December 19, 2014, 11:41:07 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 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 79
481
Finally, low resolution of the whole frame from each, Tammy on top as before. I was pretty close to the target, at about 8m. You can see that there is significant focus breathing with the Tammy at this close distant.

All in all, I am very, very impressed with the Tammy, and will be taking it on an extended visit to China next month for its convenience in both weight and size, as well as the zoom. It will be my standard travel lens for nature trips abroad.

482
At f/8, Tammy at Top and Canon at Bottom.

483
Unpacked my Tamron this morning. Basically, it handled just as predicted by the lensrental data and the other good data published. It focussed fast at 400mm and below, and a bit sluggish at 600 on both a 5DIII and 70D. The IQ performance at 400mm and below was at about the same as the 100-400L, which I have sold.

Now for the test that I have wanted to see: how does it compare at 600mm vs the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 2xTCIII. I AFMAd it on a 5DIII and took a couple of shots of an iso 12233 chart. The chart was illuminated by only a halogen lamp. Images from both lenses were treated the same way for processing from raw. The Tamron was set for f/6.3 at 1/400s iso 2500, and the 300x2 at f/5.6 at 1/500. For the pair in the next post, both were at f/8 and 1/250. These are 100% crops, which need downloading for comparison.

Here are the Tammy at/f6.3 (Top) and the Canon at f/5.6 (Bottom)

484
PowerShot / Re: 200x zoom on SX50
« on: February 08, 2014, 12:54:35 PM »
I could hardly see these cormorants with the naked eye off the coast at Jaffa. 50x zoom + 4x digital enables me to identify them. Beats digiscoping.

All the above are downsized from 4000x3000 to 800x600 for uploading and display.

485
PowerShot / Re: 200x zoom on SX50
« on: February 08, 2014, 12:46:20 PM »
Montefiore's windmill: 24; 182; 1200; and 4800mm.

486
PowerShot / Re: 200x zoom on SX50
« on: February 08, 2014, 12:43:19 PM »
Dome of the rock: 24; 123; 4800; and 4800mm equivalents.

487
PowerShot / 200x zoom on SX50
« on: February 08, 2014, 12:40:39 PM »
Don Haines's comments have inspired me to test the SX50 at 200x zoom - 50x optical plus 4x digital. I am on a brief trip to Jerusalem and, as usual, slung my SX50 into my case. Today had beautiful light. Here are some shots, ranging from 24-4800mm. The quality of the digital zoom really surprised me. All the shots were taken as jpegs, with no processing - straight out of the camera. To start with, the Church of the Dormition: 24; 200; 1200; and 4800mm equivalents.

488
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 08, 2014, 02:11:41 AM »
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.



My benchmark is the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs, and I'll compare it with the Tammy when I return on Monday and open my Tammy parcel, which was delivered yesterday. According to TDP, the Sigma with 1.4xTC at 420 stopped down to 5.6 looks as good as the Canon +1.4xTC at 420 and f/4, which is really very good. At 600mm with 2xTC, the Sigma has to be stopped down to f/11 to rival the Canon at f/5.6. If the Tammy at f/8 or f/11 at 600 is as good as the Canon at 600, I will be overjoyed.

The Tammy is meant to be for me a lighter lens for travel and when I need a zoom. The Sigma with the TC weighs about 3.7 kg compared with 1.9 for the Tammy. And is not an alternative.

420 f/5.6 vs f/4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

600 f/11 vs f/5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=5&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

489
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 07, 2014, 12:18:36 PM »
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?  ???

My experience with the 300/2.8 II + 2xTCIII having poor AF speed and hunting on the 7D has been duplicated by others.  Many of us have found poor inconsistency of AF in general.   Lensrental has somewhere on its blog showing the AF consistency of the 7D being far worse than the 5DIII.

The series II telephotos have a different feedback loop system from the series I and required the series III TCs to be developed.  I have no idea how the series I telephotos AF perform with the 7D plus TCs.  By all accounts, the 300/2.8 I takes an IQ hit with the 2xTC.

490
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 07, 2014, 09:40:50 AM »
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 go into a camera shop....
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...

You'll next be deciding between waiting for a 7D2 or buying an 80D.

491
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:31:24 PM »
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.

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

492
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 04, 2014, 05:03:17 PM »
With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO!

I agree.

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...

There's nothing ridiculous at all about your 20' test.  As you point out, the 600mm is often used at 20 or so feet for small birds. And, in any case relative sharpness at different apertures won't change much with distance.  Diffraction effects start coming in at about f/6.3 with your 60D compared with about f/11 on the new 5 and 1Ds, and so the sharpness should be better at f/11 and f/16 on them. 

493
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 03, 2014, 05:36:36 PM »
I am looking forward to trying out this lens.

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.

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.

494
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 03, 2014, 02:05:27 PM »
I have just sold my 7D and replaced it by a 70D, and compared both carefully. The 70D has slightly better IQ than the 7D. My 7D was very good, unlike the one of the previous post (and I also have a 5DIII to compare both crops). The 70D really wins out in AF and live view over the 7D.

495
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 02, 2014, 05:42:05 PM »
Exactly about the choice of reviews.  You have to know to handle a 600mm, and those who do know have produced some very good images. The lens has a five-year warranty, but I would prefer not to have to use it.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 79