August 22, 2014, 10:09:45 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 69
226


That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.


What? I didn't know Newton invented gravity and the prism. I always thought gravity existed before he came along and the prism was a toy/curio which he bought at a county fair.

Before you challenge anyone to a battle of calculus (you failed to name Leibniz), do your homework.


I didn't name Leibniz because I didn't claim Newton invented the calculus (he did, but our German colleagues see it differently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz-Newton_calculus_controversy

You don't understand the Cambridge sense of humour (yes, we do have one). My college claims that William Harvey invented the circulation of the blood, not discovered.

If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)

227
As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots.  I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens. 
I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake. 
I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
I know it’s a big ask but I think it’s valid as there have already been a lot of comments on this thread regarding all these lenses, so if you could make a top ten list of best IQ how would it look???
(e.g. below)
 1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada :o
The tamron beats the 300f4L and with the 2x tc it's not even in the same game

Yes. The Tamron is at its best between 200 and 400mm, and really superb at 300mm. It is as good as a good copy of the 100-400 at 400mm, and much better in the corners - it fares well against the 400 f/5.6L over the whole frame. The 400 L is very good with a 1.4xTC, the 300L f/4 is not as good. The 100-400  has crippled AF with a TC, and is f/8. The Tamron has rendered those older lenses obsolete. I am afraid you have to spend 5x more on the 300mm f/2.8 to beat it.

228
I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.

229
I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.


230
Software & Accessories / Re: BlackRapid FAIL - grrrrrr
« on: March 11, 2014, 02:03:54 PM »
Having read about Black Rapid failures and also having had the camera body fall off the lens, I made a very simple safety back up strap that holds the body to the strap using the strap lugs. The Black Rapid is screwed into the tripod foot of the lens as usual. I put a small hand strap through one of the camera body lugs and attached it to the Black Rapid strap via a key ring that can slide up and down. If the body falls off the lens, it is retained by the strap. If the connector or fastener to the tripod fail, then the lens is saved by the camera lug holding both of them. I have tested the system, and it works.

231
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:54:23 AM »
Lapwings in flight
1/5000, f/5.6, iso640, 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC, 5DIII
Full frame compressed to 2400x1600.

It is remarkable that all of the lapwings are in focus. This where my 300mm combo beats my Tamron 150-600 as it sharp across the whole frame at 600mm.

232
I own the three mentioned Canon lenses and I had ordered the Tamron to replace my 100-400 but then cancelled after reading about AF issues. Also I really don't use my 100-400 as the 300II and converters is portable enough for me. I've had the 600II since October 2012 and use it mainly for spring migration when the birds are skittish and far. Most often with the 2xTC attached. But I also use it bare and at 840 also when appropriate. I've had the 300II since Nov 2013 and have used it with both TCs and it is a phenomenal lens and I use it instead of my 100-400 now as a "portable" solution. I got the 200-400 just a month ago to take to Antarctica in November and I brought it to Borneo for birding and wildlife(orangutans). That is where I am typing this from now. I have found it very versatile for the mammals but wish I had my 600 for the small birds but there was no way I wanted to travel with the 600 through SE Asia. I have used the 2-4 with 1.4 external and had good success at 784mm or really at 800mm if you use the square root of 2 to get 1.4.  Only issue has been the low light of the jungle and needing the 1DX to save shots with ISOs from 6400-25600 being used in the deeper jungle!!!

I also use the 300mm f/2.8 II plus TCs. The AF on the Tamron on the 5DIII and 70D is not far behind the 300mm with 2xTC and is very acceptable. The Tamron's AF is not a problem for my Tamron or for most of the others who have posted. The reproducibility and consistency of the Tamron AF is far better than that of the 100-400.

233
The lens is moisture resistant.

Wonder what that means?

Rubber lens flange gasket. Presumably the sliding tube has a gasket and the front lens is sealed. Definitely not for scuba diving or zooming in and out in a thunderstorm.

234
I bought a new Tamron 150-600mm lens a month ago. I am a professional photographer and am not biased towards or against Tamron vs. Canon, as I own prime L-grade lenses from both companies.  Unfortunately, this lens is not weather sealed, and after using the lens for two weeks outside, the amount of internal dust was atrocious.  Regardless of being meticulous and using a blower at all times, the lens quickly absorbed dust onto the frontal glass element internally, including moisture, via the cork-screw barrel that retracts into the upper chamber.   Closely inspecting the markings on the lens, I saw that it was manufactured in China, as opposed to Tamron's traditional Japan manufacturer, which was a big shock, so quality control has definitely been compromised in order to sell the lens at $1069 :-\

Additionally, image stabilization for action shots (specifically bird shots) is not reliable.  Even though the proper autofocus point speed and tracking can be adjusted in the Canon 5D Mark III to compensate for the lag, shutter speed has to be at least 1/2000th+ of a second in order to prevent motion blur for hand held action tracking shots (coupled with f/6.3 on a cloudy day and ISO 1000-2000, this creates photos worthy of entry level DSLR bodies and stock lenses - which means not good!). Unlike my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L lens, which has 2 modes of image stabilization and creates very fast and stable shots, the Tamron 150-600mm lens only has an on/off VC switch with no additional stabilization mode selection settings.  Gimbal shots are naturally improved, but AF adjustment at 15m to infinity is still sluggish when trying to focus on objects 200ft and further (creep still occurs with the limiting switch).   I called Tamron directly, and their technical support team confirmed that their teleconverters are not compatible with this lens as Tamron engineers have officially discontinued all TC's and did not design this lens with the 1.4x or 2x in mind.  Additionally, they confirmed that both converters should not be used with the lens, as unpredictable results can occur and are not guaranteed to work properly. 

Static shots are amazing with very comparable MTF chart optical clarity to Canon, and portability of the lens is great :); nevertheless, I need a fast and reliable lens for shooting Ospreys, Eagles, King Fishers, Herons, etc.  Sorry everyone, but this lens is not quite the "big white killer" that many individuals thought that it would turn out to be.  I too thought that this was the lens that would allow me to save several thousand dollars; however, I have now returned the Tamron 150-600mm lens for a full refund and consequently have to save up in order to purchase the real Canon 600mm f/4.0 L II (weather sealed, improved pre-set focus ranges, stabilization modes, etc.).  I am not even going to touch the "Sigmonster" 800mm f/5.6, given that it too is not weather sealed and that other professional birders have complained that the focus ring breaks over time, has a fragile body shell, and is extremely sluggish to maneuver; being confined to a gimbal for the majority of the time.   In the end, you get what you pay for! :-\

The lens is moisture resistant. I have had no problems whatosever of dust entering the lens. The VC works fine, and in my hands is about 3 stops as opposed to the 4 stops on my 300mm f/2.8. Yesterday I went for a walk with it on my 5DIII and suddenly saw a bird of prey in the sky. The lens locked on immediately and I got 4 or 5 equally sharp shots in a row at 1/1250 s - below is the full frame reduced to 2400x1600 and a 100% crop. The crop is as sharp as you would expect for that small size. I usually get 100% keepers for 1/600 s and above, as listed elsewhere. As for being made in China, if that is a sign of poor quality I had better dump my iPhone and Macbook Air and iPad etc.


235
Alan

At 600mm how does the Tamron perform against the 300mk11 and 2x extender. I have this combination and love it.

Kerry
Here are 21 pages of detailed discussion: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0

Basically, the Tamron does not disgrace itself against one of the best combinations of lens and extender. In the first posts I show some iso12233 shots.

236
We have an interesting thread of who would prefer a 600mm f/4 II versus 200-400mm f/4. Let's get down to the nitty gritty of who has actually bought or is in the process of buying one or more of the lenses discussed in the thread.

237
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:46:02 AM »
I am from the old camp and like to be able to carry my equipment with relative ease, hence the 300f2.8mk11, with the 1.4 extender a superb 420mm f4 lens comparible to the 400mmf4 on a 200-400 lens. The 2 x extender gives you a very good and lighweight 600mm f5.6 lens with excellent image quality.

This versitile combination costs much less than both the 200-400mm and 600mm pairing. If you want further reach use a crop camera.

Look at the "Any Thing shot with a 1DX" thread
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8079.msg376746#new
and look at Edward´s (phenomenal) images of the bull run.

Which one would you prefer in a situation like this, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x or the 300 f2.8L IS II, with or without extenders?


Neither. Either the 600 with a 2xTC at a safer distance, or, if I had to run quickly, the lightweight Tamron.

238
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 10, 2014, 08:20:21 AM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.


Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).


In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10.  If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy.  I could not handle them.  I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

I believe you are.  I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron.  Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons.  I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron.  Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.


You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.

The point in question is whether the Tamron or Canon is preferred, ceteris paribus. 

The only reasons I can imagine for buying the Tamron over the Canon are price and weight/size.  You already said you don't want a big lens so you've explained that your utility formula places a higher value on size/weight.  Because this forum is full of gearheads and guys who care about IQ, I still believe that at least 90% of those on this forum would choose the Canon over the Tamron if they could afford it. 

You can go buy the Tamron.   :P


As someone else wrote, it would be more sensible to have discussion on the 300 vs the 200-400 as they overlap in focal length and the 600mm is for a different purpose. I made the decision to buy the 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders because I care about both IQ and weight.

There is very little to choose between them in IQ. But, the 300 weighs 1.27 kg (2.8 lb) less. At 300mm it gives a stop wider aperture and better IQ at f/2.8 than the 200-400 at f/4 – see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
At 420mm and f/4 it is nearly as good as the 200-400mm at f/4.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2
At 600mm, it is slightly better than the 200-400 at 560mm with the in-built TC at f/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1

Whereas I would never use the 200-400, I could see myself using the 600 with a 1.4xTC on the rare occasion I wanted to sit in a hide for a day, not too far from my car. So, I would take up the offer on a free 600mm.

You can go on  a hike with your arm wrenching 200-400 while I will jauntily carry my 300mm as I am more concerned with celeris than ceteris.  :P

239
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 06:06:47 PM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10.  If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy.  I could not handle them.  I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.
I believe you are.  I would be surprised if it was even 10% of people who would prefer the Tamron.  Let's just pretend everyone (on this forum) wins a free lens at the camera store and they have a pile of Tamrons and a pile of Canons.  I really really really doubt that given the choice, very many people are going to walk out with the Tamron.  Because I deal with contracts and by nature, "paranoid", I would even say that the choice would not change much if you told them they could not sell the lens.

You might as well ask suppose somebody offered you a 100 carat diamond studded solid gold mounted Sigma 50-500 or a plain Canon, which one would they take? That situation is just as unlikely as everyone on this forum being offered what you would suggest. If I was given a 200-400mm Canon I would never use it. And that is a fact, not a let's pretend scenario. But, if someone were to offer me a 200-400mm free of charge, I would of course accept it - that is human nature.

240
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 06:35:57 AM »
The point I am making is that I believe the 2 canons are the best but the tamron is very close behind and will give you undiferentiaded results under most conditions so anyone on a budget should take a good look at it.

Anyone on a budget doesn't have a choice but to choose the Tamron.  Someone with (truly) the budget, is going to pick the Canon (nine times out of 10).

In that case I must be in a minority of 1 out 10.  If you have the strength and like using monopods or tripods then go for the Canons if you have the cash - you will get the ultimate quality. But, if you want to use hand held and like a light package for hiking and birds in flight etc, then those great lenses are just too heavy.  I could not handle them.  I would rush out and buy a Canon 200-500 f/5.6 that beats the Tamron, and pay the price.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 69