Official Lens Discussion Thread
#1281
My first Avatar....
#1282
My first Avatar....
#1283
#1284
Ex-OEM King
If I had a 5D3, I wouldn't have a problem jacking my ISO up to compensate for low light and a slow lens but I don't and I know the 40D images aren't to my liking after ~ISO600. It's all personal, if you're ok with it at higher ISOs then go for it.
No, but I rarely go higher than ISO600, it's my personal preference in the way my images look. Not to say that they look like garbage or anything like that but I like nice, clear, clean images that don't have noise reduction applied or anything.
Again, my preference and the way I like to shoot. Others might be ok with doing otherwise and that's totally fine.
So for $1340 you can get a fixed 400mm 5.6 with 1/3 of a stop more light. Or for $1069 you can get a 150 -600mm zoom with VC and 200mm MORE reach.
The Tamron seems like a no brainer for a wildlife/bird photographer. Provided the IQ is acceptable and preliminary results are good so far.
The Tamron seems like a no brainer for a wildlife/bird photographer. Provided the IQ is acceptable and preliminary results are good so far.
Yes, provided the IQ is the same, it would be a viable alternative. But I would doubt that a lens with a range of 450mm would produce the same IQ as a prime L lens...
Got a link to a review?
I for sure am...
I'm not out here to attack people, just voicing my opinion. I personally wouldn't buy that lens for lots of reasons, many of which I put here, but it's your money, your images, and your stuff so if you feel that this is the right lens for you then by all means go and buy it.
#1285
My first Avatar....
#1286
My first Avatar....
Being a lens snob is fine. It's your money. But I'm willing to bet that there are more uses for a long zoon with VC than there are for a fixed 400mm prime with no VC/IS when there is only a 1/3 stop of light difference. Talk about needing light...better not let your SS drop below 1/400 on a ff body or 1/640 on a crop.
The following 2 users liked this post by pttl:
is300eater (01-29-2014),
stogie1020 (01-29-2014)
#1287
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,332
Received 4,986 Likes
on
2,655 Posts
What about a cloudy day? How about early morning? Later in the evening? There are far too many drawbacks to this lens to warrant dropping almost $1100 on it but to each their own.
To answer your next question, this is how much it costs to get quality at super-telephoto focal lengths.
Canon 600mm f/4L IS - $12,300
Canon 500mm f/4L IS - $10,400
Nikon is about the same-ish prices and these aren't even zoom lenses. Don't think they even make a 2.8 at that size...
To answer your next question, this is how much it costs to get quality at super-telephoto focal lengths.
Canon 600mm f/4L IS - $12,300
Canon 500mm f/4L IS - $10,400
Nikon is about the same-ish prices and these aren't even zoom lenses. Don't think they even make a 2.8 at that size...
And why do you think 2.8 versions don't really exist? COST, SIZE, WEIGHT.
So degrade the image quality?
If this was a legit option, why would so many people bother getting the 70-200 2.8 IS at $2.5k when the $600 f4 would work just fine? I understand that there's a difference between this and a $12k lens but I still wouldn't bother with a cheap super tele especially when the 400 5.6L can be had for relatively cheap.
If this was a legit option, why would so many people bother getting the 70-200 2.8 IS at $2.5k when the $600 f4 would work just fine? I understand that there's a difference between this and a $12k lens but I still wouldn't bother with a cheap super tele especially when the 400 5.6L can be had for relatively cheap.
Much of it is just metadata that is changeable in post with no hit to image quality. Compensating for 1-2 stops in todays body is nothing with the DR available in these sensors.
#1288
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,332
Received 4,986 Likes
on
2,655 Posts
That all depends on how/what you shoot.
I shoot with no flash...lots of darker stuff. I need the 2.8 (in addition to the what my camera can do)
BUT...if I was every buying a super telephoto...I bet money I would never been using that in situations where I would be exposing at less than a 4/5.6
I shoot with no flash...lots of darker stuff. I need the 2.8 (in addition to the what my camera can do)
BUT...if I was every buying a super telephoto...I bet money I would never been using that in situations where I would be exposing at less than a 4/5.6
#1289
I shoot people
That all depends on how/what you shoot.
I shoot with no flash...lots of darker stuff. I need the 2.8 (in addition to the what my camera can do)
BUT...if I was every buying a super telephoto...I bet money I would never been using that in situations where I would be exposing at less than a 4/5.6
I shoot with no flash...lots of darker stuff. I need the 2.8 (in addition to the what my camera can do)
BUT...if I was every buying a super telephoto...I bet money I would never been using that in situations where I would be exposing at less than a 4/5.6
The following users liked this post:
Sarlacc (01-29-2014)
#1290
Ex-OEM King
You should really read up on sensors, RAW, and baseline...and how it all works in conjunction with the choices you make in camera vs how you process RAW in post.
Much of it is just metadata that is changeable in post with no hit to image quality. Compensating for 1-2 stops in todays body is nothing with the DR available in these sensors.
Much of it is just metadata that is changeable in post with no hit to image quality. Compensating for 1-2 stops in todays body is nothing with the DR available in these sensors.
But point is that a 1 1/3 stop difference might not be much when it comes to a wider or more normally used lens but it's a HUGE difference when you get to super telephoto lenses.
For example, to get a good shot without IS with a 50mm lens the difference between a f/1.4 and an f/2.2 (1 1/3 stop difference) is the difference between 1/50 shutter speed and 1/20 to get the same exposure with the different f/stops. Not all that substantial and you might be able to hand hold a 1/20 shutter speed to get a good shot with a 50mm lens provided you haven't had a can of Red Bull.
On the flip side, the difference between a 1/640 shutter speed (min needed for a 400mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera) at a speed of f/4 vs f/6.3 is comparing a shutter speed of 1/640 to 1/260 (theoretically since I don't think most cameras do 1/260 on the nose) to get the same exposure. Now that's quite the difference and I don't think you can hand hold a lens at 1/260th to compensate for the difference so you go to up the ISO. Now say that you're already at ISO 800 to get a good shot so now to compensate the ISO for making up the difference you'd have to go from ISO 800 to ISO 2000 to have the same exposure. That'll be the difference between a good, reasonably clean image and a grainy one. Additionally, you'd have to go from ISO 600 to ISO 1500 which is also a big jump.
I guess my point is that super telephoto and other long lenses are all much less forgiving in the exposure department than the more what we consider "normal" lenses in the ~200mm or less range.
This is, granted, all theory but this is what I think about when I see these lenses that have a f/6.3 max aperture unless it's on a super wide lens. I know I can't afford a 600mm f/4L IS and won't ever be able to and I'm fine with that. I just personally wouldn't want to drop $1100 on a lens that won't give me anything what I want, when I want it. But again, to each their own and if you feel that this is the lens for you, I'm certainly not going to stop you.
You miss 100% of the shots you can't take or can't effectively produce.
Last edited by SamDoe1; 01-29-2014 at 04:33 PM.
#1291
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,332
Received 4,986 Likes
on
2,655 Posts
While there are handheld applications for these super telephotos...the times I've witnessed them are in bright daylight applications.
Because a lens that long creates such a "shake" with the slightest of movement most people are trying to shoot at as deep of a stop (along with fast shutter) as possible for increased dof.
A t-stop is a t-stop and a f-stop is a f-stop. The lens is only as forgiving as the person knowing how to use it and what the characters of optics are pertaining to focal lengths.
Going over ISO800 these days is nothing. Most cameras hit almost 3200 with very acceptable performance with the pro bodies going beyond that.
Also, ISO600-1500 is not that big of a jump, again its about a 1 1/3 stops.
I do not have any good reading to recommend regarding the sensor tech and baselines. I wish I did to pass along. Its all info I have gathered over the years in various readings and applications.
Because a lens that long creates such a "shake" with the slightest of movement most people are trying to shoot at as deep of a stop (along with fast shutter) as possible for increased dof.
A t-stop is a t-stop and a f-stop is a f-stop. The lens is only as forgiving as the person knowing how to use it and what the characters of optics are pertaining to focal lengths.
Going over ISO800 these days is nothing. Most cameras hit almost 3200 with very acceptable performance with the pro bodies going beyond that.
Also, ISO600-1500 is not that big of a jump, again its about a 1 1/3 stops.
I do not have any good reading to recommend regarding the sensor tech and baselines. I wish I did to pass along. Its all info I have gathered over the years in various readings and applications.
#1292
Ex-OEM King
I've seen lots of times where the super telephotos were used in early morning and mid to late evening situations where having a fast shutter speed would be harder to get.
Anyway, while going from 600-1500 is a 1 1/3 stop difference, it's a substantial increase in sensor gain to accommodate that difference.
I don't know what body you shoot with but with my 40D, the images produced at ISO 1000 and higher are not all that great. They are grainy and applying noise reduction just makes them look like crap. The way I combat that is with bright lenses. They may look fine in a 5x7 print but blowing them up doesn't look very good and a lot of the prints I sell are large. Eventually I will get a body that can better handle high ISO but for now, bright lenses are the way to go. Besides, when I do get a newer body I'll have high ISO performance AND bright lenses.
Anyway, while going from 600-1500 is a 1 1/3 stop difference, it's a substantial increase in sensor gain to accommodate that difference.
I don't know what body you shoot with but with my 40D, the images produced at ISO 1000 and higher are not all that great. They are grainy and applying noise reduction just makes them look like crap. The way I combat that is with bright lenses. They may look fine in a 5x7 print but blowing them up doesn't look very good and a lot of the prints I sell are large. Eventually I will get a body that can better handle high ISO but for now, bright lenses are the way to go. Besides, when I do get a newer body I'll have high ISO performance AND bright lenses.
#1293
My first Avatar....
Amazingly topical review. Tamron 150-600. The reviewer refers to the Canon 600 f4L.
http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/...m/#prettyPhoto
http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/...m/#prettyPhoto
The following users liked this post:
Sarlacc (01-30-2014)
#1295
Earth-bound misfit
I haven't seen it mentioned, but let's not forget what a sliver of DoF you'd have at 600mm f/2.8. Especially on a full frame sensor. Oh, look, the tip of the beak is in focus, but nothing else! No thanks. I think you'd need to use somewhat tighter apertures anyway for most applications at that focal length. I rarely shoot my 70-200 at 2.8 on the longer end for that very reason.
Yay for monopods and low noise/high iso technology! Compelling lens at that price, for sure.
Yay for monopods and low noise/high iso technology! Compelling lens at that price, for sure.
#1296
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,332
Received 4,986 Likes
on
2,655 Posts
I'm on a 2.8 all the time with my 70-200. Handheld. Works great.
#1297
Earth-bound misfit
I am often sad about elements of my subject oof at 2.8 at that focal length. Unless it's a tiny bird. When I was shooting people, I used it at 2.8 much more frequently, because more of the shot was in my control. With dogs and wildlife, I want more DoF.
Point being, I don't think the aperture range of the 150-600 is a deal-breaker.
Point being, I don't think the aperture range of the 150-600 is a deal-breaker.
#1298
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,332
Received 4,986 Likes
on
2,655 Posts
I am often sad about elements of my subject oof at 2.8 at that focal length. Unless it's a tiny bird. When I was shooting people, I used it at 2.8 much more frequently, because more of the shot was in my control. With dogs and wildlife, I want more DoF.
Point being, I don't think the aperture range of the 150-600 is a deal-breaker.
Point being, I don't think the aperture range of the 150-600 is a deal-breaker.
#1299
Burning Brakes
Just ordered the Rokinon 85mm F/1.4
Everything I've read and the images I've seen from this lens are pretty impressive, sounds like it def gives the Canon a run for it's money at a fraction of the price. Pretty stoked for it to get here.
Everything I've read and the images I've seen from this lens are pretty impressive, sounds like it def gives the Canon a run for it's money at a fraction of the price. Pretty stoked for it to get here.
#1300
My first Avatar....
^
Cool! Is that the one for around $300?
Cool! Is that the one for around $300?
#1301
Burning Brakes
Yes sir, you should check out some of the sample images on potn
#1302
I shoot people
I had the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 a while ago... on full frame @f1.4 the focusing was tricking because the DoF is paper thin (well, it depends on your distance to the subject too). I ended up selling it and got the Sigma 85mm f1.4, but this switch was before Sony's new bodies with focus peaking... had I known that was coming out on all their bodies, I would've kept it. (then again, I don't often shoot wide open these days anyways)
#1303
Burning Brakes
I had the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 a while ago... on full frame @f1.4 the focusing was tricking because the DoF is paper thin (well, it depends on your distance to the subject too). I ended up selling it and got the Sigma 85mm f1.4, but this switch was before Sony's new bodies with focus peaking... had I known that was coming out on all their bodies, I would've kept it. (then again, I don't often shoot wide open these days anyways)
#1304
I've heard nothing but good with that lens, sic the man focus. But you're not paying for a man focus lens.
#1305
I shoot people
#1306
Burning Brakes
^Did you end up buying an af chip for it? ?
#1307
I shoot people
#1308
Burning Brakes
I ended up ordering X2 of these one for the that 85 and one for my Samyang 14mm that's manual. from what I've read I think it's probably pretty straight forward comes with a little guide and then you just glue it on. I dunno will see...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/400307613409?_trksid=p3984.m570.l4467&_trkparms=gh1g%3DI400307613409.N19.S2.M-440.R1.TR2
http://www.ebay.com/itm/400307613409?_trksid=p3984.m570.l4467&_trkparms=gh1g%3DI400307613409.N19.S2.M-440.R1.TR2
#1309
I shoot people
#1310
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
imho, i wouldve just gotten a used 85mm 1.8 and don't have to deal with it. 2/3rds extra stop of light is nice but i would rather have reliable AF instead.
EDIT:
320 with free shipping for it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used
EDIT:
320 with free shipping for it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used
Last edited by asianspec; 02-01-2014 at 11:40 AM.
#1311
Burning Brakes
Have any of you guys used a split image focus screen or micro prism screen?
Last edited by MattB07TL; 02-01-2014 at 11:48 AM.
#1313
#1314
Earth-bound misfit
Know what this thread just caused me to remember?
I have a 135L. Wtf. Seriously forgot all about it until just now. Now to find it, since my gear has been thoroughly disorganized during my convalescence by someone who shall remain nameless.
WooHOOO it's like it's my birthday or something!!!
I have a 135L. Wtf. Seriously forgot all about it until just now. Now to find it, since my gear has been thoroughly disorganized during my convalescence by someone who shall remain nameless.
WooHOOO it's like it's my birthday or something!!!
The following users liked this post:
is300eater (02-01-2014)
#1316
Earth-bound misfit
I bought it right before I got so sick, so I guess it was just off my radar? I gots no excuses, mang.
#1318
Earth-bound misfit
Are you kidding me?? Have you seen images from this lens? I've wanted it forever. I just forgot that I finally gifted it to myself before everything went wonky. It's an amazing lens. That's why I honestly can't believe I was that far out there to have forgotten about it. It's sincerely looney tunes.
#1319
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,283
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,989 Posts
Yea dont mind him... He's a little
The following 2 users liked this post by Mizouse:
is300eater (02-01-2014),
wndrlst (02-01-2014)
#1320
I shoot people
135mm is a great portrait lens (on the FF). One of those things you buy and just keep