November 22, 2014, 08:25:54 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 ... 8
16
There are several comments here about the Tamron being soft at 600mm and slow from individuals who clearly don't have any first-hand experience of the lens and just rely on mythical hearsay or lens test from TDP, which actually shows it sharp at the centre.

I regularly  use the Tamron 150-600, have used extensively the 100-400 L and have the 300/2.8 II.

The Tamron is not soft at 600mm, and it is reasonably fast at AF at 600mm. My first hand experience fits in well with the extensive reviews on ePhotozine and Lenstip. Here is the MTF analysis from ePhotozine, which has measured the values at 600mm to be on the edge of excellent at f/8, and the Lenstip's of the 150-600mm and the 100-400mm, which shows that the Tamron at600mm and f/8 to be similar to that of the 100-400 at 400.

Don't knock cameras or lenses based on hearsay, second-hand and inaccurate information.

Good stuff and there is a quite complimentary recent review of the Tamron on the photography life site.

Apparently the new 100-400 looks likely to be a scaled up version of the Canon 70-300. What a shame - a scaled up IF version of the 70-200 would have been better. Canon are cleverly pitching the new lens as not to be to sharp that it impinges on sales of other lens up the chain.

Unfortunately the extending telescopic lens design @400 could mean that even slight knocks will damage optical alignment.

TC capability is unlikely - how many crop cameras can make use of that!!

However I have to admit that the new 100-400 has a few things going for it - IS2, relatively light weight and Canon quality control assuming it is made in Japan but I think it will be expensive like the Nikon equivalent so I will stick to the current model.

17
When you consider that you need 4 (or more) times the $s to beat the Tamron 150-600, it is a wonderful deal. I expect a new 100-400 will beat it, but at 2.5 to 3 X the $s.

The Tammy remains the most bang for the buck on long lenses.

I'm not interested in "best value" because I already have a 70-200/2.8L IS II and a 2x TC III.  My best value is to buy nothing at all.  Thus, I'm looking for something that will substantially out-resolve and out-focus my current combo, and it looks to me like the Tamron will do neither, thus being $1,069 wasted.

...well digital picture iso 12233 crops shows that your combo needs to be stopped down one stop to match the Tamron at 400/5.6.

Not surprising really as putting a 2x TC on a good lens is a last resort option.

18
Soft at 600mm? I don't think so

I've seen plenty of full-sized shots at 600mm to know that it is soft at 600mm wide-open, even on full-frame.

I'm not a sharpness nut, except on telephoto lenses, where it's common to crop like crazy.  When I can properly frame, I find my 17-40L and 24-105L to be quite excellent.  But on telephoto, it's not uncommon for me to crop 2x into a shot that was shot with a 2xTC on a 1.6-crop camera.  That's only 15% of the size of the image circle, enlarged to a full-frame.  That requires critical resolving power.

Have a look.  This is the Tamron against itself (400mm versus 600mm).  There's a substantial difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
I have the lens. I shoot a lot with it.

The first thing I did when I got it was to check out sharpness at various F stops.

It is soft wide open at 600mm.
Stop it down to F8 of F9 and it is pretty good, but wide open it is soft.


Some people are actually expecting the Tamron to be sharp wide open - at the price it is offered at!!

It actually gives the photographer a remarkable value for money 600/8.

The only way to get a sharp 600 at close range is to get the 600/4 because if your shooting at distance say 100m or more the image will be degraded by airwaves you might as well have the Tamron anyway.

19
Time has passed this lens by - it is two years to late.

The 150-600 zoom is the new kid on the block and the imminent Sigma S version could be a very good lens.

But then.......nothing to beat Canon quality control is there?

But really the 100-400 should have been brought out the same time as the Nikon 80-400 which by some accounts isn't all that brilliant.

20
Nice to see more and more photos taken from this lens.

I'm sure that the Sigma OS will be even better.

Better still I think Can/Nik will be looking at this zoom sector and perhaps thinking we are loosing out here because we dictate rather than listen to customer wants/desires.

21
Lenses / Re: Canon ef 300 mm f/2.8 IS II + TC 2X III test shots
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:22:57 PM »
The dp iso 12233 crops suggest you have to stop down by 1 stop to get decent results - so then it's 600/8 up against the 600 prime at f/4!



22
EOS Bodies / Re: What to expect on the 80D?
« on: September 23, 2014, 11:31:56 AM »
Here's my safe bet. You may treat it as a [CR3]. ;)
There will be a brand new logo on the top right corner on the front of it.


...and still using same size 20.2 sensor

23
Lenses / Re: Official: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:10:35 PM »
Sweet Jeebus, look at that MTF!

..there are MTFs and MTFs. Look at the ones for the 400/5.6 - they don't do this pretty good prime much justice.

Nevertheless the MTF curves at 560 for the DO are impressive. But expect some competition from the Sigma 150-600 Sport at a lower price but a bit heavier.

24
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 03:24:01 PM »
Well, if I need to reach 560mm, I'll be using my 600/4L IS II, giving me an extra stop of light, and even more reach with a TC if needed.   :D

Sure 'cause the 600's not, like, double the weight and size or anything

Yep, I bet that 600/4 II is a brute to carry around - all up weight with box must be quite something

25
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II
« on: September 11, 2014, 02:08:08 PM »
The image quality would have to be impeccable though...

Something the two DO lenses released to date aren't known for. 

Personally, I'm not really interested in a 400mm f/4 lens...I'd rather have the 300/2.8 for the faster aperture when needed.

You reach 560 with this lens with just 1.4XTC whereas the 300/2.8 is still only at 420. To most people a 2xTC degrades the image to much. So basically this new lens could beat the 300/2.8 in the range 400 - 560. That's pretty important - we shall see.

I think Canon are sticking with DO development as it may be the only way to significantly reduce the weights of the big whites at some point in the future.

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SIGMA 150-600!!
« on: September 05, 2014, 01:33:01 PM »
Well, here it is:
http://sigma-rumors.com/
I believe this will be a better option than the Tamron optically, maybe I'll buy one for myself  ::)

 ;D

For twice the money it better is noticeably better.


Though constant f5.6 would have been nice.  ;)


...still a lot cheaper than the Sigma 300/2.8 + 2xTC so maybe assembled outside of Japan ie only slightly better optically if you get a good one than the Tamron equiv. Nice strong mount though.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:03:33 AM »
How much is Canon paying you to suffer and defend the brand?  If the threads bug you, don't read them.  Better yet, go out and take some shots.  As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a substantially better sensor.  It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices.  Seriously, go out and take shots.

How about you don't wade in, missing the point by a country mile with worn-out, rote, flamebait clich├ęs?

The folk here who "defend" (which, incidentally, is an immature, immotive characterisation of what's really going on here) Canon, do so:

Because they don't appreciate lies, half-truths and irrelevances presented as "facts" - much less as show-stopping, catastrophic failures by Canon.

Because they know, from their own use of Canon equipment, that it can achieve anything they need a camera to do - which is, images (not pixels) of the most sublime image quality anyone might possibly wish for.

Because the whining about Canon's "sub-standard" sensors says more about the whiners (and their own failings) than it does about the sensors.

Simply put, they "defend" because that's the proper reaction to the bullsh*t. Other people who (God help them) might choose to visit Canonrumors to get some useful information about the capabilities of Canon cameras deserve a balanced view that pushes back against the interminable DR crap.

And it'll continue to happen for as long as the DR whiners continue to push their DR agenda, and as long as that agenda continues to mean sweet FA for the vast majoiity of photographers out there in the Real World.


"...bullsh*t"

"...sweet FA..."

Your words.....just about describe your rather aggressive over the top rant apparently in "defence" of Canon!
I bet Canon have never heard of you.
Just try and be a bit more open minded and less fanatical in your next post.

28
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:58:21 PM »
It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time?  It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready  for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.



"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

29
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:39:25 AM »
Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:24:43 AM »
It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that does not equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon at the image level.

Agreed.

How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?


You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8