March 01, 2015, 02:10:50 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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86
16
Lenses / Re: Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm
« on: February 19, 2015, 09:34:18 AM »
I am getting very tempted by the 400/4 DO II. I'd be using it with the 2xTC, having seen the resolution the 100-400mm II gives, but at an inconvenient f/11 and liveview. So, any first-hand reports would be most welcome.

17
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 19, 2015, 07:31:12 AM »
The lens hood by all accounts is also heavy, unlike the carbon fibre one on the 300 2.8 - the published weight of the lens doesn't include that hood, which also protrudes out very far..

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/02/first-impressions-sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-lens/#.VOXVi3ZnkdI

"... my arm was shaking under the weight of the lens while I took these images. "

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/24/sigma-150-600mm-sport-hands-on-preview-of-sigmas-latest-massive-sigmonster

"When I said "massive super-telephoto lens," I meant it. This lens feels huge and heavy, and it's probably the largest lens I've ever had the opportunity to shoot with."

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-600mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM_Sport/

"It should be clear at this point that the 150-600mm Sport is bigger and heavier than most alternative propositions. That said, it's not impractical - I squeezed it into my F-Stop Loka pack with some other gear and even managed to do some handheld street, bird and sunset shooting with it. But it's not a lens you'll want to handhold for long, and neither is it one that you'll forget about carrying around. If you're upgrading from the earlier 150-500mm you'll really notice the difference, especially if you're hiking to shoot wildlife."

18
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 18, 2015, 06:52:04 PM »
I think a discussion of the 150-600 VC remains very germane to this topic.  A decision between these two lenses is still the biggest one for most Canon tele shooters on a budget.  The Sigma (which should be on its way to me shortly), is reportedly quite excellent optically, but is a true beast in terms of size and weight.  Not many people are reporting much interest in shooting it handheld.
I routinely shoot my 300/3.8L II plus 2x III hand held, so the Sigma (S version) which is just a fraction heavier would certainly be possible. And for less than a third of the price who wouldn't give it serious consideration!? It may even focus faster without the handicap of the Extender.

Based on what I've learned from two friends who have/had the Tamron (one has returned it), the optics are very good but AF in AI Servo mode is not very good making it a disappointing lens for BIFs etc. Very good for static shots where maximum reach is needed though.
The Sigma is much longer than the 300 + 2xTC and by all accounts that makes it much more difficult to hold because of the greater torque. Just about every review complains about the difficulty of holding it. 

19
Lenses / Re: Please give me an advice for an prime lens 300/400mm
« on: February 18, 2015, 03:40:43 PM »
The 7D1 doesn't AF well with the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC and I would not recommend the combination. It does work well with the 6D. There are insufficient reviews of the 400mm DO II. I love the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC with the 5DIII and am very happy with the new 100-400mm II on both the 5DIII (including + 1.4x TC) and 7DII although it isn't a prime. You really need to try out all three. The 300mm f/4 with an extender is not as good as the 400mm f/5.6 or 100-400mm II.

20
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:27:07 PM »
Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.
Sorry, but it is a paper journal. And giving more information than this summary would surely be against their copyright.

Here is their homepage (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/

And here they offer reviews for a fee some time after the paper journal is available (all German):
http://www.fotomagazin.de/technik/tests

The test I am refering to is not available there yet.

It would be a breach of copyright to reproduce a page from their journal, however it is perfectly legal to report their results in a table prepared by you.

21
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 18, 2015, 11:14:09 AM »

Hi Alan!

The German "fotomagazin" journal just tested the new telezooms. Canon, Tamron, Sigma S on both FF and APS-C.
Result:
All three got a 5 star "super" (best quality seal), all were really good from open aperture on, with max IQ stoped down one step, but getting worse with higher f numbers.
The Canon got the best numbers in the overlapping focal ranges, but also the note, that 100 to 400 mm were easier to design than the others.
No comparisons with TC.
So seeing this result,  in real world usage to me it's about price, brand, convenience (weight, size, reach), AF/IS performance but not that much in IQ.

Most interesting, thanks. Can you send a link or a table of the results.

22
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 18, 2015, 10:52:08 AM »
This has been one of the best reviews of the Tamron that I have seen done on a crop sensor (70D).  It looked pretty great in his hands.

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

All of these lenses are capable of excellent results when the images are large. What I want to see are side-by-side shots from different lenses on the same cameras or quantitative measurements or both. I want to know how they cope when you have to crop out most of the frame.

23
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 18, 2015, 06:52:50 AM »
I tried it myself on a 70D in an earlier post before I got the 7DII, and the Tamron was not as good. Unfortunately, all of the reviews apart from TDP use just FF, which is sad because many people seem to be using it on the 7DII. It's an interesting exercise to compare the old and new 100-400mm on the 60D on the TDP site. The centres of both lenses on the 1DsIII look very similar but the II draws significantly ahead on the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

DxO shows that the Tamron better at the edges than the old 100-400 on the 5DIII and only slightly worse in the centre, but on the 7D the Canon is significantly better in the centre at 400mm.

All these lens seem good in isolation - it is only when you compare them that you can see that some are better!

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-7D






24
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: February 17, 2015, 11:43:11 AM »
Hellishly expensive lens if you want it to reach 560mm.

This lens plus TC plus 7D II will set you back close to £4000.

Now a Tamron 150-600 (or the equivalent new Sigma C - due March) plus the new hi-res 760D (coming soon) will give you much much bigger images to work with......for only about £1700!

Before you buy either 150-600 make test that it works well on your crop. The Tamron is great on FF but it is not as good on crop. The 100-400mm II does give good images on the 7DII.

25
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 17, 2015, 11:31:51 AM »
For those who have shot with both the 5D3 and 7D2, do you shoot the two cameras at the SAME shutter speed, or do you increase the shutter speed on the crop camera commensurate with the decreased pixel size eg. 1/1000 on 5D3, 1/1500 on 7D2?
No.

26
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:31:10 AM »
It is not a "touch out of focus", it is a touch soft.

It is soft because it is totally unsharpened from RAW, and so there is softening from the AA filter. Also, the 300/2/8 + 2XTC was at f/5.6, where it is slightly soft on crop (f/8 sharpens it up). The depth of field at a distance of 5 m is only ± 1 cm, and the bird is 4-6 cm deep. That shot is as well focussed as you could get, and it wasn't a one-off.

(I don't usually use 600 mm on crop hand held, but normally stick to 400 mm).

27
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 16, 2015, 05:19:59 PM »

Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC.

Hmmwellyes, maybe great for crop and certainly all nice and such. But such a shot makes you realize why there's a market for ff cameras. There are blown highlights on the head's feathers, the background gradient lacks, well, gradient and the shot isn't especially sharp - though you tried to compensate by cranking up the sharpening of the postprocessing software :-p

Essentially, this is no good for 100% crop, but if it isn't there's little point in using a 20mp sensor in the first place. As this is a "sitting duck" the shot might have been better with a 6d full frame, even though the 7d2 is certainly "good enough" as 20mp is way over top for most purposes anyway and downsizing is common.

I just posted this shot to show that the focussing is generally spot on and the image is reasonably sharp. If the highlights are blown to you, here it is again with the highlights dimmed and zero sharpening (it had only 0.5 pixels 100% USM last time). Show us some of your shots.

28
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 16, 2015, 12:11:27 PM »
Weixing
I think you'll be happy with that swap. The Tamron is very good on FF, but on crop it isn't nearly as good - see DxO's analysis. The 100-400 II doesn't seem to deteriorate as much on crop because it is basically sharper - I am waiting for the DxO review of the lens to see what they find.

29
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 16, 2015, 11:46:15 AM »
I do use other lenses. Here is a great tit taken on the 7DII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC. A guy next to me had the same lens combo on the 7D, and it would not focus. Mine was fast and good.

30
Lenses / Re: Why does 7D II seem COMPARATIVELY soft with certain lenses?
« on: February 16, 2015, 09:39:49 AM »
I have no axe to grind about FF vs crop or the 7DII vs 5DIII or the 100-400mm II vs big primes because I use combinations of all of them according to circumstances.

First, the AF on both my 5DIII and 7DII is fast and consistent in A1 servo, and my keeper rate is very high. The same was not true for my 7D, which could not even cope with some lens combination.

Second, I use the 5DIII + 300/2.8 II + 2xTC III for bird photography, accompanied by wife who uses the 7DII + 100-400mm II, both camera systems having about the same field of view. The quality of the images from the 7DII are excellent, though not quite as good from the 5DIII, despite the 100-400mm II not being in the same price league as the prime. My experience is that the 7DII + 100-400mm II at f/5.6 is as sharp at the centre as the Tamron-150-600mm on the 5DIII at f/8 and sharper at the edges.

I simply do not understand why some users are getting only 5% keepers and have AF problems. Some used to say the same about AF with Tamron 150-500 on the 5DIII, but I never had any problems. Perhaps I have been very lucky with my 7DII and 100-400mm II etc. But, whatever, some copies of the 7DII do really deliver the goods.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 86