September 01, 2014, 10:39:44 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 - Plainsman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 20, 2014, 06:31:24 AM »
If it is an extender zoom like the new Nikon that will not be good news - prone to knock damage causing optics misalignment.

The Canon 100-400 is a very strong robust design. Keep that or give us an internal focus optic ie a scaled up version of the 70-200 please Mr Canon.

Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:59:10 AM »
I previously owned a 300 f2.8is version I and absolutely loved that lens.  Razor sharp, very versatile, small and light (relatively) and worked very well with a 1.4x TC.  The one down-side is that it was very SOFT with a 2.0x TC.

I ended up selling this lens to fund a 500 f4 is Version I.  I have been pretty happy with this lens for the most part, however it does not perform super well with TC's from both an IQ standpoint as well as an AF speed standpoint.  I find that I almost exclusively use this lens without TC's to produce images I am consistently happy with.

I really miss my 300 2.8, and have been considering the newer version II for quite some time.  I would need to sell my 500 to afford one so I thought I would ask for feedback from those who own the 300 Version II and have used it with a 2.0x converter Version III.  The lens comparison tool from TheDigitalPicture indicates that this lens does quite remarkably with a 2.0x TC.  So well to my eye that I am thinking it would be a nice replacement for my 500 f4 Version I, and give me the 300/420mm that I so often miss.  Has anyone used this 300+2.0 combo?  How do the images look?  How snappy is the AF?  Compared to the 500f4is?  Any feedback is appreciated.

Happy Shooting,

Why not consider the 400/4 DO which reaches nearly 600 with only a 1.4XTC.
Lighter to carry around as well.
Seems to be a good seller for Canon.

Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 08, 2014, 07:17:52 AM »
....esoteric, perhaps elitist thread but nevertheless interesting especially to someone who has to make a choice. Surely no one with both of these in his/her collection?!

Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 06, 2014, 03:42:16 AM »
Bryan makes the same mistake as many other reviewers by measuring the focal length at close range.
At close range zooms "loose" focal length more rapidly than primes.
If he had only focussed say on something at a couple of hundred metres I am sure that the 570 he calculated would be much closer to the 600 of the prime he was checking against.
Anyway thanks Bryan for your review and very useful iso 12233 crops. For the money this is an exceptional lens if you get a good one.

The iso 12233 crops show the hit that sharp primes take when you attach a bog standard Canon 2xTC.

Inevitable because that same TC is a compromise that has to give reasonable performance with other lenses in the Canon range all with different glass components/spacing/ray paths etc.

The Tamron 150-600 could be considered as a 150 - 300 with a built in exactly matching 2xTC which is the reason why it performs pretty well all the way up to 600.

Lenses / Re: A 500mm f/5.6?
« on: February 21, 2014, 06:36:57 AM »
From the photographers point of view it would be entirely logical and very nice for someone to make a 500/5.6 IS II. A high quality one for slightly less than a 300/2.8 IS II would be a big seller.

But it won't happen from Can/Nik because it would impinge seriously on sales of the big whites/blacks further up the price chain.

Canon are not here to please the whims of photographers. They are here to maximise profits for shareholders.

I think future trends will be towards high quality zooms like the 70-200/2.8 and the 200-400/4. Perhaps a few more of these and Canon could delete primes completely from their range.

The best non Can/Nik 500 prime out there still in production is the old Sigma 500/4.5 DG but maybe the new Tamron can beat it for sharpness at 500? A side by side test would be interesting.

I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in....  hmmmmm....  I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips! ;)

C'mon - for 600mm with the 300/2.8 IS plus TC you need to stop down to f8 anyway (see the reviews) to get reasonable (not brilliant) performance ie your pricy lens aperture has vignetted from 108mm down to 75mm at 600/8. With the 2x TC even second hand the 300/2.8 is very expensive and fiddly compared to the Tamron and heavier.

Lenses / Re: DxO Review of the Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon
« on: February 12, 2014, 02:52:04 PM »
DXO:  "......softer across the frame at 600 than the Sigma 150-500 is at 500..."

That's a disappointment since  my experience of the Sigma at 500 was not good.

Being realistic at this price you really can't expect the Tamron @ 600 to be even close to the 100-400 @ 400. That's the difference - the Canon is sharp at the top end but the Tamron ain't. Ah well just have to wait for the new 100-400 and use a TC to get 560 assuming by then Canon can give us a crop camera with f8 AF capability. That maybe is asking a lot.

But then DXO might have tested a sub-par copy........

Hi Alan,

Thanks for sharing the images ...   from whatever I read/saw so far, I am very impressed with the Tamron ... the fact that people are actually comparing it with lenses that cost far more, speaks volumes for the Tamron which costs just a little over $1000 ... looks like the third party manufacturers (especially Sigma & Tamron) have really stepped up their game. After the announcement of this Tamron lens, Nikon has recently dropped the price of their newest 80-400 VR II lens by $400.

I reckon that Sigma will drop the price of their 120-300/2.8 as well in due course.

Also second hand prices of Can/Nik 300/2.8 IS/VR should take a hit.

May even affect the pricing of a new 100-400/5.6 if it ever gets born. That would be good! It would serve Canon right for p*****g everybody off by keeping shtum about it.

Looking forward to see a photozone or photographylife detailed review of this great Tamron.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:20:08 PM »
Here's a close-up of a boar's face.  It has been processed, and purposefully slightly oversharpened to emphasize the bristle texture.

May I enquire what was the focal length/aperture of that photo?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:16:08 PM »
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?

If so that surprises me because the photographylife tests of the Sigma at 600/5.6 were quite poor and only slightly better at 600/8.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 07, 2014, 11:00:34 AM »
Dare one ask the question 7D vs 70D vs D7100: which has better image quality?

Worth considering because the D7100 is cheaper than the 70D.

Lenses / Re: Lens Announcement Coming in February? [CR1]
« on: February 07, 2014, 07:14:28 AM »
If the new 100-400 is another extending zoom lens like the latest flimsy Sony and Nikon zooms I personally wouldn't bother waiting for it.

The new Nikon 80-400 appears to be hardly any sharper than Canon's current 100-400 and is a lot more expensive.

The current Canon 100-400 lens is a very good design and the only way Canon will significantly improve on it is to bring out an IF version say 140-400/5.6 ie a scaled up version of the peerless 70-200/2.8.

But will they do that - I doubt it - it would be to sharp and affect sales further up the chain. That's Canon logic for you.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600 Shootout via
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:37:43 AM »
There are a lot of financially or sensibly constrained punters out there looking for a sharp used prime capable of good performance with 1.4x and 2x TC.

I am thinking of the 300/2.8 IS to give 420 and 600, 400/4 DO to give 560 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give 420 and 600 again. But all require stopping down 1 stop to get any reasonable performance at 600 ie 600/8.

As test results come through and IF it is really true that Tamron 600/8 performance is OK then it may become blindingly obvious that if you really want the 300-600 range the Tamron is the lens to get.

Tamron has placed the cat amongst the pigeons and good luck to them.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC
« on: February 04, 2014, 12:09:36 PM »
A quick sharpness test....

The goal is to see what effect the F stop has on sharpness with the 150-600 when used at 600mm

All shot with a 60D from a distance of 20 feet and processed in lightroom. All images are with the Tamron 150-600 profile enabled and with chromatic aberration correction enabled.

The target is the fine print on the back of the packaging of a laser pointer... it was the smallest size printing that I could find lying around the house.

The first image has the colour balanced, sharpness slider at 0, noise reduction slider at 0

The second image has the sharpening slider at 80, noise reduction slider at 50, and blacks level at -50. There is a typo on the picture description.... The first bar is F6.3, not F5.6.

Obviously F8 or F11 is far sharper than F6.3 and it falls of by F16. With sharpening enabled, F11 appears slightly better than F8. When you consider that I could not see the pattern around the "danger" symbol when it was inches from my face, yet the lens could pick that up from across the house, this lens is great bang for the buck!....

With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO! Nevertheless many thanks for your post.

But then I suspect Can/Nik, Tamron etc are optimising their optical designs to come out well in imatest reports at 30-40 ft and may not be all that sharp at distance.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6