August 30, 2016, 09:31:55 AM

Poll

How many have bought a 600 II, 200-400, 300 II or Tamron 150-600?

I have bought or have ordered a 600mm f/4 II
18 (21.2%)
I have bought or have ordered a 200-400mm f/4 II
12 (14.1%)
I have bought or have ordered a 300mm f/2.8 II
24 (28.2%)
I have bought or have ordered a Tamron 150-600mm
31 (36.5%)

Total Members Voted: 71

Voting closed: March 24, 2014, 10:50:50 AM

Author Topic: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm  (Read 24738 times)

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2014, 12:05:16 PM »
You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession.

Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

Secondly, you allude to your professional standard lenses as having a gold ring, and the 15-600mm not being in this class. Tamron used the gold ring cosmetically to designate its SP "Super performance lenses": see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/technology/sp-super-performance.html for a definition of them and their properties including robust outer design.

The Tamron 150-600mm is officially an SP lens: see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-5.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

The last thing I am going to do is to take my lens apart! If it fills up in the next five years with dust like a Dyson, I'll send it it back to Tamron under warranty.
5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M 18-55, f/2 22, 11-22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2014, 12:05:16 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19653
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #76 on: March 13, 2014, 12:28:46 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19653
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2014, 12:28:55 PM »
Deciding to service it himself and remove the front element and apparent dust…

Why did he make that decision?  Was the dust on internal lens elements having an observable effect on image quality?

having to open your lens very early on and void the warranty is not a sign of a healthy relationship with your lens!

I'd say it's a sign of something unhealthy…but not the lens.   :o
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #78 on: March 13, 2014, 01:06:28 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.


Are sand particles uniform in size and shape? Aren't some of them flatter and some of them smaller? It is a geometric truism that smaller objects (of similar shapes) have higher surface/volume ratios because volume varies as length cubed and area as length squared. By modelled, I mean that the shape of atmospheric dust particles is determined by their light scattering characteristics, and they usually come out on average as spherical or squat cylinders.
5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M 18-55, f/2 22, 11-22

et31

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2014, 01:35:34 PM »
You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession.

Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

Secondly, you allude to your professional standard lenses as having a gold ring, and the 15-600mm not being in this class. Tamron used the gold ring cosmetically to designate its SP "Super performance lenses": see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/technology/sp-super-performance.html for a definition of them and their properties including robust outer design.

The Tamron 150-600mm is officially an SP lens: see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-5.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

The last thing I am going to do is to take my lens apart! If it fills up in the next five years with dust like a Dyson, I'll send it it back to Tamron under warranty.

Yes, let me clarify those points.
1.  I should have said that I was referring to dust particles that more than often come from organic matter (i.e. skin cells, fiber stands, decomposed dried plant matter in farm fields during the winter months that flies around everywhere, etc.), in addition to silt size aeolian particulates, as opposed to sand size particles at the ocean that contain quartz grains and other calcium carbonates (so, overall grains that are between silt, sandstone, and higher: 62.5 microns +), which have different refinement properties, and according to the level of weathering, can be angular or round.

2. Yes, I do acknowledge and have no doubt that the optics and design of the inner glass components reflect the SP rating present in the 150-600mm.  However, given the build quality and new engineering of the housing components, the "robust outer design" is subjective only to whatever Tamron feels is correct to their design standards.  All Canon white L lenses look alike, feel alike, and have a higher standard in material component integration in the designs; however, with three SP Tamron bodies in front of me, it's obvious that the telephoto model has property differences in engineering (outside from the fact that it's supposed to be light and portable) that doesn't reflect the same Tamron series (i.e. Change in manufacturer could be a reason, economic hit on material costs, or trying something new to change their lens lineup, etc.)  It's a semi-pro lens and I understand that the market makes portable zoom telephotos (i.e. Sigma 150-500mm, Tamron 200-500mm, Tamron 150-600mm), but like you said earlier, you "need tools commensurate with your profession." 

I embrace new lens designs and finding ways around spending $10-$20K on a telephoto; however, I just wish someone would come out with a long range telephoto that had smart and efficient engineering standards that reflected strengths in the optics AND the overall product that cost more than $1000, but still was far less expensive than the big guns.....maybe it's Sigma's turn to come out with a corrected version of their flawed 150-500m or Tamron will eventually come out with fixed long range telephoto lenses in the near future.   Until then, Canon is laughing at us all, but gives us some credit for effort!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:41:13 PM by et31 »
Canon C300, Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 7D Mark II

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3970
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2014, 02:06:04 PM »
RE: "Big Game" photo.  It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny :D
CPS Score: 103 points

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2014, 02:57:26 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.

Neuro
An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.

http://images.sciencesource.com/preview/13250858/BP3016.html

Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....
5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M 18-55, f/2 22, 11-22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2014, 02:57:26 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19653
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2014, 03:20:01 PM »
Neuro
An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.

Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....

LOL.  My bad.  I remember one of my early Macs had a default alert tone which I'll echo here:  Sosumi.

SEM images are frequently colorized to make structers easier to visualize, although obviously no additional real information content is added by the colorization. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

GuyF

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2014, 03:49:37 PM »


If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)

First of all, I won't require a second for the duel (ha! take that8)) and secondly, the picture of your own second appears to be obscured by that little dude in the wheelchair's laptop screen. Funny, I'm sure I met that bloke at CERN back in 2004...looks just like him (note: he cheats at rock, paper, scissors). Anyway, be sure to tell your second that's a nice white blouse she's got on.

Oh, and as for the Cambridge sense of humour? Footlights has so much to answer for.

Game, set and match, chummy.

(I'm sure the pair of us could go on like this all day but isn't it fun to hide behind a keyboard, no?)

Regards.

AlanF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2014, 08:18:35 PM »
Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her. 
5DS R, 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM, EF 70-200/4 IS, EF 24-105, 15-85, 100-400 II, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M 18-55, f/2 22, 11-22

expatinasia

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2014, 09:16:40 AM »
RE: "Big Game" photo.  It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny :D

Yes it does, and it is!

Are those CPS caps/hats that some of them are wearing? I haven't seen them before.

Got to hand it to Canon, they really know how to market themselves!
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

GuyF

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2014, 02:53:55 PM »
Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her.

I know, that's why I said it - now I've got you thinking!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2014, 02:53:55 PM »