« on: June 19, 2014, 06:02:47 PM »
Mack - we could have 300/2.8 II + 2xTC thread, there is now quite a group of us!
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.
While I can hand hold a 300 f/2.8 ii + 2x TC with IS, I will tell you that using a tripod is better at that focal length. The Tamron is about 1.5 pounds lighter than that combo but I can tell you that there still are times when a tripod is a great tool. Having only recently gone to a Gimbal head, I'd really recommend it over a Ballhead unless travel weight is a limiting factor. I am biased but I like the Lensmaster RH-2 for it's size, simplicity and price.
If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.
“I relied on IS a lot when using the version I 600 L IS lens - especially when shooting wildlife. I didn't handhold that lens a lot due to its shoulder/back injury-inducing weight, but the tripod-sensing IS system was quite helpful in reducing vibration (including from mirror slap) when shooting from a tripod. Handholding the 600 L IS II is much easier and I am now relying on IS much more frequently to help me get the shot. I find IS to be an extremely valuable feature for this lens.”
For what it's worth I have arms like pipe cleaners and can barely do a push up!
Though a lot of it is down to technique, not strength, most people can support large lenses surprisingly well for short periods. Locally there is quite a petite lady who rarely uses a tripod with her Nikon 500 F4 + D4 - so it can be done!
My problem with IS is that it slows things down, when you have a small bird flitting here and there I have enough trouble keeping up with it - let alone the IS slowing things up! Try it for yourself. Also I believe that IS is not effective at shutter speeds of less than 1/500 sec so it is of limited use for many subjects.
I should state that I use a 1DX and it's ISO capabilities are a significant part of the equation, were I using a different camera this may alter my opinion.
However, regardless of the camera used, I prefer to shoot with IS off and only use it when necessary (in desperation in my case!). It is a very handy feature, to have in reserve.
In simple terms, if you have a very sharp lens, then every small blurring event, such as minute camera shake, will be noticeable. If you have a very soft lens, then a minute amount of camera shake would not be noticeable in the overall blur. So, you would be crazy to hand hold a 600mm f/2.8 II with IS off, or more sensibly a 400 mm f/5.6 at a low shutter speed. However, a Tamron 150-600mm at 1/1000s with IS on would not register any camera shake.
As Weixing write there is no wrong or right way, but you can have accessories that are overkill for a particular lens.
I have only used the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS for a couple of shots this year - all my other shots (both hand held or on a tripod) have been with the IS turned firmly OFF. Why - because I get faster AF and a higher hit rate, especially if subjects move. Given the lighter weight and better balance of the Canon 600 Mk2 (that you quote) + the extra stop of light and it is hardly a chore to use hand held and there is certainly no need to turn on the IS in anything but poor light - my 800mm is not as good in this respect being F5.6. Note I am not a bodybuilder - I am a 55 year old arthritic Diabetic. These lenses are not that difficult to manage!
To the OP.
I do not claim to be an expert, but I have primarily used long (400mm +) lenses for quite a while. When the light is good you can keep the shutter speeds up and manage quite happily without support. IS/OS etc have their uses but are no substitute for a decent tripod + head. If you get cheap support you will rapidly outgrow it and end up spending more in the long run. It's up to you, but I would suggest you get good support from my experience.
Bear in mind that the Tamron is not the sharpest lens on the block, but is sharp enough and provides more fun per $ or ounce than most telephotos. One of its greatest advantages is its light weight and zoom. You nullify these by adding massive expensive gear that might get the best of a supersharp heavyweight that outresolves the sensor but might not increase the sharpness of a less refined lens.
Happy Father's day !
Taken today, an Oystercatcher male, feeds his offspring.
( taken from Kayak )
Just my 2p!
I am having to disagree with some here - sorry!
If you are going to use the Tamron, at 600mm, then you must treat it as a 600mm lens to get the most out of it. The fact that it is very light is, if anything, a disadvantage when shooting as the Canon/Nikon 600mm behemoths damp down a great deal of vibration by sheer weight!
You will need top quality support (tripod) and a top quality head. I would not go for a Ball Head as you will VERY quickly find it VERY frustrating. With a ball head positioning/framing will be difficult and moving subjects will be out of the question. A Gimbal (such as the Jobu Jr recommended above) is probably the best compromise. Unfortunately, if you change focal lengths, then the balance will alter - but it is still the best solution.
Make sure you have a good, very rigid, tripod (forget the weight ratings) that will support your lens and not shake all over the place with these sort of focal lengths - sorry but that means an expensive tripod!
Be prepared to spend more on your tripod and head than you did on the lens if you want to get the most out of it.
... looking for a sign of a 7d.Maybe you better should be looking for the new 100-400. It should be easier to spot and then there is an 70 - 90 % chance that a 7D2 is attached to the rear end of that one...
some just don't get it some are just lazy a bad len from a tripod will out perform a good len free hand