pttl

The images I've seen from that lens are fantastic.

pttl

Sweet lenses! What body do you use for your BIFs?

jupitersolo

I go between my D3s and my D300s. Thinking of getting rid of D3s for a D800E.

SamDoe1

Sure, that's absolutely true but most people who are going to buy this lens aren't going to own high ISO cameras. They will be the type that have either the entry level body or the next step up.

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.

I'm a lens snob, what can I say?

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.

pttl

That's a beast of a camera.

The D300 should be fine for keeping you shooting those Eagles.

pttl

There are a lot of reviews out there now.

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.

Sarlacc

Do you know how much of a difference there is between a 4 and 6.3? 1 1/3 stops. Not THAT big of a difference.

And why do you think 2.8 versions don't really exist? COST, SIZE, WEIGHT.

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.

Sarlacc

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

is300eater

well, that's what I was referring to... having a 70-200mm with constant f2.8 is nothing uncommon, but people start to expect it from a "super tele" to have the same constant aperture or even a f4. Like your response to SamDoe1, there isn't a big difference between f4 and f6.3, which can be made up with bumping the ISO.

SamDoe1

I'm aware of that, not by any means a n00b when it comes to lenses.

I'm always willing to learn, got a good tutorial or some good reading to suggest? Also, I don't have a "modern" body as mine is from 2007...

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.

Sarlacc

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.

SamDoe1

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.

pttl

Amazingly topical review. Tamron 150-600. The reviewer refers to the Canon 600 f4L.

http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/...m/#prettyPhoto

cmschmie

That was a great review. Real world application was great to see.

May have to add this lens to my Amazon and B&H wishlists.

wndrlst

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.

Sarlacc

I'm on a 2.8 all the time with my 70-200. Handheld. Works great.

wndrlst

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.

Sarlacc

For the application of those longer lenses, I very much agree.

MattB07TL

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.

pttl

^
Cool! Is that the one for around $300?

MattB07TL

Yes sir, you should check out some of the sample images on potn

is300eater

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)

MattB07TL

Do you think it was impressively sharp when you where able to get focus tho?

jupitersolo

I've heard nothing but good with that lens, sic the man focus. But you're not paying for a man focus lens.

is300eater

oh most definitely.

MattB07TL

^Did you end up buying an af chip for it? ?

is300eater

No, u didn't want to mess with it, cuz I suck at doing stuff like that

MattB07TL

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

is300eater

Fixed (auto correct )

asianspec

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

MattB07TL

Have any of you guys used a split image focus screen or micro prism screen?

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

nope

jupitersolo

Not since film bodies.

wndrlst

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!!!

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

i guess when you have a 70-200 F2.8L. you tend to forget about your 135L.

wndrlst

I bought it right before I got so sick, so I guess it was just off my radar? I gots no excuses, mang.

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

why don't you sell it? 70-200 by its self is good enough. or sell both and get a 2.8 IS II

wndrlst

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.

Mizouse

Yea dont mind him... He's a little

is300eater

135mm is a great portrait lens (on the FF). One of those things you buy and just keep