August 29, 2014, 02:39:12 PM

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 - TWI by Dustin Abbott

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 104
196
Lenses / Re: Dustin Abbott's Site/Review Hacked?
« on: January 20, 2014, 08:20:30 PM »
We're in the middle of transiting hosts to handle the traffic, and its a little ugly in between.  Sorry about that.

197
Congrats on the very popular review! I wish I could read it haha but its not loading.

Sorry about that.  The transition to the host and servers is moving a little slowly (perfect storm of traffic right now - at least for a little guy for me.  I'm hoping that somewhere within the next few hours everything will stabilize, but I have no guarantees.

198
Just as an update for everyone that has had a frustrating experience trying to access the review.  I am migrating to a new server with more dedicated processes.  This will (hopefully) solve the problem.

199
the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?

Looks to me like it has about 4 pixels of handshake-induced motion blur, up and to the left.

That is entirely possible (in fact, likely).  I got better results when I learned to up the shutter speed beyond what I normally have (I was shooting with a longer focal length than ever before).  That was shot at 1/250th second in fairly extreme cold (well below zero Fahrenheit) at 600mm.  In later outings I increased my shutter speed at longer lengths and saw more consistent results.

You can't engineer out human stupidity entirely  ;)

We're all grateful for your efforts, and what I said wasn't meant as a criticism.  It's a valuable piece of work you provided.

I'm attaching a version after 4 pixels of motion blur correction.  If this is objectionable, let me know and I'll remove it.  Either way, I'll remove it after a couple of weeks.


No problem at all.  I intentionally didn't really edit anything so people could see what the lens itself could do without "intervention".

200
Sorry again to everyone for the issues.  Server migration is in process.  The review is going somewhat viral, so there are a lot of people from a lot of places accessing it. 

201
still no access.... :)

seems like reviews for this lens are in high demand.

We are in the process of migrating to a new server to help.  Outages are still intermittent during the process, but tend to be brief.  Try back in a couple of minutes and you should get on.  It may be slow, but it should be functional.

202
The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test:  sample variation/consistency.  That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.

If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.

So far the 3 samples that Roger has are all centered will very little sample variation according to his report.  Looks like a good start for QC.

That's encouraging.  A lot of people will be looking at that.

203
the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?

Looks to me like it has about 4 pixels of handshake-induced motion blur, up and to the left.

That is entirely possible (in fact, likely).  I got better results when I learned to up the shutter speed beyond what I normally have (I was shooting with a longer focal length than ever before).  That was shot at 1/250th second in fairly extreme cold (well below zero Fahrenheit) at 600mm.  In later outings I increased my shutter speed at longer lengths and saw more consistent results.

You can't engineer out human stupidity entirely  ;)

204
It does not seem to be available in Canada yet. It's probably impatience, but it feels like we are the only country that haven't got any in stock. Does anyone have any information about Canadian availability?

It's shipping to dealers today (which is why I was able to go live with the review).

205
the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?

That's a 100% crop from a 600mm shot, wide open, in -20 weather.  Pretty much worse case scenario.  The lens is softer at 600mm than the rest of the focal range, to be sure.  The good news is that it does sharpen up when stopped down.

206
Dustin
I am comparing some of your bird photos with examples I've taken by downloading some of your crops. However, I don't know whether yours are 100%. For example, this one is 1024x1024 but I estimate from the full shot that it is about 1600x1600 in the original and has been reduced. Is this so?

Some of the crops vary in size, Alan.  I'm working off memory, but your numbers seem about right.  The problem is that the review as a post is 100MB+, so every extra bit adds more weight on the server and everyone's internet connection.

207
Dustin,
I join everyone here in thanking you for the review. It provides a lot of good info and samples; taken together with Roger's bench testing, I think we have a good "picture".

As far as the large, expensive filter,  I do use a UV at times, esp. when I'm at the beach, I'd rather wipe spray and sand off the filter than off the lens.  So I did splurge for the B&W MRC filter for about 160.00. That and a new ball  head will get me up to 1500.00 which is about how much I had "budgeted"..

Nice.  It's great to be able to get that extra gear and still be at your budgeted price.  I'd like to think that this will affect Canon's pricing when it release updates to either the 400mm f/5.6 or the 100-400L, but it probably won't.

Excellent review Dustin!  I always appreciate your hand-on, photographers approach to reviews. 

I just had time for a quick read today during an abbreviated lunch hour, but will re-read tonight when I have more time.

Quote
From Dustin's review:  "I simply don’t have the budget to purchase many of the super-teles that cover this focal range, and furthermore, I don’t shoot this style of photography often enough to justify the expense even if I did."

This is why this lens is very interesting to me.  For 98% of my normal shooting the 14mm-200mm lenses I own are fine.  On the rare occasions I need something longer than 200mm, I use my 2x extender.  However, I have been more interested in shooting wildlife recently and would like to have something longer - but can't realistically justify (to myself) spending $6K or $12k on lenses that I will seldom use.  We are planning a 2-week trip to Alaska next summer, and I imagine I'll need all the reach I can get for some of the wildlife up there.  This looks like a terrific, affordable option.

Yep.  Looks like we are pretty much in the same boat.  I even thought about an Alaskan cruise when I first heard of this lens!!

Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800!

I don't personally get why third party options are so much slower to come to Nikon mounts.  I guess we are fortunate that clearly the first engineering priority goes to Canon mounts.  Still, I don't understand why Nikon mounts sometimes lag for months behind.

208
Just read your entire review. Very detailed, very helfpful.
I don't use long telephoto often, so this might be just the trick for me.
One thing I don't like is the zoom and focus direction, and the focus near the camera body. I am so used to the ergonomics on my canon lenses, this will screw me up a bit. But, as you point out, that quality at THAT PRICE!

I don't enjoy that trend, either, but my Canon 70-300L is setup the same way.  Of that past six or seven lens reviews I've done, more were setup with the rings reversed than the "old way".

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list.  An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

That extra 200mm certainly makes a difference.  I haven't really shot the lens on a crop much (other than the M ::)), but the reach on a 70D/7D would be amazing.
Thanks, Dustin.

My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens.  Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties?  Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires?  I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade?  Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?

I'd consider getting this lens, but not if it's going to "wear out" after 6 years.  Does anyone out there have experience with Tamron service, especially on older lenses?

Thanks again for the great review.
I'm sure you can understand that I have no way of answering that question.

Dustin, of course that question was not directed at you, personally, it was an expression of my doubts about the prospect of laying down $1000 for a lens that may have a brilliant youth, and then burn out before middle-age.

The question regarding Tamron's history and reputation was thrown open to anyone who had knowledge or experience.

I understand completely.  I personally feel that Tamron has built some great lenses in the last couple of years.  It will be interesting if Roger does a breakdown on one of these lenses at some point and gives us so feedback on the guts and the way that they are put together.

209
Justin, thanks for another excellent review!  You were extra thorough this time and I had to laugh at all of the disclaimers and such, but it is truly bulletproof this time!  For someone who doesn't shoot much wildlife, I thought you took some great shots, particularly the deer & bison photos.  The only problem I can find with your review is that it's making me want to order one of these lenses!  Keep up the great reviews and I have a feeling we'll be seeing you posting the in the bird and animal shot threads in the near future :)

I've encountered a little "friendly fire" before, so I did my best to be thorough and balanced.  I'm sure there will still be those that find fault.

210
Hi,
    Thanks for the review... Look like I'm going to order one to replace my EF400mm F5.6L once it's available in my country.  ;D

    Have a nice day.

No problem.

Great review!

Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!

+1

Good stuff! Especially because it's what we wanted to hear :D

That does help, doesn't it  ;D
I'm really sorry about the server issues.  I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this.  I've not had this kind of crash before.
Its working now Dustin ... a fabulous review, really liked reading and watching it (twice already).
About the lack of a lens pouch/bag with the purchase, I suppose that might be due to what you've said "I personally wonder if they are not selling this lens at a loss to drive brand recognition" ... quite possible, including a lens pouch/bag could've just made the "loss" a bit more unbearable for Tamron  ;D ... jokes apart, I rally liked the review. My ex-boss is getting it for me from Japan ... so, I should be holding the lens by around the 10th February ... very excited to have bought the lens ... now I just need to wait patiently or perhaps read your review once more to calm my nerves. ;D

I'm glad you are going to be able to get a copy.  Enjoy!  Your point about including the pouch/bag is certainly a valid one

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 104