October 01, 2014, 10:22:12 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 - Plainsman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:54:17 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Lenses / World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 14, 2014, 10:14:25 AM »
Never had much credence in the views held by some that this mythical lens might appear in Rio - but still early days etc. Miracles could happen.

Ultra secretive Canon treat their loyal expectant customers with contempt.

The least that the Canon hermit kingdom people could say is no replacement planned at all or replacement planned for 2015, 2016....2020 or whatever.

Canon General / Re: Canon Australia Laying off 10% of Workforce
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:42:28 AM »
This is probably all to do with the strong AUS$ or is it?

You would think that a strong local currency would result in increased Canon sales needing at least the same number of Canon support staff.

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:50:15 AM »
With the announcement of the Tamron 150-600 and generally positive reviews, I wonder how much interest there really is in a Canon 100-400 if it came with a serious price jump?  Ok, sure it avoids long term compatibility concerns, will likely focus faster, be better built and hopefully will offer better image quality.  All of that definitely demands a premium over a third party lens.  But how much?  I know  my main use would be at the longer end and apparently the Tamron does ok up to around 500mm.  I'm not sure if the Canon lens would be on many people's radar if it stayed at 400mm and was priced at $2500+ as some are hypothesising.

Compared to the Tamron 150-600, the 100-400L is over 1 lb. lighter, close to 3" shorter, and delivers similar IQ through the overlapping range.  An updated 100-400L would be similar in size, deliver much better IQ, and that would put it on many people's radar, even at $2500+.

.....and Canon quality control must be a lot better than the made in China Tamron.
With the T you might be lucky to get a good one but then you might not...

Lenses / Re: The Next \
« on: May 21, 2014, 03:50:12 AM »
My 400 f/5.6 is plenty sharp - did well on safari last year - but would consider upgrading if the new lense has the measure of improvement optically that you would be entitled to expect after all these years. Pleased to hear they are reverting to a conventional zoom. 100-400 and 7Dii should make a great pairing - but that's about the price of a 1DX :-\
The 400F5.6 is definitely sharper than the 100-400. I did a side-side test between them a couple of years ago and the 400F5.6 was noticeably sharper.... My suspicion is that a new 100-400 would be sharper than the 400F5.6, but if they come out with a new 400F5.6 I'll be on it like a fat boy on a wedding cake! For my needs, that would be ultimate combination of reach/portability/quality.

I have to disagree with you there. I've done several tests recently between a new 400/5.6 and my old 100-400 on the 50D with AFMA checks on both and the 100-400 beats the prime on axis every time. The 400/5.6 - the second I have had - will be put up for sale shortly! Maybe your 100-400 was a below par version.

BTW on distant objects say 200m and beyond the image sizes are the same ie the 100-400 gives a true 400 assuming the 400/5.6 does the same.

Get on with it Mr Canon and gives us a new 100-400 with IS2.

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?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7