care about is the effective focal length at a typical subject distance (and a 600mm lens at 10 m is a 'typical' scenario for birds, for example).

If for AFMA it is advised to set the target at 25-50x the FL, I would use the same distance for this sort of measurements. That makes 15-30m for a 600mm lens.

I like Bryan's reviews but he is isolated in his suggestion to shoot at 500mm and upres. I find the lens plenty sharp at 600mm f/8 and never found the need or the convenience to do as he suggests. Other users/reviewers seem to be of the same opinion too.

I also have to say that I envy you for shooting birds at a typical distance of 10m. I rarely have the chance to get that close except for ducks, geese and other very tame birds in city parks and the likes. In fact I would say that 20-25m is more like my typical working distance.

ISO 800, 600mm, f/8, 1/1000s on 5D3.

Full frame and 100% crop.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:32:03 PM »
24mm f/7.1 on 5D3

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 26, 2014, 02:17:03 PM »
Thanks for posting, that's interesting to know.


Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I'm afraid you're wrongly intending "weather sealing", "weather resistance" and similar expressions as "waterproof".

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 25, 2014, 01:03:54 PM »
A lot of the "build quality" feeling is really subjective.

For example, I don't think my 24-70 f/4 L feels better than the Tamron. I also think that the new Sigma ART lenses have the highest subjective quality feeling after Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer full-metal lenses.

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...

As a general rule, if you can afford the 300/2.8, you're probably not the target market for the Tamron.

Even if you need a zoom, I see the 100-400 & 300/2.8 + 2xTC as a better setup than the Tamron alone. Of course you don't get all of that stuff for 1069$.

Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 25, 2014, 08:24:33 AM »
The new Sigma 24-105 seems a good lens.

Otherwise buy the 24-70/4 L second hand. I got mine for 700€. At this price it's a reasonable purchase. Same as you, I didn't feel like investing 500-600€ in the 24-105 L.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 55