December 22, 2014, 11:05:22 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 ... 9
16
Technical Support / Re: 60D Front Focusing
« on: November 12, 2014, 11:58:49 AM »
Since you're wondering, my lenses are (all Canon) 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. The issue seems consistent across all of them.

Gotcha! With thin dof (i.e. probably more expensive) lenses, Canon wanted you to use a more expensive camera body like the 7d and removed afma on 50d->60d. Thanks, Canon!

They re-introduced afma with the 70d. If all your lenses show the same behavior it seems they are rather Canon-"standard" and your camera body is off. You can ask Canon service for a cost estimate, but with the 60d it's probably not "worth it". An equivalent solution would be to sell your 60d (to people with slower lenses) and rather put the service cost into buying a 70d.

...or buy the 50D (real bargain)...or sell the lot and switch makes.

It was the most stupid thing Canon ever did to deny the the 60D AFMA - marketing nonsense.

17
Samsung crop camera NX1 is on 28Mp. Sony/Nikon have several on 24.

There seems to be a high res sensor Mp war out there which is passing Canon by. I wonder what their logic is.

18
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 11, 2014, 08:11:12 AM »
...keep calm and wait for a lens tip review!!

Let's see if it's better than just a scaled-up version of the 70-300 which it might well be.

19
Lenses / Re: Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:48:15 PM »
I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.

I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.

The images I have seen, has me place both the 100-400 and definitely the 400 f/5.6 as better options.

Now an admission: I'm not a technical guy and cannot breakdown my feelings on the TC'd 70-200 into tech-talk but I find the overall IQ as poorer.

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this but let's keep it sentiment free ie "I own that setup and I love my photos"...

Thanks peeps


Rather than listen to "opinions" just take a look at the iso 12233 crops on digital picture.

They are a pretty reliable guide and clearly show the hit you take when mounting a 2xTC on this otherwise excellent zoom.

20
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 08, 2014, 11:37:45 AM »
I just look at the 100-400 now that is ages old and $1600.  While of course there will be a new premium on the new version....I'm not seeing Canon go up 40% - 100%.  Original 7D $1500.  New 7D2 $1800.  20% premium.  So I'm guessing $1999-$2200 (high side being where the 70-200 is now)  I think making these same priced where one gets you constant aperture while the other gets you longer focal range is a good trade.

I suspect your prices are wishful thinking.
 
Take a look at prices for the 1+ year old Nikon 80-400mm lens, and then add $300.


 
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-400mm-4-5-5-6G-NIKKOR-Digital/dp/B00BOZ1Y46/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415419938&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+80-400mm

Your figuring would be correct a few years ago but now we have the Tamron 160-600 (which BTW is very good up to 500mm) and two Sigmas arriving before the Canon.

No, Canon will have to factor down their pricing expectations on this one for sales to get some early traction.

21
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 07, 2014, 04:16:58 AM »
I quickly did a superimpose of the 70-300L over the 100-400LII. Size comparison is based on the size of the sealing gasket on the lens mount.

Looks like it won't fit 'standing up' in most lens bags, so the 70-300L still holds its value as a travel lens for that purpose.

I've attached the psd too if you'd like to play around some more with the image.


..unlike the 70-300 no focal length markings on the "new" 100-400 photo...rather odd.

22
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 11:51:59 AM »
...price correlates closely to optical quality for Canon - so lets hope it's not to cheap then!

For Canon its position in the lens hierarchy has been carefully calibrated from way back.


23
Interesting looking at the lenstip reviews with their MTF50 lpmm charts.

At the centre @ 600/8 the Sigma S is (well??) ahead of the Tamron also @ 600/8 (38 to 36 on the charts)

But the Tamron @ 600/8 is however very slightly ahead of the Canon 100-400 @ 400/5.6. i.e. not the significant fall off indicated by Lens Rentals.

The lenstip tests have been carried with different cameras but they say that sensor densities are approx same so should not impact the result. I haven't checked that out.

Also of interest the ephotozone bar charts indicate that the Tamron @ 600/8 holds up very well in line with lens tip.

So the Tamron @ 600/8 is maybe better than some make out but as expected the Sigma S is the winner @ 600.

24
Lenstip has reviewed the Sigma 150-600 S.

Be aware that they received the lens they tested from Sigma.  To me, receiving a test lens from the lens manufacturer means that:
 
1.  The lens has probably already been tested by the manufacturer, and selected as being one that is the best possible. 
 
2.  You will never be able to get one as good as the one tested thru a store.
...

This is an urban myth and I'm sure that I've read a response to this somewhere that goes along the lines of "We (manufacturer) don't have the time to test 100 different lenses and pick the best one to send to a reviewer."

I would say it is pure marketing that the lenses are not carefully selected. if you consider what developpement and marketing of such a device costs, the cost to select the best one out of 100 costs nothing, and a good review is  miles more worth than any Marketing campain....... because the reader believes the test is independant.

Despite of this lenstip does the best and most scientific tests available for free (and i donated them a nice sum for reading the tests). Lens Rentals is a good addition, as they can test the sample variation

It would take a lot of effort and money to test rigorously 100 lenses!

Even a jpg at each aperture from 150, 200,300,400,500 and 600 and then examine them all at 100% mag would be a hell of a task and all you would find is say 80 approx all the same and 20 sub par. So you send out any 10 from 80 to 10 reviewers!

The major problem with Sigma is it has quality control issues and the question for the 150-600 buyer is - is Tamron's qc any better?

25
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:32:02 PM »
As it is supposed to be very similar to the 70-300 I wouldn't be the least surprised that it was also designed at the same time by the same team!!
So if they've missed the boat on this one tough titty but humble pie if it turns out as sharp as the Sony @400.

26
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 29, 2014, 10:34:13 AM »
I believe we will see a 5DMkIV, a 6DMkII, a 1DxMkII before we see 100-400 II. Not to mention a 7DMkIII  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I would like to ask CR if this proves yet another BS to refrain from mentioning it again and to stick to more plausible rumors please.

100-400 II rumors are good only for laughing!


...I think this is the real thing, both Sony and Nikon have had new ones and with a total of three low priced 150-600 zooms available in the next month or so it's now or never for Canon

27
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.

28
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.

29
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.

30
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9