« on: February 10, 2014, 12:02:08 PM »
At f/8, Tammy at Top and Canon at Bottom.
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.
Mine arrived yesterday and my initial impression is that It's well worth the money. It handles well and fits nicely on the 70d. Really big lenses dont match well with a smaller body like that but this one seems just right.The IQ is what I expected, really good to 400 and good to 600 same thing for the af. I think the sigma 120-300 with the canon tc's is still better but this lens is 1/2 the weight and less than 1/3rd the price (1/4th if you add the cost of the converters) if you are looking for a packable high quality long zoom with an attractive price then I don't see how you could do much better, I am very pleased so far.
...are you saying that the Sigma 120-300 is better than the tamron at 600 ie 600/5.6 - or 600/8?
Yes, I read that review which is not very complimetary. That goes against most other reviews and my own experience with the lens. I also looked at a lot of samples with this lens and the sigma 2x converter and by all accounts the new lens did not perform as well as the lens it replaced which is odd because the new lens is sharper.
I decided to try it with the promaster, kenko, and canon tc's. The kenko and canon 1.4x work really well. The kenko/promaster 2x is sharp but it has metering problems. The canon 2xiii gives much better results than what I saw from the sigma 2x samples?
From using both the sigma and tamron lenses I would say that using the bare lens the sigma is hands down better and its f2.8
Using the canon 1.4xiii or kenko 1.4x the sigma is better and its f/4 420
Using the canon 2xiii the sigma and tamron are pretty close and that's a plus for the tamron in cost and weight.
I still think the sigma with the canon 2xiii gives better results at 600 but its not a huge difference.
As I posted earlier, the big difference is in AF. The 7D's AF is far more erratic and has real difficulties on such combinations as the 300mm f/2.8 II with 2xTC. This has been corrected with the 70D, which is why I sold my 7D and bought the 70D. The other differences between the two are minor. N
Ahh, I don't like to hear that!
I expected the 7D AF to be better than the 70D AF. At least the 70D lacks the spot AF mode afaik.
Is there a specific issue with the 7D and 300mm f/2.8 II? I own a 300 f/2.8 myself (the old one, not the mkII) and I am planning to invest in some converters. Do I have to prepare for problems with such a setup and the 7D?
I did go into a camera shop....Why would you feel compelled to give such strong views on equipment you have hardly touched?
What, you mean you can't just go into a shop, stick a memory card in a demo camera, take one shot with the lens cap on, go home and push that one shot 5 stops, and know enough about how that camera performs to make your decision to not buy it, and to bash it on the Internet?
I did stick a memory card into the demo 70D....
I took several dozen shots (with the lens cap OFF)...
I decided that it was much nicer than my 60D....
I decided not to buy it as I want a 7D2 and my 60D will do quite nicely while I wait...
For me it was the other way around. I decided end of last year to buy a 7D after comparing it with a 70D. I already own a 5D3 and from an ergonomic point of view the 7D body is a perfect match, the 70D clearly has a reduced feature set here. And since I only use the raw files I don't care about the better processing with newer DIGIC. Raw noise performance is no different between the two models. IMHO the only real advantages for the 70D are the new video features and the sooc picture quality. If you don't need any of those you get better build quality and better ergonomics with the 7D.
With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO!
I intended to test it at about 100 feet, but it was -26C and windy outside... I am going to retry the test the next nice day that I am home.... I was thinking of a bird-sized target at 100 feet and then another target at around 300 feet, plus trying some additional F-stops....
Don, take heart People love to criticize without much consideration for reality. Doing long range tests in Canada in January/February are difficult at best. You have an indoor limitation of how much space you have. Going outdoors introduces a lot of other factors. I appreciate seeing these results, and I seriously doubt that such a lens is optimized for short distance. FoCal recommends doing AFMA at 12meters for 600mm, and have a pretty scientific explanation for that.
I'm interested in seeing your further tests, but I reject the notion that your current test has no value.
My hunting blind in the back yard is about 25 feet away from the bird feeders.... for me the test has great value...
But I also want to see what happens at medium and longer distances too I learned from that first test that I need to check more F stops...
I am looking forward to trying out this lens.I'll give a comparison with the 300/2.8 II +TCs when my Tammie arrives after next weekend. I'll even show my favourite medieval brick chimney for Mac.
If you get a good copy I think it might be as good as 300/2.8 IS (and maybe IS2 on a good day) with converters AT 420 and 600 without the darned inconvenience/extra cost. To get a half decent 600 with the 300/2.8 IS you have to stop down to f8 anyway.